Received from the Judical Watch:

You see, the Ineligibility Clause (Article 1, Section 6) of the Constitution provides that "No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time."

And unfortunately for Hillary, a January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush (during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term) increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.

This provision was designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.)

There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause. Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires.

And now Hillary is attacking us. Her spokesman smeared us by calling us a "fringe group." Why? For pointing out that the U.S. Constitution â�" the supreme law of the land â�" should be followed by President-elect Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are now trying to do an end run around the Constitution by reducing the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but their charade won't work. Nothing can change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.

Every American ought to be disturbed that Obama, Clinton and their friends in Congress appear willing to cast the Constitution aside when it gets in the way of their political plans.

Aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat.

To illustrate just one: Has any other Secretary of State nominee been the subject of a grand jury criminal investigation?

Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are ethically challenged and have consistently abused their public office for personal and political gain. Hillary and Bill (not to mention their siblings) are scandals waiting to happen. Hillary Clinton has neither the temperament nor ethics to be in such a sensitive office.

Nor is she eligible under the U.S. Constitution.

So Hillary is in as Sec. of State and Obama is finishing up the last of his picks for his staff, yet I can't help but feel a little uneasy about Hillary as a choice. I know that she has the experience that will make sure she makes good decisions in high tension situations, but for someone that ran such a venomous campaign I can't help but think she is out to represent herself more than the policy of Obama. I mean after all, her job is really to bring the Obama message when he is not able to do it himself and in situations she would be better equipped to do it. Do we think that Hillary is really going go to drop her agenda and work for the president? One has to wonder that she is able to swallow a little pride and handle that. What do you think?

Many Obama supporters are worried about what kind of organization will emerge from the campaign. Those who are concerned have included top-level leaders from the campaign who have expressed themselves publicly.

Barack can resolve this issue quickly and easily. He can simply tell his staff to spin off an independent organization that is truly dedicated to community organizing. I encourage folks who support this direction to let Barack and/or his people know.

Then we can proceed to build a strong national movement committed to helping Barack implement the goals of his campaign. Without such a movement, we won’t be able to “transform the nation,” as Barack called for during the campaign.

Marshall Ganz, the architect of Obama's grassroots organizing program, is among the concerned. On Nov. 17, he told Micah Sifry, “It's very important what Obama decides. Whether to try to support some kind of organized effort, that's rooted in the campaign, or not."    Read More »

Weeks have now passed since the historic election between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Through the course of twenty-one months, Americans seemed to become more aware of their rights, and the responsibilities of their government. Those who felt that their voices could not be heard were vindicated on election night by one Senator, and to those who felt their voices were ignored listened to the concession speech of the opposing Senator. Tears of joy rolled down the cheeks of many Americans, and the world appeared to take a sigh of relief as the final tallies came in.

Now, weeks later, the media is flooded with reports of transition teams, bailouts that have received makeovers, and two parties not sure where to go from here. Yet, the American people have gone back to their lives, turning off CNN & Fox News Stations as they pass by the newsstands in the mornings, focusing their attentions on what their lives were �Pre-Election�. Meanwhile local governments are having their city council meetings, county commissioners meetings and playing again to pre-election crowds�empty houses.

I pose this question: Will Americans take care of business, and take back an active role in their local governments.

As I worked through the election, I met so many people who had never voted before, did not know who their local Representatives were, and at times were not even aware what precincts they lived in. One might wonder, are all the mishandling in Washington only the faults of the Representatives their, or is the constituents who have neglected their responsibilities of staying informed & staying involved. With the wide use of the Internet, and information fingertips away, it is brought to my attention that over the last eight years, the American people have purposely neglected their responsibility of staying abreast of the actions regarding the local governments they elect. As a result, the local leaders have no way of accurately representing their constituents, thus you have a massive amount of neglect within several sectors of the cities accross America.

Consequently, this creates a trickle-up effect, of misrepresentation. Those elected to the county, state, and federal positions, only speak for those who have allowed their voices to be heard through their votes. With the battle-cry of �Change� coming from both sides of the isles, it was difficult to understand the change that was promised. Whereas �Change� taking place in Washington, I am a staunch believer that �Change� must take place in the City Halls and Soup Kitchens all across America. Whereas people once questioned the purpose of the Electoral College, we saw in this election, that if the constituents play an active role in being informed and involved that the Electoral College correlates with the voice of the American People.

So, now that the anticipation of election night is gone, will Americans go back to the complacency of yesteryear which has consequently landed us in the worst shape this country has seen in decades, or will Americans take care of business, and hold up to their responsibilities of being informed and involved? You be the answer! Vote for Democracy

What do you think Barack Obama will do with this whole Mumbai attack? This is serious stuff. I think this is the biggest terrorist attack since the one in London a few years ago.

Will this make people reluctant to leave Iraq?

As I am still a person that drives to work (I carpool as much as possible) I am really happy that there is cheap gas right now and that it keeps seeming to drop. But what I am concerned about is the fact that it is only cheap because the crooks over at OPEC have decided it so for now. I don't understand why the US allows that corporation to exist, they obviously are a monopoly that gouges the consumer every chance they get. They don't care about the families they heart that depend on cheaper means of transport. All they care about are diamond covered cars (I read about that) and loose moral codes. I hope that Obama brings us off our addiction to oil so that I can see those people from OPEC suffer with their black lakes of oil and no people coming to buy it.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Sed at turpis a turpis faucibus venenatis. Vivamus bibendum. Cras non sapien. Mauris hendrerit turpis eu sapien. Vivamus facilisis egestas metus. Sed sed enim. Nunc dignissim elit interdum erat. Proin velit. Aliquam erat volutpat. Suspendisse at magna. In lacinia, odio ac euismod viverra, odio risus porttitor erat, quis luctus purus urna et lectus. Morbi ut ligula. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Sed eget mi quis massa egestas consequat. Nulla ultricies volutpat sapien. Curabitur vehicula purus id mi. In ut velit sed nunc ultricies lacinia. Ut tellus quam, imperdiet quis, pellentesque a, vulputate id, lectus. In ligula dui, euismod id, tristique eu, porttitor vitae, odio. Ut blandit nulla vitae lorem.

Nam viverra mauris adipiscing quam. Nunc facilisis malesuada diam. Nulla facilisi. Phasellus eget augue vel nibh consequat sodales. Pellentesque enim. Aenean vel ligula vitae massa consectetuer imperdiet. Phasellus pede neque, semper at, bibendum vitae, cursus nec, lectus. Phasellus scelerisque adipiscing enim. Sed eros. Suspendisse a erat. Phasellus ultricies. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nullam vel libero lobortis justo condimentum sagittis. In quis mi sit amet sem suscipit rhoncus. Nulla sit amet magna nec leo mattis imperdiet. Aliquam erat volutpat. Proin mattis. Vestibulum mollis nisi sit amet eros. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Curabitur nulla arcu, accumsan vitae, consequat sed, pulvinar ac, nisi.   Read More »

Dems: Napolitano emerges for Homeland Security job
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
25 mins ago [Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:38 pm EST]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_cabinet

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama is likely to choose Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be secretary of homeland security, top Obama advisers and several Democrats said Thursday as the shape of Obama's Cabinet begins to emerge.

The Obama advisers cautioned that no final decision has been made on putting Napolitano in charge of the Homeland Security department, the massive agency created by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But the advisers said she was by far the top contender.

Thus far, Obama has informally selected Washington lawyer Eric Holder as attorney general and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as health and human services secretary. The plans could be sidetracked by unexpected glitches in the final vetting process, officials note.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seems more likely than ever to be Obama's secretary of state. Clinton is deciding whether to take that post as America's top diplomat, her associates said.

Among other Cabinet posts: senior Democrats say there is a strong possibility that Defense Secretary Robert Gates would stay temporarily and later give way to former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig. Even so, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Democratic Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island also are said to be under consideration.

Democrats also say that several people remain in the running for Treasury secretary, including Timothy Geithner, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Lawrence Summers, former treasury secretary and one-time Harvard University president; and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

Several news organizations reported Thursday that Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker, who was Obama's national campaign finance chairman, was his leading choice to become secretary of commerce. However, Pritzker issued a statement Thursday saying she is not a contender for the post.

Officials say Laura D'Andrea Tyson, the former chair of White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, is in the running for the Commerce job.

---
complete copyrighted story at link above

The NY Times had a very interesting article about why Obama must give up his blackberry before joining office because if he wore to keep it all of his private email and phone conversations would be subject to subpoena. What is interesting about this is that it shows off the utter dependency a president must have on his staff to accomplish lots of tasks because he can no longer communicate with people on that personal level. I worry about this because Obama was the first president that I really felt reached out to people on that personal level and strived to have that one-on-one contact with everyone in the nation. Now it feels like he is entering the protection and insulation of office and losing some of the magic that the campaign had. I just hope that Obama works as hard as possible to stay personal with the people that supported him on this long journey and even the people that did not.

Well of course it makes sense that Obama is a Mac man because he is an elitist Harvard grad that has more money than you can shake a stick at. Just kidding, it does make sense that he has a mac though because Obama is about change and thinking different which has always what the Apple computer company has been about. They always are pushing the envelope and trying to force people to change their perspective on the computing world and that is what Obama is going to bring to the White House. It may be a little different but in the end it is always the right thing and everyone ends up adopting it. I mean when was the last time you saw a laptop with a floppy drive?

We donâ��t need politicians with ideas imported that are more pertinent else where, nor the self-serving blue dogs nor red dogs dogmas though there is need for proactive Democratic Party presence. A proactive Democratic Party presence that is not confined but is regional and permanent in nature which will not be achieved with any short term approach.   Read More »

With each cycle of the income crisis negative feedback loop an accelerating economic decline moves the global economy spiraling downwards into an abyss that will eventually end in total economic collapse. Systemic declining real wages starting over 40 years ago has laid the fragile foundation that fed a continuing drop in consumption when credit could no longer be a sustainable proxy for income among low to middle wage earners. Even if credit was suddenly available - average Americans are already highly over leveraged. These factors triggered a negative feedback loop of declining real income available to 95% of the citizenry, falling consumption directly proportional to falling incomes, and declining business revenue accompanied by job lay-offs & retail price declines (deflation) all completing each successive feedback loop cycle. All along the course of the feedback loop cycle theses effects oscillate across the general economy in a continual downward slope of economic decline that translates into falling GDP and national capital stock destruction that occurs at an ever increasing exponential rate.

Reversing an income crisis 'drain spiral' becomes more difficult with the passage of time since unemployment and capital stock destruction exponentially increases across a number of income crisis negative feedback loop cycles. The longer a government waits to enact substantial fiscal stimulus targeted at low to middle income citizens the more and more 'income emaciated' these citizens become thus making it much more difficult to push the entire economy up out of the income crisis spiral.

Eventually, the nation's capital stock becomes so inconsequential from an economic perspective and the number of citizens who are unemployed so numerous that the government becomes the sole income generating agent (presumes the government has infused the economy with insufficient fiscal stimulus and/or is still making government expenditures into the private sector) in an extinct standalone private economy that has reached the terminus in an income crisis deflationary economic spiral.

Reaching the terminus point is a foregone conclusion without substantial (10% of GDP) government fiscal stimulation of the 'real' economy. At this terminus point economic activity in the country has been completely extinguished from successive negative feedback cycles down economic gradients with ever accelerating declines in GDP and national capital stock destruction.

Infusing the supply side (financial sector - or top of the pyramid) with government bailout capital will do absolutely nothing (covered in many of my previous essays) to get the 'consumption engine' of an 'income starved' economy running again. Effectively, there is no substitute for bold decisive action on the part of government policy makers in implementing a substantial fiscal stimulus program that immediately creates sufficient stable employment (not a token number of jobs) at a sustainable higher tier private sector wage rate. This must be immediately followed up with rebuilding the nation's capital stock to pre-income crisis levels through infrastructure investment in an industrial base that lends itself towards taking advantage of a nation's competitive advantage in multiple areas. In the case of the United States it has been determined that long term stimulus investments (substantial) that target the creation of a 'Green Industry' sector would have the potential of employing millions of Americans across all professions within two main program branches comprised of manufacturing and delivery. Subsidiary industries would also be created either directly through government and/or private sector capital infusions that would ultimately employ a cross section of every professional occupation group that has been placed on the unemployment rolls during this income crisis.

The global community has so little time left in which to act decisively. We are racing ever faster with each passing day down a cold dark abyss towards the terminus of economic collapse. We must act now, not later.

Posted on my blog 11/5/2008 at:
http://structuraleconissues.blogspot.com/

It's impossible to conclude that our economic environment is not subject to the same diversity that comprises our natural environment. Given that an economy is a subset of the society that wrests itself from an unforgiving natural world riddled with chaos, why do some branches of economic thought continue to rationalize humankinds pecuniary endeavors down to neat tightly, clean, predictable outcomes. The structure of an economic system must reflect the multifaceted and diverse characteristics of the world in which it operates - a world of varying personalities all interacting in incoherent ways.

Our universe is not clean and orderly it-s very, very messy - nothing ever seems to work out according to the best conceived plans. It is therefore imperative that we not endeavor to extend our subconscious world view of tidy, neatly trimmed 'lawns' to any natural substrate in the living breathing messy struggle for life. There are no 'lawns' of perfectly crafted conception in nature so why extend the improbable to a natural world substrate? A prairie ecosystem is full of tall grass of varying varieties, riddled with ground squirrel holes, snakes in some regions, muck, and a variety of wildlife not allowed to intrude into our comfortable neat complacent checkerboard communities. But the interaction between the two does result in changes that affect both.

Similarly, our economic system must reflect the realities or 'ground truth' inherent in the natural environment, societal structure, and impractical, irrational interspersed behavior of the human substrate. So why continue to refine any economic model based upon illusion by further perturbing an already tumultuous society by injecting policies that don't align with any existing observable dynamic?

Over the past few years we've been led to believe that the Laissez-faire neoclassical economic realm of illusory conceptualization would translate into this wonderful world guided by some 'invisible hand'. Ours would be a service sector oriented economy never again requiring the utilization of dirty hands, and strong muscles. Every citizen would magically be endowed with all the necessary intellect, desire, and personality to expand the service sector into the preeminent sector of employment. There was just one problem with the distorted nation state competitive advantage simplistic view of our globe - it still left a substantial segment of our population underemployed, and unemployed because they just didn't fit into the special mold of a service sector laborer.

Expanding the concept of competitive advantage outside of its original boundaries centered in a particular industry was just another attempt to mold reality (only perceptually achievable by propaganda) to fit illusion. Over the past few decades we've been deluding ourselves into thinking that a viable economy can function stripped of its manufacturing sector. It has become abundantly evident that an economic system crafted for the benefit of the larger community cannot operate solely as a service sector economy devoid of a sustainable manufacturing base.

Competitive advantage must mold both the service sector and manufacturing components across industry segments that are jealousy defended by national policies within a completely economically integrated world. No economy can be sustained under just one of these core economic components they both must be merged together in order to achieve some semblance of economic and societal sustainability & stability.

We have witnessed the effective subversion of an already inherently unsustainable service sector nation-state competitive advantage model into something contrived and contorted beyond its illusory construct. Perpetuated by the 'information age' propagandists we were led to believe that an economy could be solely built upon a technologically oriented service sector. Factories were no longer needed within an economy based solely upon intellectual labor. The problems with this early nation-state competitive advantage centered model were three fold. First, it was myopically constrained to a nation-state centric advantage that never expanded across borders. Secondly, it failed to account for the unpredictable effects of human behavior within a tumultuous greed enhanced global society. Thirdly, as already conveyed, the competitive advantage of a technologically oriented service sector was too broad in scope to be maintained at the nation-state level.

But what mutated from this touted elegant distortion of reality was driven by the second factor, the uncontrollable greed educed by Laissez-faire religious tenants that encouraged human behavior contrary to the maintenance of sustainable and stable communities. Any behavior was permissible in the corruptly focused short-term greed addicted behavioral state. What evolved was a belief system built around the individual to the exclusion of the community a credo that any means was justified even the 'slash and burn' pillage of entire nation-states to fulfill the unquenchable desires of the few wealthy elite. Labor arbitrage became the 'club' of choice wielded by the 'strong arms' of an army of mercenary lobbyists fielded to sustain the wealthy fiefdom's ability to exploit workers by any means imaginable.

With so many interconnected messy threads weaving throughout our society, class consciousness, across unique behavioral responses to stimuli, and the turbulent at times dangerous physical world we inhabit it is abundantly clear that any economic theories must be conceived in the forge of reality. It is a reality that recognizes a simple requirement of all human beings - fairness. Without fairness or some form of equity, infused with equality the best conceived seemingly realistic policies will be nothing more than distorted illusion cloaked in a thin veil of reality. Human beings are very adept at perceiving whether certain aspects of their societal framework is fair, or slanted towards the interests of those ultimately in control. No amount of 'packaging' will deceive a community of citizens over the 'long haul' - this is aptly reflected in the current rejection by the general populous of the trickle down supply-side greed based economics benefiting the few practiced over the last few years.

Quakers believe that we are all our brothers keeper, that when we act in the best interests of our fellow human beings we serve the better interests of our communities. Thus, realizing that in order for a sustainable, stable economy to transpire we need to include everyone; those who desire or are suited to work in a vibrant manufacturing component, others who excel in a service sector intellectual or assistance driven component, and those who must be cared for by a compassionate community (government) because their unable to survive in either component of a competitively oriented sector of our economy. It is also important to integrate our nation-state economies into an 'International Economic Congress' whereby the interests of Capital (businesses) and Labor can be democratically resolved, and a coordinated oversight of all economically related endeavors can be achieved for the betterment of the entire global community. We are on the cusp of an appreciation that transcends any past global paradigm shift - our movement towards a sustainable, stable world community is very achievable. Let's make it happen.

Originally posted on my blog at:
http://structuraleconissues.blogspot.com/

My personal favorite
Picture of the Week

He really is going to unite this country...

As some of you may know, Barack Obama's grandmother passed away the other day. Our thoughts and wishes go out to the Obama family, because Madelyn Lee Payne Dunham will not live to see her grandson elected.
I address you today during the aftermath of this election day.
And what a historic election this was!
Because yesterday the unprecedented has occurred- the first African American in our nation’s history will be elected into the White House.
Barack Obama will be able to focus his efforts on some of the main themes I would like to fix.
Because he has been elected, we have finally grasped what we need, to fulfill new change and hope in our great country.
*******************************************************************
Yesterday, my friends- was a day of change.
A day of hope.
A day of renewal.
Yesterday, we celebrated our democratic roots from the Greeks, and our Revolutionary belief in patriotism and activism in government.
Yesterday, we finally fulfilled our long-standing creed: “We hold these trughts to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
‘Yes we Can’ has transformed- into ‘Yes we Did.’
****************************************************************
Yesterday, all the voters, from California to Connecticut; Salem, Oregon, to Salem Massachusetts; from Montana to Mississippi decided.
We decided to make not only the right decision, but to vote.
This election, over 21 months, or even 232 years in the making, has absorbed unprecedented enthusiasm and action.
I guarantee you that this election has shattered boundaries, redrawn a map of people, restored faith and dignity to American government and politics, and encouraged action.
The real winners of this election were the people- who have chosen to reprent ourselves with Barack Obama.
With this movement- the first African american president has been elected.
With this movement- a Hispanic can become president.
With this movement- a women, a jew, a mormon, a gay person, a muslim, or anyone else can become president.
This movement has shook the foundations of american politics, has shattered almost every precedent imaginable, led only by three words- ‘Yes We Can.’
Yes we Did.

For Democrats, Barack Obama's stunning victory last night over John McCain brought a seemingly endless and often bitter presidential campaign battle to a welcome end. Obama's victory came as cause for relief and for celebration, as did Democratic gains in the Senate and the House of Representatives. When our first African American president takes office in January, Democrats will enjoy a position of authority in Washington we have not held since a brief period from 1992 to 1994. Many progressives are saying now that the era of conservative dominance in America beginning with the rise of the "New Right" in the 1970s and the Reagan victory in 1980 has now come at last to an end, that the long Republican nightmare is over, and I too am hopeful that this is so. While we celebrate and look ahead to the Obama Era, however, we should also remember that just as power can be won so it can also be lost, as it was in 1980, 1994, and 2000.

Each end is also a beginning; and so the end of Campaign 2008 and the end of Republican rule is also the beginning of something, but of what? Are we at the doorstep of a bold new progressive age that begins with Obama and extends into infinity, or of another brief Democratic reign to end again with a bitter Republican resurgence? Now that we have successfully driven the Republicans from power, how do we keep them from coming back, as we know we must if we are to avoid a repeat of the past eight years? A Republican resurgence would be a disaster, not only for Democrats and progressives, but for America and the world. The Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world are not going anywhere. They will simply retreat to their think tanks and begin cooking up plans to retake power, just as they did during the Clinton years. Their success must be prevented by any and all means at our disposal.

While progressives will surely have a place at the table in the new administration, we cannot expect that the Left will or should dominate the Obama agenda at least in the near term. I would consider myself to be well on the Left of the Democratic Party, and I'm happy that progressives will have a voice in the new administration, but I feel pretty certain that Obama will have to govern more-or-less from the center if he is to avoid creating a whole new generation of "Reagan Democrats." I am hopeful that it may now be possible for progressives not simply to move the government to the left but to actually move the country to the left, and to create a new progressive America free of the politics of Reagan and Bush. In order for this to happen, however, Democrats in Washington will first have to prove themselves capable of governing the country effectively and satisfactorily in the eyes of their constituents. Once conservative-leaning, "soft" Democrats see that liberals aren't so bad after all, they will be much more likely to elect Democrats to Congress in 2010, to re-elect President Obama in 2012, to put another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and to listen to progressive ideas in the meantime with an open mind. While Democrats in Washington focus on effective governance, they and Democratic activists including us in the netroots must also focus on maintaining the gains we have made and on making further gains in election cycles to come. We cannot afford a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.

Meanwhile, a whole new generation of first-time Democratic voters has been brought into the electorate, and this new Democratic base must be maintained and built at a grassroots level. Because of a far less reliable base of Democratic voters in previous elections, a hardcore Republican base of social conservatives, neo-cons, bigots, and xenophobes was allowed to dominate American politics for the better part of thirty years. This can never be allowed to happen again. Republicans who cannot be persuaded to go Democratic must be isolated and outvoted. In the immediate term, this means building a broad new Democratic base that includes centrists and even moderate conservatives in addition to progressives and the Left: not an easy task. The brilliant success of the Obama campaign in doing precisely that, however, can be credited in great part to Obama's experience as a community organizer in Chicago - experience that will serve the Democratic Party's organizing efforts well in the years to come.

Indeed if anyone is up the difficult tasks which surely lie ahead, I think it is our new president-elect. Throughout his campaign, he has shown himself to be a steady, focused, and disciplined political leader: not bad traits if one wishes to be an effective and successful president. More importantly, Obama possesses clear vision and a spirit of idealism that could not contrast more with the cynicism of the era that has just ended. He also possesses a strong, committed base of grassroots support that is ready for the battles to come. I for one look forward with hope and confidence to the road ahead.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

List of what the agenda should be:

1. Financial and Mortgage crisis
2. Stimulus plan money for infrastructure and education improvement
3. Work to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan
4. Energy independence
5. Affordable Healthcare for all
6. Improving foreign relations