SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Charlotte--The last Democratic president of the United States took a rock star turn at his party's national convention Wednesday night, leveraging his outsized reputation as a master of governing--and, more importantly, campaigning--to make the case for the reelection of the current Democratic president.
Charlotte--The last Democratic president of the United States took a rock star turn at his party's national convention Wednesday night, leveraging his outsized reputation as a master of governing--and, more importantly, campaigning--to make the case for the reelection of the current Democratic president.
It was a remarkable performance by a political wunderkind turned senior statesman. And it provided a powerful reminder that in the ex-president competition--and there is an ex-president competition--Bill Clinton has defeated George Bush, overwhelmingly.
Clinton's Speech (Part 1):
Where two weeks ago, Bush was the former president whose name dare not be spoken at his party's national convention, Clinton was more than a revered elder returning to the warm embrace of his party's convention: he was a defining figure.
Even Democrats who were never Clinton fans--and it is important to remember that there were a lot of them when he was president, and when he campaigned in 2008 to make former first lady Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, his partisan successor--agreed that Bill Clinton did a damn fine job of framing what is all but certain to be the Obama message for the remainder of the 2012 campaign.
"In Tampa the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in," declared William Jefferson Clinton, who took the extraordinary step of nominating the man who did not only succeed him but who defeated Hillary Clinton for the opportunity to do so.
"I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better," Bill Clinton continued. "He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators."
Clinton was charming the crowd, of course.
But he was doing much more than that.
He was offering them a way of thinking with regard to where the second term of a Democratic president might lead a country that remains fretful about an ailing economy will ever fully recover.
This was about the memory of a presidency that saw the creation of 22.7 million jobs, balanced budgets and surpluses. And, yes, it was about a measure of forgetfulness: especially with regard to Clinton's support for failed free-trade agreements and dysfunctional deregulations of the banking and financial-services industries.
No matter what the measure Americans make of Clinton, he has political capital. And he spent a good deal of that capital Wednesday to frame an argument for Barack Obama's re-election.
That argument proposed a game change. No more apologies. No more nuance. Democrats, Clinton said, should laugh off the attacks they heard from Tampa last week and run proudly on a record that--if imperfect--remains far superior to that of their Republican challengers.
Clinton's Speech (Part 2):
The former president asked the questions America is asking. And he answered them as he says Democrats must: "Are we where we want to be? No. Is the president satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is Yes.
Despite a a bow to the old-fashioned bipartisanship of another age (hailing a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, for sending troops to integrate the schools in Little Rock; recalling his work with Republican ex-presidents on international aid initiatives), Clinton came to this convention with a bluntly partisan bottom line:
The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic Chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."
Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House twenty-eight years, the Democrats twenty-four. In those fifty-two years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
Then came the critical comparison -- not to the Republican position of the moment, but to his tenure:
I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.
I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No president--not me or any of my predecessors--could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the president's contract you will feel it.
I believe that with all my heart.
Clinton was asking the American people to trust him--and, by extension, President Obama.
If they do, Obama could be well on his way to becoming only the second Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to serve two full terms.
Conventions are theatrical events. People applaud even for speeches that don't merit much of a response. But Clinton's nominating address was an epic performance, and it earned thunderous applause from a convention that loved him as much--perhaps a bit more--than the one that nominated him in 1992.
Clinton's Speech (Part 3):
This is what former presidents, even those with egos modestly less developed than Clinton's, live for. (And it is certainly what presidents live for when they imagine that, at the next election, a certain former first lady might herself become the commander-in-chief.)
But not every former president is afforded the option.
There was no such opportunity provided the last Republican president. George Bush brought no message to the podium of the national convention that nominated the next Republican presidential contender.
Bush didn't have hall pass in Tampa.
Last week, at the Republican National Convention, the forty-third president was just another political has-been, glancing out from the Jumbotron in a video that wisely kept kept him in the shadows of his slightly more popular father. So flawed was the Bush-Cheney record--unpopular wars, New Orleans flyovers, burst bubbles, the collapse of the financial sector of the economy and a "corporate-welfare" bailout of the big banks--that even Republican convention speakers treated him like a political plague. A few speakers, like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, took swipes at wars of whim and assaults on civil liberties. Most speakers avoided even referencing the eight-year period when Bush and Dick Cheney ran the country--often with absolute majorities in the House and Senate. Even Bush's brother, Jeb, could not bring himself to utter the name "George Bush."
"The smart thing to do is focus on here and now and not give President Obama an opportunity to bring up George Bush's presidency," admitted former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Fleischer said he was "sorrowful about it."
But Democrats were amused.
"It is no accident that Democrats celebrate our past president, while Republicans virtually banished theirs," gloated New York Senator Chuck Schumer as he celebrated the fact that Clinton would follow him on Wednesday night's convention program.
Clinton's Speech (Part 4):
Political parties have always had complicated relationships with their former presidents, especially if those commanders-in-chief leave (or are voted out of) office at a young enough age to require invites to the quadrennial conventions where their successors are nominated and renominated.
From 1936 to 1964, Republicans had to figure out how to manage Herbert Hoover and unsettling memories he evoked of an insufficient response to the Great Depression. And it is no secret that Democrats have struggled with the question of how to recognize Jimmy Carter in the years since his defeat in 1980, initially out of a sense that he was associated with tough economic times and later because of his courageous advocacy on the international stage.
On the other hand, Democrats made Harry Truman an iconic figure, as Republicans did Ronald Reagan.
But never has the ex-president dichotomy been better summed up than in the past two weeks.
Bush did not have a ticket to the stadium.
Clinton was calling the plays--for the Obama campaign and, perhaps, for America.
"My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in," he explained, in his role as teacher-in-chief. "If you want a 'you're on your own,' winner-take-all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities-- a 'we're all in it together' society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama."
Clinton had the crowd, as Obama will have to have them--not just Thursday night but through November.
And Clinton closed Wednesday night's speech as George Bush never could.
Clinton roared toward the conclusion of his address with a declaration and a call: "We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor--to form..."
And the crowd concluded: "...a more perfect union."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Charlotte--The last Democratic president of the United States took a rock star turn at his party's national convention Wednesday night, leveraging his outsized reputation as a master of governing--and, more importantly, campaigning--to make the case for the reelection of the current Democratic president.
It was a remarkable performance by a political wunderkind turned senior statesman. And it provided a powerful reminder that in the ex-president competition--and there is an ex-president competition--Bill Clinton has defeated George Bush, overwhelmingly.
Clinton's Speech (Part 1):
Where two weeks ago, Bush was the former president whose name dare not be spoken at his party's national convention, Clinton was more than a revered elder returning to the warm embrace of his party's convention: he was a defining figure.
Even Democrats who were never Clinton fans--and it is important to remember that there were a lot of them when he was president, and when he campaigned in 2008 to make former first lady Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, his partisan successor--agreed that Bill Clinton did a damn fine job of framing what is all but certain to be the Obama message for the remainder of the 2012 campaign.
"In Tampa the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in," declared William Jefferson Clinton, who took the extraordinary step of nominating the man who did not only succeed him but who defeated Hillary Clinton for the opportunity to do so.
"I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better," Bill Clinton continued. "He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators."
Clinton was charming the crowd, of course.
But he was doing much more than that.
He was offering them a way of thinking with regard to where the second term of a Democratic president might lead a country that remains fretful about an ailing economy will ever fully recover.
This was about the memory of a presidency that saw the creation of 22.7 million jobs, balanced budgets and surpluses. And, yes, it was about a measure of forgetfulness: especially with regard to Clinton's support for failed free-trade agreements and dysfunctional deregulations of the banking and financial-services industries.
No matter what the measure Americans make of Clinton, he has political capital. And he spent a good deal of that capital Wednesday to frame an argument for Barack Obama's re-election.
That argument proposed a game change. No more apologies. No more nuance. Democrats, Clinton said, should laugh off the attacks they heard from Tampa last week and run proudly on a record that--if imperfect--remains far superior to that of their Republican challengers.
Clinton's Speech (Part 2):
The former president asked the questions America is asking. And he answered them as he says Democrats must: "Are we where we want to be? No. Is the president satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is Yes.
Despite a a bow to the old-fashioned bipartisanship of another age (hailing a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, for sending troops to integrate the schools in Little Rock; recalling his work with Republican ex-presidents on international aid initiatives), Clinton came to this convention with a bluntly partisan bottom line:
The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic Chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."
Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House twenty-eight years, the Democrats twenty-four. In those fifty-two years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
Then came the critical comparison -- not to the Republican position of the moment, but to his tenure:
I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.
I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No president--not me or any of my predecessors--could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the president's contract you will feel it.
I believe that with all my heart.
Clinton was asking the American people to trust him--and, by extension, President Obama.
If they do, Obama could be well on his way to becoming only the second Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to serve two full terms.
Conventions are theatrical events. People applaud even for speeches that don't merit much of a response. But Clinton's nominating address was an epic performance, and it earned thunderous applause from a convention that loved him as much--perhaps a bit more--than the one that nominated him in 1992.
Clinton's Speech (Part 3):
This is what former presidents, even those with egos modestly less developed than Clinton's, live for. (And it is certainly what presidents live for when they imagine that, at the next election, a certain former first lady might herself become the commander-in-chief.)
But not every former president is afforded the option.
There was no such opportunity provided the last Republican president. George Bush brought no message to the podium of the national convention that nominated the next Republican presidential contender.
Bush didn't have hall pass in Tampa.
Last week, at the Republican National Convention, the forty-third president was just another political has-been, glancing out from the Jumbotron in a video that wisely kept kept him in the shadows of his slightly more popular father. So flawed was the Bush-Cheney record--unpopular wars, New Orleans flyovers, burst bubbles, the collapse of the financial sector of the economy and a "corporate-welfare" bailout of the big banks--that even Republican convention speakers treated him like a political plague. A few speakers, like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, took swipes at wars of whim and assaults on civil liberties. Most speakers avoided even referencing the eight-year period when Bush and Dick Cheney ran the country--often with absolute majorities in the House and Senate. Even Bush's brother, Jeb, could not bring himself to utter the name "George Bush."
"The smart thing to do is focus on here and now and not give President Obama an opportunity to bring up George Bush's presidency," admitted former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Fleischer said he was "sorrowful about it."
But Democrats were amused.
"It is no accident that Democrats celebrate our past president, while Republicans virtually banished theirs," gloated New York Senator Chuck Schumer as he celebrated the fact that Clinton would follow him on Wednesday night's convention program.
Clinton's Speech (Part 4):
Political parties have always had complicated relationships with their former presidents, especially if those commanders-in-chief leave (or are voted out of) office at a young enough age to require invites to the quadrennial conventions where their successors are nominated and renominated.
From 1936 to 1964, Republicans had to figure out how to manage Herbert Hoover and unsettling memories he evoked of an insufficient response to the Great Depression. And it is no secret that Democrats have struggled with the question of how to recognize Jimmy Carter in the years since his defeat in 1980, initially out of a sense that he was associated with tough economic times and later because of his courageous advocacy on the international stage.
On the other hand, Democrats made Harry Truman an iconic figure, as Republicans did Ronald Reagan.
But never has the ex-president dichotomy been better summed up than in the past two weeks.
Bush did not have a ticket to the stadium.
Clinton was calling the plays--for the Obama campaign and, perhaps, for America.
"My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in," he explained, in his role as teacher-in-chief. "If you want a 'you're on your own,' winner-take-all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities-- a 'we're all in it together' society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama."
Clinton had the crowd, as Obama will have to have them--not just Thursday night but through November.
And Clinton closed Wednesday night's speech as George Bush never could.
Clinton roared toward the conclusion of his address with a declaration and a call: "We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor--to form..."
And the crowd concluded: "...a more perfect union."
Charlotte--The last Democratic president of the United States took a rock star turn at his party's national convention Wednesday night, leveraging his outsized reputation as a master of governing--and, more importantly, campaigning--to make the case for the reelection of the current Democratic president.
It was a remarkable performance by a political wunderkind turned senior statesman. And it provided a powerful reminder that in the ex-president competition--and there is an ex-president competition--Bill Clinton has defeated George Bush, overwhelmingly.
Clinton's Speech (Part 1):
Where two weeks ago, Bush was the former president whose name dare not be spoken at his party's national convention, Clinton was more than a revered elder returning to the warm embrace of his party's convention: he was a defining figure.
Even Democrats who were never Clinton fans--and it is important to remember that there were a lot of them when he was president, and when he campaigned in 2008 to make former first lady Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, his partisan successor--agreed that Bill Clinton did a damn fine job of framing what is all but certain to be the Obama message for the remainder of the 2012 campaign.
"In Tampa the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in," declared William Jefferson Clinton, who took the extraordinary step of nominating the man who did not only succeed him but who defeated Hillary Clinton for the opportunity to do so.
"I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better," Bill Clinton continued. "He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators."
Clinton was charming the crowd, of course.
But he was doing much more than that.
He was offering them a way of thinking with regard to where the second term of a Democratic president might lead a country that remains fretful about an ailing economy will ever fully recover.
This was about the memory of a presidency that saw the creation of 22.7 million jobs, balanced budgets and surpluses. And, yes, it was about a measure of forgetfulness: especially with regard to Clinton's support for failed free-trade agreements and dysfunctional deregulations of the banking and financial-services industries.
No matter what the measure Americans make of Clinton, he has political capital. And he spent a good deal of that capital Wednesday to frame an argument for Barack Obama's re-election.
That argument proposed a game change. No more apologies. No more nuance. Democrats, Clinton said, should laugh off the attacks they heard from Tampa last week and run proudly on a record that--if imperfect--remains far superior to that of their Republican challengers.
Clinton's Speech (Part 2):
The former president asked the questions America is asking. And he answered them as he says Democrats must: "Are we where we want to be? No. Is the president satisfied? No. Are we better off than we were when he took office, with an economy in free fall, losing 750,000 jobs a month. The answer is Yes.
Despite a a bow to the old-fashioned bipartisanship of another age (hailing a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower, for sending troops to integrate the schools in Little Rock; recalling his work with Republican ex-presidents on international aid initiatives), Clinton came to this convention with a bluntly partisan bottom line:
The Republican narrative is that all of us who amount to anything are completely self-made. One of our greatest Democratic Chairmen, Bob Strauss, used to say that every politician wants you to believe he was born in a log cabin he built himself, but it ain't so.
We Democrats think the country works better with a strong middle class, real opportunities for poor people to work their way into it and a relentless focus on the future, with business and government working together to promote growth and broadly shared prosperity. We think "we're all in this together" is a better philosophy than "you're on your own."
Who's right? Well since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House twenty-eight years, the Democrats twenty-four. In those fifty-two years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!
Then came the critical comparison -- not to the Republican position of the moment, but to his tenure:
I understand the challenge we face. I know many Americans are still angry and frustrated with the economy. Though employment is growing, banks are beginning to lend and even housing prices are picking up a bit, too many people don't feel it.
I experienced the same thing in 1994 and early 1995. Our policies were working and the economy was growing but most people didn't feel it yet. By 1996, the economy was roaring, halfway through the longest peacetime expansion in American history.
President Obama started with a much weaker economy than I did. No president--not me or any of my predecessors--could have repaired all the damage in just four years. But conditions are improving and if you'll renew the president's contract you will feel it.
I believe that with all my heart.
Clinton was asking the American people to trust him--and, by extension, President Obama.
If they do, Obama could be well on his way to becoming only the second Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to serve two full terms.
Conventions are theatrical events. People applaud even for speeches that don't merit much of a response. But Clinton's nominating address was an epic performance, and it earned thunderous applause from a convention that loved him as much--perhaps a bit more--than the one that nominated him in 1992.
Clinton's Speech (Part 3):
This is what former presidents, even those with egos modestly less developed than Clinton's, live for. (And it is certainly what presidents live for when they imagine that, at the next election, a certain former first lady might herself become the commander-in-chief.)
But not every former president is afforded the option.
There was no such opportunity provided the last Republican president. George Bush brought no message to the podium of the national convention that nominated the next Republican presidential contender.
Bush didn't have hall pass in Tampa.
Last week, at the Republican National Convention, the forty-third president was just another political has-been, glancing out from the Jumbotron in a video that wisely kept kept him in the shadows of his slightly more popular father. So flawed was the Bush-Cheney record--unpopular wars, New Orleans flyovers, burst bubbles, the collapse of the financial sector of the economy and a "corporate-welfare" bailout of the big banks--that even Republican convention speakers treated him like a political plague. A few speakers, like Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, took swipes at wars of whim and assaults on civil liberties. Most speakers avoided even referencing the eight-year period when Bush and Dick Cheney ran the country--often with absolute majorities in the House and Senate. Even Bush's brother, Jeb, could not bring himself to utter the name "George Bush."
"The smart thing to do is focus on here and now and not give President Obama an opportunity to bring up George Bush's presidency," admitted former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer.
Fleischer said he was "sorrowful about it."
But Democrats were amused.
"It is no accident that Democrats celebrate our past president, while Republicans virtually banished theirs," gloated New York Senator Chuck Schumer as he celebrated the fact that Clinton would follow him on Wednesday night's convention program.
Clinton's Speech (Part 4):
Political parties have always had complicated relationships with their former presidents, especially if those commanders-in-chief leave (or are voted out of) office at a young enough age to require invites to the quadrennial conventions where their successors are nominated and renominated.
From 1936 to 1964, Republicans had to figure out how to manage Herbert Hoover and unsettling memories he evoked of an insufficient response to the Great Depression. And it is no secret that Democrats have struggled with the question of how to recognize Jimmy Carter in the years since his defeat in 1980, initially out of a sense that he was associated with tough economic times and later because of his courageous advocacy on the international stage.
On the other hand, Democrats made Harry Truman an iconic figure, as Republicans did Ronald Reagan.
But never has the ex-president dichotomy been better summed up than in the past two weeks.
Bush did not have a ticket to the stadium.
Clinton was calling the plays--for the Obama campaign and, perhaps, for America.
"My fellow Americans, you have to decide what kind of country you want to live in," he explained, in his role as teacher-in-chief. "If you want a 'you're on your own,' winner-take-all society you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared opportunities and shared responsibilities-- a 'we're all in it together' society, you should vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. If you want every American to vote and you think its wrong to change voting procedures just to reduce the turnout of younger, poorer, minority and disabled voters, you should support Barack Obama. If you think the president was right to open the doors of American opportunity to young immigrants brought here as children who want to go to college or serve in the military, you should vote for Barack Obama. If you want a future of shared prosperity, where the middle class is growing and poverty is declining, where the American Dream is alive and well, and where the United States remains the leading force for peace and prosperity in a highly competitive world, you should vote for Barack Obama."
Clinton had the crowd, as Obama will have to have them--not just Thursday night but through November.
And Clinton closed Wednesday night's speech as George Bush never could.
Clinton roared toward the conclusion of his address with a declaration and a call: "We champion the cause for which our founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor--to form..."
And the crowd concluded: "...a more perfect union."
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," says the president of Democracy Forward.
A coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday against the U.S. Department of State over its refusal to release congressionally mandated reports on international human rights abuses.
The Council for Global Equality (CGE) has accused the administration of a "cover-up of a cover-up" to keep the reports buried.
Each year, the department is required to report on the practices of other countries concerning individual, civil, political, and worker rights protected under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Governments and international groups have long cited these surveys as one of the most comprehensive and authoritative sources on the state of human rights, informing policy surrounding foreign aid and asylum.
The Foreign Assistance Act requires that these reports be sent to Congress by February 25 each year, and they are typically released in March or April. But nearly six months later, the Trump administration has sent nothing for the calendar year 2024.
Meanwhile, NPR reported in April on a State Department memo requiring employees to "streamline" the reports by omitting many of the most common human rights violations:
The reports... will no longer call governments out for such things as denying freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. They won't condemn retaining political prisoners without due process or restrictions on "free and fair elections."
Forcibly returning a refugee or asylum-seeker to a home country where they may face torture or persecution will no longer be highlighted, nor will serious harassment of human rights organizations...
...reports of violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people will be removed, along with all references to [diversity, equity, and inclusion] (DEI).
Among other topics ordered to be struck from the reports: involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices, arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, serious restrictions to internet freedom, extensive gender-based violence, and violence or threats of violence targeting people with disabilities.
Last week, The Washington Post obtained leaked copies of the department's reports on nations favored by the Trump administration—El Salvador, Russia, and Israel. It found that they were "significantly shorter" than the reports released by the Biden administration and that they struck references to widely documented human rights abuses in these countries.
In the case of El Salvador, where the administration earlier this year began shipping immigrants deported from the United States, the department's report stated that were "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" there, even though such abuses—including torture, physical violence, and deprivation have been widely reported, including by Trump's own deportees.
Human rights violations against LGBTQ+ people were deleted from the State Department's report on Russia, while the report on Israel deleted references to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial and to his government's threats to the country's independent judiciary.
"Secretary Rubio's overtly political rewriting of the human rights reports is a dramatic departure from even his own past commitment to protecting the fundamental human rights of LGBTQI+ people," said Keifer Buckingham, the Council for Global Equality's managing director. "Strategic omission of these abuses is also directly in contravention to Congress's requirement of a 'full and complete report' regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights."
In June, the CGE sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State Department calling for all communications related to these decisions to be made public. The department acknowledged the request but refused to turn over any documents.
Now CGE has turned to the courts. On Monday, the legal nonprofit Democracy Forward filed a complaint on CGE's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the department had violated its duties under FOIA to turn over relevant documents in a timely manner.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," said Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president and CEO.
"The world is watching the United States. We cannot risk a cover-up on top of a cover-up," Perryman continued. "If this administration is omitting or delaying the release of information about human rights abuses to gain favor with other countries, it is a shameful statement of the gross immorality of this administration."
"Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own," said the head of the committee behind the measure.
The Associated Press reported Monday that a federal appeals court recently blocked Maine from enforcing a ban on foreign interference in elections that the state's voters passed in 2023.
After Hydro-Quebec spent millions of dollars on a referendum, 86% of Mainers voted for Question 2, which would block foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendums.
Then, the Maine Association of Broadcasters, Maine Press Association, Central Maine Power, and Versant Power sued to block the ballot initiative. According to the AP, last month, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston affirmed a lower-court ruling that the measure likely violates the First Amendment to the federal Constitution.
Judge Lara Montecalvo wrote that "the prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending."
As the AP detailed:
The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said.
Just months before voters approved Question 2, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the ban, citing fears that it could silence "legitimate voices, including Maine-based businesses." She previously vetoed a similar measure in 2021.
Still, supporters of the ballot initiative continue to fight for it. Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support Question 2, said in a statement that "Mainers spoke with one voice: Our elections should belong to us, not to corporations owned or influenced by foreign governments whose interests may not align with our own."
A year after Maine voters approved that foreign election interference law, they also overwhelmingly backed a ballot measure to restrict super political action committees (PACs). U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Frink Wolf blocked that measure, Question 1, last month.
"We think ultimately the court of appeals is going to reverse this decision because it's grounded in a misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court has said," Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and founder of the nonprofit Equal Citizens that helped put Question 1 on the ballot, told News Center Maine in July. "We are exhausted, all of us, especially people in Maine, with the enormous influence money has in our politics, and we want to do something about it."
"People are being starved, children are being killed, families have lost everything," said the United Nations agency for Palestinian Refugees.
The Gaza Health Ministry announced on Monday that more than 100 children in Gaza have died of severe hunger during Israel's siege of the territory.
As Al Jazeera reported, the Hamas-run Health Ministry said that a total of 222 Palestinians have died from hunger during the siege, including 101 children. The vast majority of these deaths have come in just the last three weeks when the hunger crisis in Gaza started to garner international media attention, the ministry said.
The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East on Monday emphasized the direness of the situation in a statement calling for a cease-fire to allow more aid into Gaza.
"People are being starved, children are being killed," the agency said. "Families have lost everything. Political will and leadership can stop an escalation and end the war. Every heartbeat counts."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that there is no starvation crisis in Gaza and has said such reports are part of a "fake" propaganda campaign waged by Israel's enemies.
However, it isn't just the Gaza Health Ministry warning of a hunger crisis in the region, as international charity Save the Children last week said that 43% of pregnant and breastfeeding women who showed up to its clinics in Gaza last month were malnourished, which represented a threefold increase since March, when the Israeli military imposed a total siege on the area.
The latest numbers about starvation in Gaza come as the Israeli government is pushing forward with a plan to fully invade and occupy Gaza, which experts have warned will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis among its people.
"If these plans are implemented, they will likely trigger another calamity in Gaza, reverberating across the region and causing further forced displacement, killings, and destruction," said Miroslav Jenca, the United Nations assistant secretary general, over the weekend.