Congratulations Martha Coakley, who just won the Democratic nomination for Senate!

Fashion comes to the MA senate primary race

by: Elizabeth Rich

In the midst of phonebanking, canvassing, and doing visibility for all four candidates in the Democratic Primary for the Massachusetts Special Election, Smith Dems went to a Martha Coakley event today in South Hadley. Coakley spoke and answered questions related to higher education, disability services, and more. She also gave advice to women interested in running for office in the future and talked about the need for more women in public office. One of the many highlights of the day was Martha’s suit. Yes it’s a bit vain, and Smith Dems are concerned about things other than a politician’s attire, but you could not ignore her suit! It was gray, but a nice gray with a belted jacket. It was cut perfectly and fit her incredibly well. Even when Coakley was facing away from us, it looked great due to nice details on the back of the jacket. Needless to say it was a great and certainly fashion forward day!

This Tuesday, December 8th, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls to select the Democratic and Republican nominees for the Special Senate Election

by Kate Moore

I have looked up to Senator Kennedy my entire life. His passion, determination, and unwavering commitment to fighting for people whose voices often are not heard has always inspired me. The Democratic candidate chosen on Tuesday will hold this special Massachusetts seat for decades, and will make important decisions for both the citizens of the Commonwealth as well as for all Americans. This is why the Smith Democrats have committed so much of our time this semester to working for all four extremely qualified Democrats seeking Ted Kennedy's seat.

The Dems have had the honor of hosting Congressman Mike Capuano and City-Year Founder Alan Khazei at Smith this semester and we were able to meet Attorney General Martha Coakley in South Hadley this week. We have hosted phone banks for Capuano, Coakley, Khazei, and Steve Pagliuca. In addition, we have canvassed in Northampton for Khazei and Coakley and gathered as a group to watch the debates.

With 4 days left until the election, the Dems are in GOTV mode. Join us at the Hot Chocolate Run in Northampton this Saturday where we will be doing visbility for all four campaigns. We will also be phone banking for all four candidates this Sunday from 12-3 and during our weekly meeting on Monday in CC 103/104. For more information about these upcoming events, contact Kate at ksmoore@smith.edu

For more information about the four candidates please see their websites:


www.alanforsenate.com
www.marthacoakley.com
www.mikecapuano.com
www.stevepagliuca.com

Will Obama's Troop Surge Make A Difference?

by: Caroline Sutcliffe, photo, the NY Times

President Obama has not, with his announcement of 30,000 more troops, reconfigured US military engagement with Afghanistan. He has simply confirmed General McChrystal's request for more troops and just reaffirmed his commitment to a military strategy that has been under discussion and in the pipeline since before his inauguration. Essentially, whether or not the troop surge will suppress the insurgency—much less 'finish the job' and 'bring a successful conclusion to the war—is extremely questionable.

My first premise is that early indications from the first troop increase of 21,000 soldiers announced earlier this year, points to an exacerbation and escalation of violence with record-high levels of military fatalities and civilian casualties. Regarding this, my question is: what these troops will do on the ground, and how will their increased presence is received by Afghans who are ‘war weary’? Accordingly, this week’s Economist asserts that uncertainty over the army’s progress may have dimmed support for the anti-Taliban campaign. Essentially, the problem is that if— the Obama administration has made it clear that the Afghan government needs to play its part in tackling the Taliban on its border—then the question that comes to mind is: will 30,000 more troops really renew the dimmed support of the Afghani people? Sure, the U.S. is setting out plans to quickly train large numbers of the Afghan army to take up their part in the fight, but this is not without its difficulties.

Second, remember: the Taliban presents a [transnational] threat. Thus my second problem with Obama’s strategy is that it has worrying consequences for Pakistan (which also houses the Taliban). For one, Pakistan fears that an American retreat from the region could mean an end to the lavish sum of U.S. aid—a figure of $7.5 million in the past five years. Pakistan is currently arguing for America to seek a high-level political settlement with its Taliban enemies [which won’t happen]. But— why it wants a hand in this settlement, which I find very interesting, is to exert its influence over Afghanistan—to India’s cost. (Intuitively, this reminds me of the ‘great game’ and the buffering of the British and Russia over Afghanistan, not too long ago). But arguably, such could easily fuel more Islamist blowback from its radicalized frontier.

Another factor on the transnational level, is that the U.S. is going to inevitably “butt heads” with Iran. Why Iran is one of Afghanistan’s most reliable trade partners, and through these economic activities its ties and influence over Afghanistan’s western provinces bordering Iran, particularly Herat, continue to grow. For example, Iran’s exports to Afghanistan amount to $500 million per year and it has pledged a generous reconstruction package to help rebuild Afghanistan’s infrastructure. This includes the plans to provide electricity to western Afghanistan through a multi-million dollar project.

The bottom line is that the Obama administration's answer to the worsening situation in the country appears to be: "more." More troops, civilians, tasks, and missions. And sure, there is nothing wrong with helping Afghans develop their country--however, if the goal is to give Afghanistan a strong, functioning central government and a viable economy, the task will require decades, not years. Obama's plan has no fix for the future. While I agree that Obama’s recently announced surge will definitely grey the hair on the Taliban and cause quite a few of their deaths, other options might be a more incremental approach. It’s a complex job. -This troop surge is framed within an exit strategy but you can’t simply [leave] things as they are. For instance, think of all the opium being smuggled out of its three drug trade routes--moreover, the high rates of attrition throughout the country, its ethnic imbalances—ex: Baluchistan, and on. So, will Obama’s counterinsurgency effort make a difference? Only time will see.

What's Up Iran?

photo complements of BBC

Again, Iran is rebuked over nuclear ‘cover up’ by the UN. Such has been repeated ad nauseam, this year. In September, it emerged that—as well as its uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, Iran had a second such facility near the town of Qom. And—until two months ago, Iran had failed to tell the IAEA about the plant. Iran later claimed that it had kept the construction secret because it feared that its known nuclear plants could be bombed.

The three countries voting against the resolution were Cuba, Malaysia and Venezuela. Six other nations — Afghanistan, Brazil, Egypt, Pakistan, South Africa and Turkey — abstained, and one, Azerbaijan, was absent. The resolution called on Tehran to confirm “that Iran has not taken a decision to construct, or authorize construction of, any other nuclear facility which has as yet not been declared to the agency,” according to diplomats familiar with the text of the resolution.

What’s also new, is Iran is looking to [Brazil] for help—as a sort of “new source of legitimacy to hide the government’s surreptitious goals.” The two countries said that they may discuss cooperation in the nuclear field, where Iran is under intense international pressure to stop uranium enrichment for fear that it is developing atomic weapons. "We can build partnerships to build nuclear plants," Ahmadinejad said in an interview with Brazil's Globo TV News. "Our two countries need nuclear power to generate electricity. Both Brazil and Iran are entitled to benefit from nuclear technology." Indeed, it may not be as embracing as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, a close ally whom Ahmadinejad will visit next on his tour of South America. But it also shouldn't be as punitive as the U.S. or European approach.

Sadly, the UN has given it the golden opportunity for the uranium to be shipped overseas—which is a win-win solution if truly [truly] wants nuclear power for peaceful means. Nevertheless, a rejection of this resolution is not a sign of Iran's growing isolation. Iran’s hesitation to cooperate is truly indicative of its posture since ’79. However, its reluctance to engage in more constructive talks has infuriated even those countries which have protected it in the past.

Fashion + Politics=Pashion

So this past Saturday you probably heard about how the House passed a health care bill. For fantastic, in depth coverage of the bill and controversy surrounding it take a look at Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2220222/) Also make sure to see how your Congressman/Congresswoman voted on the bill (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll887.xml) Debate and votes on the bill took all day and not only was the drama Gossip Girl worthy but so were the clothes (seriously.)

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi looked fabulous, outfitted in red, looking sharp and a little fancier than usual. Someone not nearly as high profile but looking fierce was Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT,) who as always, used color well and paired her green blazer with some killer accessories (http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/11/08/health/policy/1108-HEALTH_index.html).

To jump across the aisle, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN,) also known as Captain Crazy, sported a lei. Seriously, check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkVdr8Z2y_M&feature=player_embedded# to learn why, it makes the list of craziest things she has ever done.

We could discuss what the men of the House were wearing, but that would not be nearly as fun. They all wear the same thing, dark suits with an occasional brightly colored or patterned tie (or a bow tie like Earl Blumenauer.)

In other D.C. fashion news Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) both wore Pumas at a recent press conference, with suits! Definitely not okay. http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0911/politicians_and_their_pumas.html

A member of the Senate who’s probably incredibly stressed out right now is Olympia Snowe (R-ME.) Make sure to keep an eye on her in the next few weeks, Snowe is almost always outfitted in printed suits, big jewelry, and turtlenecks. She has also been wearing her hair the same way for 30-something years (kind of like my grandmother.) Check out HuffPo’s slideshow http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/13/olympia-snowes-classic-co_n_310050.html.

HRC is glowing (her skin looks fabulous) on the cover of this week’s Time magazine (that’s for you Kate Moore,) outfitted in a red blazer and a chunky gold necklace http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20091116,00.html

So until Congress leaves DC for winter recess it’s going to be hectic, but make sure to pay attention to the clothes! You might spot Rosa DeLauro in some new hipsterish glasses or Michelle Bachmann wearing a fire hat, you never really know!

Post-Election Day Blues, and Other Musings

The Smith Dems, as well as the entire Democratic Party, had a rough night on Tuesday. Deeds and Wagner went down in Virginia, “the fat man beat the bald man” (Newsweek direct quote!) in New Jersey, and Maine said Yes on One. And, just to add insult to injury…the official Smith Dems boyfriend Nate Silver WAS WRONG. Silver, who called the ENTIRE ELECTORAL MAP last year, got Maine wrong! Has hell frozen over while we were all busy with week 9 of midterms?!

To the numbers: McDonell 56-Deeds 42 for Governor and Bolling 54-Wagner 41 for Lieutenant Governor.

Yes, the man who is against feminists, gays and condoms is now the highest in the land of Virginia. According to the Washington Post, his thesis said that working women and feminists are detrimental to the family, government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators” and he described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

In response to that, Mr. Governor, we say we’re the sons and daughters of working mothers and all we learned is that we can have it all. We say stay out of our private lives and we’ll stay out of yours. We say sorry but Eisenstadt v. Baird is still good law, and it’s certainly not going anywhere.

Jody Wagner ran an inspiring campaign and we are lucky to have worked for such an amazing woman. Keep an eye on that one…the lady is going places! Also, in Smith alum news, Gwen Mason, running in VA’s oh-so-red 17^th district for House of Delegates, lost to Bill Cleaveland. After hearing her constituent’s accents, I dreamt of mint juleps and the smell of jasmine floating over the bayou, of sweet tea and wooden rocking chairs. They were that Southern, y’all.

New Jersey (and a personal apology to Liz Rich, who wanted to move the minute the results were final) also did not go our way. Chris Christie beat incumbent Jon Corzine, 49-44 (NYT). He’s the first Republican to win a state-wide campaign in twelve years. What’s up with that, New Jersey voters? And just to spark your interest, something might be rotten in the state of New Jersey: “In New Jersey, a sprawling corruption case begun by Mr. Christie, which culminated in July with the arrests of dozens of politicians and others, appeared to have taken its toll on the Democratic get-out-the-vote machinery. In Hudson County, a party bastion where a number of Democratic officials were charged, only 39 percent of registered voters cast their ballots, county officials said.” (New York Times)

And, maybe saddest of all, Maine said Yes on One. Maine already had a gay marriage law on the books, and this legislation repealed it. The moderate Northern state was looked at as a good barometer of where the dialogue on gay marriage was heading. The loss might mean a shift away from gay marriage initiatives all together…or it might mean an escalation. Personally, we’re hoping for the latter and we’ll be on the front lines. For our part, every area where the Smith Dems worked SAID NO! and we should be proud of our work there. Also, they had HUGE voter turn out- almost 89% of registered voters turned out- and the race was close, 53-47. In the inspirational words of Jesse Connolly, the campaign manager for No on One, “We're in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year-- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.” Tear inducing, non? Also, something funny to lighten the mood: Question 5 in Maine did pass…so Mainers can’t get married, but they can get high. Well, not really, but they did vote to expand their decade-old medical marijuana legislation. Congrats?

And while no one was watching, Democrats took NY-23. In quite possibly the strangest election of the cycle, the Republican party basically imploded, Sarah Palin and Rush made fools of themselves…like that’s something new?...and a Dem came out on top. Could we ask for anything better? Bill Owens beat Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman (LOOK UP HIS PICTURE RIGHT NOW), after being endorsed by his former Republican rival Dede Scozzafava. Scozzafava, who is a moderate Republican, was criticized by the right for being pro-choice and pro-gay marriage; their criticism cost them the seat. The seat opened up after long-term Republican congressman, John McHugh, was appointed by Obama as Secretary of the Navy. Cleverly done, Mr. President. Congratulations, Congressman Owens!

All in all, you should be SO PROUD of yourselves.