John Edwards released a statement today about Hillary Clinton's newest slogan (video):

"The war in Iraq isn't even history yet, but the Bush Administration is repeating the march to war with Iran - and they're getting help from a person who should know a lot better - Senator Clinton.

"On Saturday at the Iowa Jefferson Jackson dinner, Senator Clinton unveiled her new campaign slogan to `turn up the heat' on the Republicans.

"Well, somebody will have to tell me how you `turn up the heat' by voting with Bush, Cheney and the neocons on their path to war with Iran. Because I don't believe that's turning up the heat - I think that's giving them exactly what they want.

"Senator Clinton had her chance to stand up and she chose not to use it. Our nation needs leaders who have the strength and backbone to fight the president on his march to war with Iran - not quicken the pace."

Today Hillary Clinton betrayed the trust of her supporters when she voted FOR Joe Lieberman's Declaration of War on Iran. A few months back when addressing the VFW she reminded them that we needed to be preparing for the new war. But Hillary Clinton did not tell anyone at the time what war she had in mind. In fact she issued a denial that she was interested in trying to start any additional wars. But with today's vote she made it clear what she meant all along about the new war. Hillary Clinton came out in support of all people Joe Lieberman. This singular act of betrayal to the Democratic party completely disqualifies her for the nomination. Completely.

And if her action today was not bad enough the slew of supporters that have come to her defense is disgusting and the very worst display of blind candidate worship. It reminds us all of that Obama supporter 1984 film where zombies obey her slightest whim. How can any Democrat find any way imaginable to support ANYTHING proposed by Joe Lieberman? Are the Hillary Clinton supporters secretly Lieberman enablers as was once suspected? How can they betray our party with this de facto declaration of war? How can any of them support any proposal that gives Cheney a stiffy?

I guess that when Hillary went against MoveOn we should have guessed what the next action might be. I hope John Edwards wipes the floor with her tonight.

The Senate is scheduled to vote as early as today on an amendment that, if passed, would dangerously escalate the U.S. conflict with Iran, adding to the escalation by the Bush Administration in recent weeks. By voting for this amendment, the Senate could move us closer to another disastrous war.

The Kyl-Lieberman pro-Iran war amendment would put the Senate on the record supporting the "use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq," including military force, to "combat, contain, and roll back" Iran's influence in Iraq. Such language could be construed as support for military action with Iran.

Only 8 percent of the American people support military action.

Jim Pederson polled within the MoE on 10/23 (v Jon Kyl) in the Arizona senate race. A victory here would be HUGE. First, it isn't "on the radar" of the 7 viable races. It could supplant a loss elsewhere to make the critical 5 or 6 wins. Second, Jon Kyl has a low profile, but his voting record is VERY hard right.
Pederson has been self-financed, using none of our other candidates money, and has hung in there with almost NO help from KOS or MyDD.
So get in there and pitch for Pederson. He damn well desrves it, and what a kick in the teeth for the for the Repugs this would be.  

Yesterday, the Arizona Republic ran a story discussing Jon Kyl's support for the 1986 amnesty bill.   [http://www.azcentral.com/...].  The source for the article was a Scottsdale Progress article from 1986 that paraphrased Kyl calling the amnesty bill "an important step in stemming the flow of illegal aliens into the country."

According to a Pederson campaign press release, in April 1988, Kyl (then in the House) voted to extend the amnesty application deadline by several months.  The sponsor of the legislation, Congressman Gekas called it "a wonderful opportunity...to gain the best of both worlds; that is to give the bona fide applicant that extra chance to get amnesty..."

Meanwhile, on the airwaves, Jon Kyl's campaign is running an ad that spreads lies about Jim Pederson by characterizing his immigration plan as amnesty.  Kyl's claims are simply not true.  Even third parties like the East Valley Tribune Reporter Paul Giblin agree.  When discussing a prior Republican attack on Pederson's immigration policy, Giblin called a claim that Pederson supports amnesty an "out-and-out lie."  

All sorts of stuff - not perhaps all of it disinformation - has been coming out about the Billionaires Charter (aka HR 8) which comes to the Senate floor this week, so we're told.

(Tomorrow the vital business of S J Res 1, the Save Your Children From Homo Marriage Amendment, takes precedence.)

Expectations are being dampened down with a vengeance.

The Senate, meanwhile, is scheduled next week to take up legislation by Arizona Republican Jon Kyl that would permanently repeal the estate tax on the wealthiest Americans. If enacted, Kyl's bill would plunge the government another trillion dollars into the red during the first decade (2011-2021) that it would be in effect.

[Originally posted at Integral Options Cafe.]

Yesterday morning I posted a piece on the teachers and students who skipped school to march in the protests here in Tucson. I had two very impassioned replies from regular readers of my site -- from people I respect.

Immigration has become a very sensitive issue, especially here in Arizona where, as Erica mentions in her comment, many Mexican-Americans know how this land was stolen from Mexico much in the same way the U.S. stole so much land from the tribal peoples who had lived here for thousands of years.

There are no easy answers. We cannot deport 12 million people as Jon Kyl and John Cornyn would like to do, or build a big fence as Kyl has proposed. We cannot criminalize them as the House would like to do. We cannot charge them with criminal trespass as the AZ House wants to do.

So what do we do?

I think the first step is to take an honest -- and integral -- look at the situation to see what really is happening.