Seattle School District Says Cutting Down 62 Evergreen Trees in City is Not Significant

The Seattle School District is proposing cutting down 62 large Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar trees on the west side of the Ingraham High School Campus in North Seattle. In addition they are proposing adding some 113 new parking spaces to the residential neighborhood, including on street parking.

This action is part of the proposed renovation of Ingraham High School that includes demolishing seven portables and one modular building of 7800 square feet and constructing a 2 story building addition of 14,500 square feet of classrooms on the west side of the existing high school.

Anyone else would likely characterize the cutting down of such a large number of old trees and increasing parking spaces in a residential neighborhood as having a significant environmental impact. Yet the Seattle School District has published a Notice of Determination of Non-Significance in the March edition of the Journal saying that "the proposal does not create any probable significant environmental impacts."

The responsible school official listed for this determination is Ronald J English. English was recently the center of another questionable environmental skirmish in the same Haller Lake residential neighborhood when he was involved with the proposed sale of a Seattle School District building - the former Nellie Goodhue School - located at Meridian Ave N and Roosevelt Way N. The school district initial determination would have opened the residential neighborhood to an onslaught of trucks because of a "determination" that it was zoned for a warehouse. The Haller Lake Community Club sued and the property has now been sold to be converted into 26 single family homes.

A look at the Environmental Checklist prepared by the the URS Corporation of Seattle that the Seattle School District based its decision on, reveals a number of problems that were not adequately addressed. The Environmental Checklist, for example, does not consider any alternative places on campus to construct the new classrooms or look at any other alternative building designs in their evaluation.

The checklist provides no value to the loss of open space or tree canopy as compared to other alternatives. It assigns no value to the loss old growth trees which it minimally characterizes as Douglas Fir and Western Red Cedar. It does not give the age of the trees or the height or the canopy coverage but only says they are 12 to 24 inches in diameter. In reality many of the trees appear to be large mature trees matching the tallest evergreen trees in the neighborhood. I estimate them as 100 feet or more in height.

A person with the design team characterized them in a conversation as mature trees at the end of their life yet they are the same size as other trees in the neighborhood. Douglas fir trees can grow to 48 inches in diameter and cedar even larger. The "ready to die" image is how the logging industries characterizes trees to justify cutting them - is this the school district's philosophy also?

In addition, the proposal does not take into account Mayor Nickels goal for regreening the city over the next three decades -- the planting of 649,000 trees, plus keeping the tree cover we have." as written about in the Seattle PI. The article notes that:

Since the early 1970s, Seattle has lost more than half of its tree canopy as more businesses and people have moved into the city and smaller homes have given way to apartments and megahouses. Invasive ivy and blackberry bushes have smothered and killed native trees.
Nickels is looking to reverse that trend, to keep Seattle from becoming "the city formerly known as emerald." ...

Trees increasingly are being viewed as an asset to urban spaces. They clean pollution from the air and turn a key global warming gas into oxygen. They catch rainfall and slow the flow of contaminated stormwater from roadways into salmon streams....

"The city is increasingly realizing the urban forest is really part of the infrastructure of the city," Nicholas said. "It isn't just about looking pretty."
The mayor's goal is to expand the tree canopy from the current 18 percent to 30 percent over the next 30 years. Canopy is a measure of the land covered in trees, not a count of individual trees.

The current Environmental Checklist does not consider any measure of canopy replacement or any measure of global warming impact equivalency. It does propose adding new trees but most of these appear to be deciduous "street trees" maybe 15 to 20 feet tall at most.

The checklist makes no mention of Mayor Greg Nickels Executive order of Sept 6, 2005 that directs "all City departments to replace every tree that is removed from City-owned land in Seattle with two new trees." One would think that Seattle Public Schools would support this policy also for the school district.

An additional major problem with the Environment Checklist is that it relies on a parking and traffic analysis prepared for URS by Mirai Transportation and Engineering of Kirkland that makes a number of questionable assumptions.

Ingraham High School currently has some 117 parking spaces on campus and has a 50 year agreement with the Seattle Parks Department to use a lot directly east of the school and north of the Helene Madison pool on a shared basis. The school estimates that it uses some 82 of the 165 spaces available in the shared Parks Dept lot.

The Mirai study then makes an assumption that is not borne out by the existing situation. They state that the 50 year "agreement is not assumed to continue and the parking analysis assumes loss of this lot for both daily and special event use. " Yet both a call to the Parks Department and a discussion with Martin Floe, Ingraham's Principal, and also the Project manager for URS, provided no problem with the current use of the Park's Department parking lot or indicated any reason to expect it to end. No other use is planned for the existing parking lot.

But the assumption that it is not available in determining parking needs for Ingraham results in a big impact on the neighborhood, adding some 113 new parking spaces and encouraging more traffic and parking. The only justification seemed to be that the School District somehow couldn't trust the Parks Department or the City to continue the agreement in the future, even though the Athletic Fields at Ingraham are shared with the city and they don't have any problems with that.

Currently peak parking for 1200 students, faculty and staff is 185 cars. At some point the school might add 200 more students but this is not even certain. But the Mirai Parking study suggests that 200 additional students will require some 45 more parking spaces. Seattle is an urban area, yet to calculate the additional cars, Mirai uses something called "the peak trip generation for suburban high schools in the Institute for Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual.

This is almost double the current rate for students at the school. The difference represents some 22 parking spaces. How can you justify using a calculation for suburban schools for an urban school?

The deadline for responding to the Notice of Determination of Non-Significance is 4 PM on March 19, 2008. The DNS and Checklist can be viewed at the School District's website www.seattleschools.org/area/facilities/SchoolProjects/IngrahamLink.xml

Urge that they do a more thorough environmental analysis of their project that assesses the real costs of building in an urban forested area and looks at alternatives to cutting down old growth trees and that also evaluates alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce demand for parking in general at the school rather than adding new parking spaces.

Send comments to:
Ronald J English, Environmental Officer
Seattle School District No 1
PO Box 34165, MS32-151
Seattle, WA 98124
phone: 206-252-0110
fax: 206-252-0110

Seattle Public Schools is also holding a public community meeting on Tuesday March 18, 2008 from 7 PM to 9 PM in the Ingraham School Library to give a presentation of the design team for the renovation.

Eight Washington State Legislators Retiring from House

Washington State House of Representatives Appropriations Chair Helen Sommers leads the list of state legislators retiring this year. Sommers is currently the longest serving State Legislator in Olympia, having served for 36 years in the House.

She has held an iron fist over the budget writing Appropriations Committee for many years, irritating at times various factions in the state. For the last 10 years she has been either the Chair or Co-Chair of the committee. Two years ago she fought and won a high spending primary challenge by Alice Woldt who was backed by the SEIU.

As the Seattle Times reports:

There's already speculation about who will succeed Sommers as chair of the House Appropriations Committee, one of the most influential positions in the Legislature.

Rep. Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham, said she's going for the job. "I think I have as good a shot as anybody. I'm pretty optimistic," she said.

Rep. Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish, is vice chairman of the committee and often mentioned as a possible successor to Sommers. Dunshee said he's interested in the job but wouldn't say much else.

"We should do this in a way that gives [Sommers] the most grace and dignity," he said. "It seems unseemly to be ripping her name plate off the door already."

Sommers currently represents the 36th LD in Seattle. Two Democratic candidates, aware of rumors of her pending retirement, now confirmed, are charging out of the gate. John Burbank, the executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute in Seattle is already doorbelling according to an e-mail I received yesterday. The other Democrat running is Reuven Caryle, a former legislative aide.

Reports filed with the Washington Public Disclosure reports that John Burbank has raised $15,161. Reuven M Carlyle filed earlier and has raised $52,810.

Also not running against for the Legislature is Jim McIntire of the 46th L.D. in North Seattle. McIntire is running for Washington State Treasurer. Two Democrats have announced they are running for the McIntire's old vacant seat.

Scott White, former Chair of the 46Th District Democrats, was the first candidate to announce for the seat and has raised some $28,564, with $15,643 still on hand. Gerald Pollet, a lawyer and the Executive Director of the public interest group Heart of America has also announced he is running. As of March 5, 2008 he had raised $2280.

Also stepping down this year are Reps. Bill Eickmeyer, D-Belfair, Mason County; Bill Fromhold, D-Vancouver; Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor; Joyce McDonald, R-Puyallup; Lynn Schindler, R-Spokane Valley; and Bob Sump, R-Republic, Ferry County.

Democrat Bill Eickmeyer represented the 35th L.D. Two Republicans and one Democrat are running to replace him. Democrat Daryl Daugs of Belfair will be running in November against either Republican Herb Baze of Shelton or Republican Randy S Neatherlin of Belfair.

No candidates have yet filed with the PDC to run for the 49th LD seat being vacated by Democrat Bill Fromhold of Vancouver.

Democrat Bruce F Dammeier of Puyallup is running for the 25th LD seat being vacated by Republican Joyce McDonald of Puyallup.

Democrat Allister H O'Brien of Montlake Terrace is running for the seat being vacated by Democrat Pat Lantz in the 1st LD.

Republican Lynn Schinder is vacating her 4th LD seat. Two Republicans, Ray G Deonier of Spokane Valley and Matt T Shea are competing for the seat.

Republican Bob Sump of Ferry County is vacating his 7th LD seat. Two Republicans, Peter B Davenport of Harrington and Sue Lani W Madsen of Edwall and Democrat Kelly D White of Kettle Fall are running for the seat.

March 14, 2008 update: Joe Turner at Political Buzz adds a ninth state legislatior retiring - Representative Shay Schual Burke a Democrat from Normandy Park representing the 33rd LD in South King County. Turner notes that Rep Joyce McDonald is leaving the Legislature to run for Pierce County Council and that Rep Fromhold is leaving to take a different job.

March 28, 2008 update: Joe Turner at Political Buzz says Democratic Senator Harriet Spanel of Bellingham has told local Democrats she is not re-running.

Ending Congressional Gridlock

So who's responsible for Congressional Gridlock? Most Americans have a very low opinion of Congress right now and both parties are blaming the other for preventing action being taken on major issues like health care, immigration, education, transportation, energy independence, and global warming.

In the Presidential race Barack Obama is suggesting that progress will be made by everyone working together while Hillary Clinton is noting the partisan nature of American politics and suggesting that it more complicated than that. John McCain wants to continue the Bush agenda.

I think we are facing a watershed election. The problem is not partisan politics per se but the fact that we are facing a significant and defining difference in political philosophy and goals being expressed by the two major parties that signify a major change in the future direction this country is going to take. And I do not believe that the problem is as simple as merely wishing that we all be nice and work together and we will have a great country.

We are facing a major choice in the fundamental principles and philosophy that govern our country - whether the public interest or private corporate interests will be our guiding principle.Voting Republican or Democrat this November will take our country down completely different paths.

I believe that the Republicans have lost touch with the average citizens in America and under Bush/Cheney/Rove have aligned themselves with the corporate world and special financial interests over that of the public interest. Democrats meanwhile are aligning themselves with the public interest and individual rights and protections over corporate interests.

And I think the Democrats are going to increase significantly their numbers in Congress as well as win the Presidency because the American people are ready for change. They have seen the consequences of putting special interests and corporations in charge of running the country. They are ready to put the public interest back into our government goals and agenda rather than the profit motive of individual and corporate greed.

The March 2008 AARP Bulletin gives some historical perspective and some of the factors contributing to the current gridlock in Congress.

"Many political analysts trace the polarization to the 1980s presidency of Ronald Reagan and his bitter tug of war with a Democratic Congress. Reagan moved the Republican Party to the right, shunning liberal or even moderate Republicans.....

Consolidated around conservatives, the GOP grew stronger and, in the 1994 elections during President Clinton's first term, took control of both the House and Senate, though by margins too slim to exert unrivaled power. In the House, leaders such as Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who were very conservative, gave no quarter to those who disagreed with them, even in their own party. They took hard-line positions and refused to compromise....

Democrats, crushed under Republican power, moved left and in 2006 returned to power in the House under liberal Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. But they, too, found their majority too slim to govern efficiently. Neither party has the numbers to impose its will nor the inclination to make the kinds of compromises that lead to landmark legislation."

The main reason stalemate remains is because of the filibuster. Because Democrats control the Senate by only a 51 to 49 margin, Republicans despite being the minority, are refusing to compromise on most issues, thus preventing most legislation from passing.

As AARP notes:

"Senate rules provide for filibuster, a procedure that can prolong debate and requires 60 votes to stop. Historically it was rarely used—fewer than seven times a session in the 1960s. Now virtually any vote of consequence requires a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority to close off debate. Last year, minority Republicans used filibusters a record 78 times, nearly 50 percent more than the previous high of 42 in 2002, when Democrats were in the minority."

So what's the answer. AARP goes on to say:

Even the most inspirational presidential vision, oratory and leadership are unlikely to move major legislation. [Emory University Professor Meade]Black says it takes one party or the other accumulating enough seats in both houses of Congress to ram bills through on its own. Gridlock in the early 20th century ended in 1932 when Franklin D. Roosevelt and Democrats seized lopsided control of Congress (a 60-35 margin in the Senate and a 310-117 margin in the House)."It's not the parties coming together, it's one party moving into the position of being a governing majority," Black says.

AARP goes on to quote former Senator Bob Graham as saying that "History tells us that bipartisanship is possible." but I believe that the burden is on the Republicans to prove that point. I don't agree with Graham's optimism based on the recent Republican history. When they most recently controlled Congress they acted as bullies. I have heard both Democratic Congressman Jim McDermott and Jay Inslee repeat how under Republican leadership Democrats were excluded from helping to write legislation and they literally only saw bills right before they were to vote on them.

Bipartisan works only if you agree to share power and Republicans have done their damnest to ignore Democrats and legislate unilaterally when they were in power. And they are continuing to do all they can to obstruct Congressional action by increased use of the filibuster and the continued threat and use of a Bush veto. The only way to stop Republican obstructionism is to vote them out of office. And I think that is what the public is going to do come November.

The Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal

Once again a high profile politician confounds his supporters by playing Russian roulette -sooner or later they shoot themselves. It hard to understand yet maybe it the ego that drives them to politics with its do or die outcome.

Eliot Spitzer was a possible Democratic Presidential candidate with a promising future. He built a reputation as a fighter for the public interest, taking on special interests on Wall Street as New York's Attorney General. Just over a year ago he was easily elected Governor of New York State.

Eliot Spitzer was heavily involved in the movement to give New York State both a Democratic House and Senate so that the Democrats could move on issues like campaign finance reform. Just last week a special election moved the New York State Senate to within one vote of becoming Democratic after years and years of Republican rule.

Today Spitzer shocked his supporters and many others with a public apology alluding to his possible solicitation of a prostitute in February when he was in Washington, DC. The New York Times broke the story as we reported earlier. New York Times Reports Spitzer Link to Prostitution.

CNN has Spitzer's brief statement to the press on video. Spitzer apologized to the public but made no comments on his future, including possible resignation. He answered no questions.

Here is the text of Spitzer's brief comments:

"Over the past nine years, eight as attorney general and one as governor, I've tried to uphold the vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunities for all," Spitzer began. "We tried to bring real change to New York and that will continue."

"Today, I want to briefly address a private matter. I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my -- or any -- sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family.

I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.

I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much."

If Spitzer resigns, New York's lieutenant Governor, David Paterson would become the new Governor and serve until Dec. 31, 2010. The AP notes that Paterson would be only the third black Governor in the country since reconstruction.

New York Times Reports Spitzer Link to Prostitution

The New York Times is reporting that New York Governor Elliot Spitzer is linked to a prostitution ring. The story is just breaking.

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has informed his most senior administration officials that he had been involved in a prostitution ring, an administration official said this morning.

Mr. Spitzer, who was huddled with his top aides inside his Fifth Avenue apartment early this afternoon, had hours earlier abruptly canceled his scheduled public events for the day. He scheduled an announcement for 2:15 after inquiries from the Times.

Mr. Spitzer, a first-term Democrat who pledged to bring ethics reform and end the often seamy ways of Albany, is married with three children.

Just last week, federal prosecutors arrested four people in connection with an expensive prostitution operation. Administration officials would not say that this was the ring with which the governor had become involved.

The New York Times reported last week a story about "Four Charged with Running Online Prostitution Ring." The ring known as the Emporer's Club VIP had clients in New York, Washington, Miami, London and Paris. Speculation involves the possible connection to a Spitzer visit to D.C. in February and phone records.

Obama Wins 7 Wyoming Delegates, Clinton Wins 5

Obama gained 2 more national delegates over Clinton as a result of the Wyoming caucuses. A total of 12 delegates were at stake.

Several places report the results as votes. The Green Papers reports that Obama received 5378 votes (61.43%) to Clinton's 1313 (37.84%) to 64 (.73%) for others. If these are actual votes and not delegates as other states have reported at the precinct caucus level this would only represent a turnout of 13% of the 2006 registered Democratic voters.

Wyoming is not a state Democrats are likely to win. A look at the last 2 Presidential elections in Wyoming show that by more than 2 to 1, the state voted Republican.

2000 Bush 147,947 Gore 64,481 other 5298
2004 Bush 167,629 Kerry 70,778 other 4543

In 1992 Bill Clinton received 68,160 votes to 131,724 votes cast for the Republican and independent candidates. In 1996 Bill Clinton got 77,934 votes to 163,637 for his opponents.

In 2004 only 60,385 Wyoming voters were registered as Democrats, 162,952 were registered as Republicans and 32,885 were independent or other. In 2006 67,246 voters were registered as Democrats and 152,952 were Republicans. Wyoming does allow same day registration for voters. Current registration figures were not available on the Secretary of State's website.

Caucuses are a reflection of enthusiasm for a candidate by hard core supporters more than any reflection of actual general election voter support. If you can not physically be present at the caucus site at the appointed time you have no vote in the process. Many potential voters wind up being excluded, weather for example was a factor in Wyoming.

If you are an active duty military person, or have to work, or are sick or are out of state, you have no vote in the caucus process. Primary voting with absentee ballots are the most democratic and inclusive. That is why the majority of states have primaries rather than caucuses. More people participate.

"Working Families Credit" Moves Forward in Legslature

The Washington State House of Representatives took a major step forward by passing the "Working Families Credit". The legislation is a significant step forward in trying to help reverse the negative impacts of Washington State's regressive tax system by providing help to working families in our state.

By a 57 to 37 vote the House passed ESSB 6809. This was despite efforts by House Finance Committee Chair Ross Hunter to amend the bill with onerous requirements not required for any other tax exemption. He got an amendment passed in his committee to require the legislation to be re-approved every year for funding and that a study be done comparing the benefits of the tax break with spending the money for other things like early learning, K12 or higher education for low income families.

Now if Hunter required that for every other tax exemption, particularly all those to benefit business interests, then we would say great. But that is not the case. In fact most tax exemptions passed to benefit special interests have become like tax breaks for eternity. Ideally tax exemptions should automatically sunset after a set period of time, like 5 or 10 years.

But Hunter's hypocrisy is that he was proposing essentially a one year sunset on a tax break for low income working families that would help those hit hardest by our regressive tax system. Apparently Ross Hunter has not considered the plight of poor families in Washington State very seriously.

The national Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in 2003 called Washington State's tax system the most regressive in the country. The wealthiest 1% making over $1.6 million paid 3.3% of their income in Washington state and local taxes. Meanwhile those earning less than $17,000 paid 17.6 % of their income in state and local taxes.

Hunter's initial amendment was defeated on the floor but he did get a weaker one passed which still requires that funds for the program be limited to initial startup costs and be approved by the legislature in the state omnibus appropriations act.

Besides Hunter, Democrats Clibborn, Grant, Shay Burke and Takko opposed the bill. Rep. Eickenmeyer was excused. Two Republicans supported the bill - Rep. Haley and Skinner.

Democrats deserving priase for supporting this legislation include Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown and Senator Craig Pridemore - the prime sponsor. In the House, Speaker Frank Chopp, a long time advocate for helping those in financial need was critical to this bill passing. as well as Rep Tami Green and Rep Jeanne Darnille who helped push the bill in the House.

The bill now goes back to the Senate for approval of the amended version, requires approval in the budget bill and must be signed by the Governor.

This bill was truly a coalition effort. The Washington Tax Fairness Coalition in conjunction with reseach and technical expertise from the Washington State Budget and Policy Center spearheaded the coordination of this effort. A few of the groups involved included the Statewide Poverty Action Network, SEIU, Washington Sate Labor Council, LWV, Children's Alliance, Solid Ground. Lutheran Policy Center, King County Democrats Leg. Action Committee, UFCW State Action Council, and the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle.

update: see further discussion by Andrew Garber of the Seattle Times Olympia bureau posted after we wrote our post, Seattle Times 3/8/2008 "Strings attached to tax-break bill"

US House of Representatives Passes Landmark Mental Health Legislation

The U.S. House of Representatives, by a vote of 268 to 148 has passed the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Act of 2007. The struggle to achieve mental health parity with physical illness coverage has been going on for the last decade.

The bill is named after the late Senator Paul Wellstone, a Minnesota Democratic Senator who died in a plane crash in 2002. Wellstone had pushed the legislation for many years.

The Associated Press carried the following reactions to the bill:

''It's a historic step,'' said the late senator's son, David, 42. ''It's a civil rights bill for people with mental illnesses and chemical addiction. It forces insurance companies to treat them as they treat others." ...

The House bill was sponsored by Reps. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., who has battled depression, alcoholism and drug abuse, and Jim Ramstad, R-Minn., a recovering alcoholic who is Kennedy's Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor.

''It's about opening up the doors and ending the shadow of discrimination against the mentally ill,'' said Kennedy.

Former first lady Rosalynn Carter, a longtime mental health advocate, said the bill would help erase the stigma of mental illness that prevents many people from seeking treatment.

The US Senate has previously passed a weaker version of the bill. The Senate bill was sponsored by Rep. Patrick Kennedy's father, Senator Edward Kennedy and two Republicans - New Mexico Senator Pate Dominici and Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi. Senator Dominici has a daughter who has schizophrenia.

The House and Senate bill now go to conference committee. The house bill specifically says that mental illnesses and addiction disorders listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders would be covered under any plan offering mental health benefits. The Senate version is less specific and allows more variation in what would be covered.

The Bush White House opposes the House bill - even though Bush has in the past said he supported mental health parity. As usual words are easy for Bush and seem to mean little , his action and inaction tells the truth of his beliefs. Just like his inaction on global warming says more of where he is coming from than the few token utterances he has said about the need to do something about global warming. Words are cheap in the Bush White House.

see also New York Times , "House Approves Bill on Mental Health Parity"

Hillary Clinton Wins Both Texas and Ohio to Surprise of Many

Senator Hillary Clinton decisively won Ohio's primary 55% to 43% and has been declared the winner in Texas but by a smaller margin of 51% to 47% with 90% of the vote counted. As the Washington Post reports on Clinton's comeback:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) roared back into contention for the Democratic presidential primary race Tuesday night after claiming primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. These win ensure that her challenge to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) will continue through Pennsylvania's primary on April 22.

Clinton's popular vote margin in Ohio was larger than expected, while she appeared to eke out a very narrow win in Texas. Earlier in the night, Obama won an easy victory in Vermont while Clinton cruised to a triumph in Rhode Island.

As the New York Times notes, voters are not yet ready to write Senator Clinton off:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday night not only shook off the vapors of impending defeat, but also showed that — in spite of his delegate lead — Senator Barack Obama was still losing to her in the big states.

Those two states were the battlegrounds where Mr. Obama was going to bury the last opponent to his history-making nomination, finally delivering on his message of hope while dashing the hopes of a Clinton presidential dynasty.

Yet then the excited, divided American electorate weighed in once more, throwing Mrs. Clinton the sort of political lifeline that New Hampshire did in early January after her third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Barrack Obama still leads in delegate counts - some 1466 to 1376 by one estimate Votes in Mississippi and Wyoming are coming up in the next week which favor Obama. Even with the large number of delegates at stake in Pennyslvania, and Clinton being currently favored there, Clinton is in a difficult position trying to overtake Obama.

The battle now is going to shift to the undemocratic process of superdelegates committing and the question of what to do about Michigan and Florida whose delegates are not currently being counted because they broke party rules and moved their primaries to January.

The irony here is that Clinton won both of these states when the candidates agreed not to campaign there. With all their names on the ballot in Florida, Clinton won Florida. In Michigan Clinton's name was on the ballot but Obama's was not. People had to vote uncommitted if they didn't want Clinton and wanted Obama. Clinton still won. Both Michigan and Florida are states the Democrats want and need to win in November.

While Clinton has not won as many states as Obama has, the delegate and vote count is close. Unlike the electoral college which is winner take all, the Democratic primaries and caucuses assign delegates to the Democratic National Convention based on the proportion of the vote each candidate won.

As the New York Times notes:

The nomination is not determined by the number of states won, but Mr. Obama’s inability to win major battleground states beyond Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and his home state, Illinois, is a concern of some Democrats — especially since Ohio and Florida have become must-wins in presidential elections.

Quoting Clinton according to the NY Times:

"If we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio,” she said. “We’ve won Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Michigan, New Hampshire, Arkansas, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Tennessee"

There is plenty for Democrats to think about. The hope is that a resolution can be reached and a nominee selected without splitting and losing the combined passions of the Clinton and Obama camps. The last thing the Democrats need is to enter the fall campaign split and angry at each other rather than united in working to defeat the Republicans and John McCain.

One thing for sure - the Democrats need to come up with a better plan and timing and spacing of primaries for the next party contested Presidential election. Reform of the process should include making the elections fairer by going to an all primary system where voters can see how their votes count and maximum voter participation is ensured - something the caucus system doesn't do.

Clinton Wins Rhode Island, Obama Wins Vermont, McCain to Win Republican Nomination

The Associated Press according to the Washington Post has projected Hillary Clinton as the winner in Rhode Island. Barack Obama has been declared the winner in Vermont where the Iraq War was listed in exit polls as the major issue.

Meanwhile polls in Ohio have closed. Clinton has a small lead in early results. Weather has been terrible in Ohio with snow in northern Ohio and rains and flooding in southern Ohio. Some polls in Cleveland were kept open later as they ran out of Democratic ballots. Ohio recently changed to all paper ballots that are then optically scanned after problems were assessed with their touch screen machines.

Ohio's election results in 2004 were rife with problems. Robert Kennedy Jr, among others called into question the election results in Ohio in 2004.

Meanwhile Texas is also currently having some problems. Sixty-five percent of Texas 193 delegates are determined by a primary vote and 35% are determined by a separate caucus vote this evening. The Clinton campaign is reporting problems with being excluded from some of their supporters being excluded from the caucuses.

Because of the nature and complexity of the Texas voting process a final tally of delegate allocation may actually take several days.

Overall some 370 Democratic delegates are being determined today. Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton the results will probably not significantly change the delegate lead that Obama has. Unfortunately for Obama if the results are mixed it is likely that Hillary Clinton will continue her campaign which will make John McCain happy.

While some Democrats may lament the lack of a knockout punch, the Democrats continuing to battle will get the two candidates before more voters and allow a further Democratic organizational effort in more states including a key battle in the Pennsylvania primary.

Meanwhile John McCain is the projected winner of all four states - Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont and has gained enough delegates to win the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee has announced he is withdrawing from the race.

Hastings and McMorris Rodgers Consistently Vote Against the Environment

The national League of Conservation Voters gave Republicans Doc Hastings (WA-4) and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (WA-5) both a 5 out of 100 rating for their environmental voting record for 2007. For the first time in 9 years Hastings scored one environmentally correct vote. For the previous 8 years Hastings had a score of zero. McMorris Rodgers also had a zero for her previous rating.

Hasting is being challenged this year by Democrat George Fearing.

Republican Dave Reichert (WA-8), in a tough re-election campaign in eastern King County, has finally seen the green light through the trees and actually doubled his score from 43 in the previous session of Congress to an 85 rating for 2007. Reichert is facing Democratic challenger Darcy Burner who he narrowly beat in 2006.

Of course one has to evaluate what this score actually represents for Reichert. A careful look at two different bills that Reichert voted for last year and this year show that he opposed the bills at every step of the way up until the final vote. You can read these stories about Reichert at Daniel Kirkdorffer's blog On the Road to 2008.

see "Reichert Votes For Another Bill He Opposes Every Step Of The Way" Jan 18, 2007 and "Anatomy of a Reichert Vote " Feb. 28, 2008

We observed this same voting behavoir by Reichert, when he first voted for an amendment to weaken popcorn worker safety legislation and then was the outcome was clear, voted for final passage of the bill.

see "Republicans Hastings, McMorris Rodgers and Reichert Record Votes Opposing Popcorn Worker Safety" Oct 1, 2007

Meanwhile all of Washington's Democratic Congressmen continued their strong voting records for the environment in 2007. Jay Inslee (WA-1), Brian Baird (WA-3), Norm Dicks (WA-6), and Jim McDermott (WA -7) all received scores of 95. Adam Smith (WA-9) received a 90 and Rick Larsen (WA-2) received the lowest rating of 80.

On the Senate side, Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell both received scores of 87 for their 2007 voting records.