The Boston Herald’s Hillary Chabot finishes her State House Insight series with this interview of Jill Stein. See the article here. All 4 videos below.

Woo-frickin-hoo!!!!!!!!

From the Jill Stein for Governor campaign:

Dear friends and supporters,

YOU DID IT!  YOU blew past the $100,000 we needed to ensure our place in the media consortium debate. Our voices will be heard! Voters will get to hear real vision and practical proposals for our common wealth and common health – not just the petty bickering of Beacon Hill insiders avoiding real issues.

AND THAT’S NOT ALL!  Today just before the 5 p.m. deadline campaign staffers turned in qualifying contributions of over $129,000 to the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) – exceeding the required threshold for state matching funds. We are optimistic that the application will be approved, and we will keep you posted. If it is approved, we will have qualified our campaign for public financing, and every dollar we raise between now and the end of October will be matched by the state.

No matter what happens, though, it’s clear that a groundswell for democracy is rising up in this campaign. People sacrificed, people dropped everything, people put their lives on hold to make sure that we reached the threshold for debate inclusion and would not be silenced by the corporate press – and that we qualified for public finance matching funds. Your hard work and inspiration made it happen. Money is continuing to come in from all over the commonwealth, from everyday people who are fed up with the bailouts, layoffs, ripoffs and payoffs, and who are ready for  the healthy, secure green commonwealth that’s within our reach today!

Jill Stein’s campaign has about 24 hours to raise $25,515 in order to ensure that Jill’s voice will be included in these debates that are so important to the future of the Commonwealth. She has expanded the public dialogue and political discourse, and the media drumbeat to shut her out from future debates is raging. If Jill can qualify for state matching funds, however, the media will have a hard time trying to justify excluding a candidate receiving public funding for her campaign.

Two recent polls of U.S. voters confirm 2010 as an interesting political moment for America, and I think the implication for the Massachusetts gubernatorial election is quite striking. A USA Today/Gallup poll finds record support for a major third political party. While 62% of Tea Party supporters want a third party, 61% of liberals want the same! The poll’s conclusion is that “fifty-eight percent of Americans believe a third major political party is needed because the Republican and Democratic Parties do a poor job of representing the American people.”

A recent New York Times/CBS News poll, meanwhile, finds that women voters, who historically outnumber voting men, and historically support Democratic Party candidates, are less likely to vote this year. While the Times is opaque about the actual poll results, they claim “the poll suggests that they may stay home this year, giving more of the decision-making to men by default” and that “so far in this election, women have not been nearly as attentive as men and have expressed less enthusiasm about voting.”

Taken together, I think Jill Stein’s gubernatorial bid in Massachusetts just might serve as an impetus for women to voice their distaste, and for Massachusetts voters on the whole to advance a potent political alternative.

Let me start with the caveat that I think polling is a distraction from the important issues in any election, as is the obsession with the horse-race as the candidates surge and falter. In this election in particular, I think our very democracy is being called into question as media institutions using the public’s airwaves are deciding for their listeners, viewers, and readers just which candidates are worthy of hearing out. And they’re making some very anti-democratic decisions.

There’s also one polling institution, Rasmussen Reports, which has consistently approached this year’s gubernatorial race with an oddly biased lens. Since credible polling should be objective by definition, Rasmussen’s sweeping of Green-Rainbow Party candidate Jill Stein under the rug is, by all considerations, quite odd. If I was after an accurate read of how Massachusetts voters were likely to vote in November, I would, well, include all ballot-qualified candidates in my phone interviews. Why Scott Rasmussen would exclude and thereby undercut a capable, articulate, and thoughtful Green Party candidate is a question that can only be answered with speculation, or by Rasmussen himself. Some have called him a Republican pollster, but Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has ranked him quite favorably in his pollster-induced error ratings (he fares better than Suffolk University, for example), and he is not listed as a Republican pollster.

Boston public radio station WBUR entered the debate this week over whether or not ballot-qualified candidate Dr. Jill Stein was worthy for inclusion in the gubernatorial debates.

In Controversy Grows Over Excluding ‘Outsider’ Candidates From Debates, WBUR features this nails-on-chalkboard quote from its own big-d Democratic political analyst, Dan Payne:

Because Jill Stein will get one quarter of the time and camera and she has not a million-to-one chance to become governor. For her to be given a seat at the table is unfair to the voters, who will then have to wade through the clutter of a fourth candidate in the race.

My question to WBUR: care to hire me as your Green-Rainbow Party political analyst? Who the hell appointed him as a guardian and protector of “the voters”?

From the Stein for Governor campaign:

The 9-member Boston media consortium sent a letter to Jill Stein today telling her that they intended to exclude her from their upcoming televised debates.  The letter, signed by Jen Peter of the Boston Globe, said that “Jill Stein does not meet the criteria for participation”.

Upon being informed of the letter, Stein responded “The people of this Commonwealth deserve to hear about how badly the Beacon Hill establishment has failed them under both Democratic and Republican governors.  They deserve to hear from the one candidate who isn’t taking money from the lobbyists or from the favor-seeking CEO’s.  They deserve to hear from the one candidate who is advocating for secure jobs across the Commonwealth – not just low wage casino jobs in three communities – for universal health care, for comprehensive fair tax reform and for ending the wars that consume 10 million Massachusetts federal tax dollars each day.  These badly needed solutions will assuredly be ignored in the debates if we let the three establishment candidates crowd me off the stage.”  

As the dust settled on the first televised debate for this year’s gubernatorial contest in Massachusetts, one clear truth emerged. There was one candidate, and only one, who could legitimately be called “the people’s candidate.”

While Scott Brown positioned himself as the people’s candidate in his January special election victory, a late surge of campaign cash and get-out-the-vote efforts from Wall Street executives and lobbyists and other special interests surely put his campaign over the top. Capitalizing on the Democratic Party machine’s condescending sense of entitlement to the late Senator Kennedy’s seat, Brown asserted that it was “the people’s seat”, and rode his truck right into the leadership vacuum that the Democratic Party has helped to create. But Brown’s slick posturing does not make for genuine leadership. And as economic and ecological meltdown continues, that leadership vacuum continues to grow.

Enter Jill Stein. Mother, medical doctor, public health advocate, climate activist, and community leader. As the Green-Rainbow candidate for governor, Stein is running the kind of campaign that is easily marginalized and sidetracked. In this two-party political system, voters and pundits alike don’t know what to make of third-party political upstarts like the Libertarian Party and the Green Party (the Green-Rainbow Party is the Massachusetts affiliate of the Green Party of the U.S.). Even in Massachusetts, where 50% of registered voters are registered unenrolled, i.e. independent, there is a tendency to write off third-party candidates as a wasted or spoiled vote.  

Who should be running the shadow war?

“Who should be running the shadow war?” asks a recent New York Times article which simultaneously exposes and lends support to the recent shift towards secret, unaccountable, and unconstitutional military aggression by the United States government.

The attack offered a glimpse of the Obama administration’s shadow war against Al Qaeda and its allies. In roughly a dozen countries – from the deserts of North Africa, to the mountains of Pakistan, to former Soviet republics crippled by ethnic and religious strife – the United States has significantly increased military and intelligence operations, pursuing the enemy using robotic drones and commando teams, paying contractors to spy and training local operatives to chase terrorists.

The White House has intensified the Central Intelligence Agency’s drone missile campaign in Pakistan, approved raids against Qaeda operatives in Somalia and launched clandestine operations from Kenya. The administration has worked with European allies to dismantle terrorist groups in North Africa, efforts that include a recent French strike in Algeria. And the Pentagon tapped a network of private contractors to gather intelligence about things like militant hide-outs in Pakistan and the location of an American soldier currently in Taliban hands.

While the stealth war began in the Bush administration, it has expanded under President Obama, who rose to prominence in part for his early opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Virtually none of the newly aggressive steps undertaken by the United States government have been publicly acknowledged. In contrast with the troop buildup in Afghanistan, which came after months of robust debate, for example, the American military campaign in Yemen began without notice in December and has never been officially confirmed.

Obama administration officials point to the benefits of bringing the fight against Al Qaeda and other militants into the shadows. Afghanistan and Iraq, they said, have sobered American politicians and voters about the staggering costs of big wars that topple governments, require years of occupation and can be a catalyst for further radicalization throughout the Muslim world.