Starbucks now spends more on health care than it does on coffee beans.
"Will Marshall" is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more conservative orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
He served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization chaired by Joe Lieberman (I) and John McCain (R) designed to build support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq /invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning."
He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.More Will Marshall on Wikipedia.
The Gore campaign clearly wants to start setting the terms of the policy debate after several weeks of unflattering stories of disarray within the campaign.
It looks like he's trying to move a little away from the high-concept ideas toward things he might actually be able to deliver on.
(A)s the opposition party, ... Democrats have a responsibility to hold the White House accountable for the painfully high price we've paid in Iraq, the thousands killed and wounded, and the billions of dollars spent. But they must do so in a way that makes it clear they are rooting for America to succeed in Iraq.
Who have set an example for responsible, progressive patriotism.
It would be a grave mistake for the Republicans to assume they can replay the boll weevil strategy of the early 1980s, ... George W. Bush is not Ronald Reagan. He would not come in with a strong tail wind of public support behind him, and he would not have a working majority in Congress.
For the Democrats, there's no going back.
Instead of innovation, he's offering the old ideological critique of Democrats.