Here are links to three items that might interest you:

There’s a thirty second ad called “The Grinch Who Stole SCHIP” that’s funny and that vividly makes the point about George W. Grinch.

The Monday Post-Dispatch pretended to ask a number of Missouri power players to answer Virginia’s question about whether Santa Claus is real, then the P-D writer put more truth into their mouths about their beliefs than they would ever dare speak. My favorite:

Virginia,

Of course there is a Santa Claus. But thanks to environmental policies I’ve supported, the North Pole is melting, and he’s got to learn to swim. Since I believe that waterboarding is really like training for a swim competition, I say we tie him up and find out what he knows.

Christopher “Kit” Bond

U.S. Senator

This last one isn’t Christmassy, but Gone Mild curls its lip eloquently at CAFOs and at Chris Koster for having sold himself out to Big Ag:

I’m no PETA member, but even I don’t like the idea of eating something that has spent its entire life jammed in a stinky stall like the most crowded and flatulent elevator you have ever imagined.

Setting aside any porcine pity or tenderness for tenderloins, though, CAFOs are huge canker sores on the environment. They pollute ground water with unimaginable quantities of pig feces and urine. Their smell can make your eyes water, or worse – airborne micro-particles of pig feces can pollute entire zones of beautiful Missouri countrysides.

I went to see “Charlie Wilson’s War” with mixed emotions. Aaron Sorkin, of “West Wing” fame, wrote the script, so I knew I’d be in for a treat, but the treat would have a dose of nationalism at its core. It would glorify giving weapons to the people who would eventually use them against us when we went into Afghanistan in 2001. It would paint the Soviets as evil and the U.S. as good at a time when we were toppling democratic governments all over Latin America.

Indeed, the Soviets would have done for the Afghanis what we should have been doing these last five years.  They’d have built roads and hospitals and schools.  How do I know that? Because they did it in Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, and the other Stans.   Those countries were prosperous and decently governed until the Soviets left. The Stans these days are pretty much governed by murderous megalomaniacs.  

My point is that I knew I would disagree with the film’s premise. Still, we’re talking an Aaron Sorkin script.  And Tom Hanks.  Who doesn’t like to watch Tom Hanks? So I went. And I’m glad I did.

The dialogue sizzled and amused; and I could even forgive the chauvinism, especially since the CIA man who ran Charlie Wilson fervently pressed Charlie, once the war was won, to build schools, roads, and hospitals there.

We all know that didn’t happen, and when the film showed Charlie butting his head against a wall of indifference trying to get the funding, I thought: Yeah, well, maybe he really tried. Or maybe the filmmakers are pretending he did so that we’ll excuse him for giving the mujahadeen all those weapons.

The film ends with a sentence he wrote, and that sentence convinced me that Charlie Wilson wanted to make peace as much as he wanted to make war. Unfortunately, it’s easier to talk congressmen into funding war than it is to talk them into building societies.

So when (not if) you go to see “Charlie Wilson’s War”, look for that last sentence.  It’s a zinger.  

Just in time for Christmas, UNICEF has released their preliminary findings from a report on the status of children in Iraq after nearly five years of warfare.

The findings are grim.

Two million children are threatened by disease, inadequate nutrition and inconsistent education. And making matters worse, children are frequently caught in the crossfire – literally.

“Iraqi children are paying far too high a price,” said Roger Wright, UNICEF’s Special Representative for Iraq. “While we have been providing as much assistance as possible, a new window of opportunity is opening, which should enable us to reach the most vulnerable with expanded, consistent support. We must act now.”

Among the problems highlighted in the report:

Only 28 per cent of Iraq’s 17 year olds sat their final exams in summer, and only 40 per cent of those sitting exams achieved a passing grade (in south and central Iraq).

Many of 220,000 displaced children of primary school age had their education interrupted, adding to the estimated 760,000 children (17 per cent) already out of primary school in 2006.

Children in remote and hard-to-reach areas were frequently cut off from health outreach services.

Only 20 per cent outside Baghdad had working sewerage in their community, and access to safe water remains a serious issue.

An average 25,000 children per month were displaced by violence or intimidation, their families seeking shelter in other parts of Iraq.

By the end of the year, approximately 75,000 children had resorted to living in camps or temporary shelters (25 per cent of those newly-displaced since the Samarra shrine bombing in February 2006).

Hundreds of children lost their lives or were injured by violence and many more had their main family wage-earner kidnapped or killed.

Approximately 1,350 children were detained by military and police authorities, many for alleged security violations.

And still, against all odds and that reality – UNICEF and other aid organizations managed to deliver critical assistance even though they struggled under the yoke of the lowest funding levels since 2003.

Health care was delivered and house-to-house immunization campaigns were waged, protecting four million children from polio, and three million more from measles, mumps  and   rubella.  Because of dedicated efforts like these, Iraq remains polio-free, and cases of measles dropped from over 9,000 in 2006 to just 156 in 2007.

Nearly five million children benefited from efforts to deliver educational services.  Materials and textbooks were supplied, schools were rebuilt and restored, classrooms were added to existing structures to accommodate displaced children who were forced to relocate to flee violence and ethnic strife.  (It is estimated that approximately 83% of Iraqi children of primary school age were in school in 2005-2006.  The numbers for 2007 are currently in the crunching process.)

Shi’ite children in a refugee camp near Najaf

UNICEF has been instrumental in providing sanitation, hygiene and most importantly – clean, potable water to as many as 500,000 internally displaced refugees.  Currently, at least 200,000 Iraqis only access to clean water is a UNICEF tankering project.  These  are the most desperate and destitute, living in  tent cities that have sprung up, populated with people who fled the violence but had no where to go.

As security improves, a clearer picture of the  needs of Iraqi children  will emerge, but UNICEF stresses that the challenges will be amplified by repatriating families, who will be some of the most vulnerable citizens in need of help.  Many have exhausted savings and are returning to homes that may or may not be standing, and if standing, they may be standing on an ethnic battleground.

To meet the coming challenges,  UNICEF and its partners are spearheading IMPACT: Iraq.  IMPACT: Iraq is an initiative that draws together  a network of NGOs and UN teams to rapidly assess and respond when families are vulnerable.  The intent is to facilitate local recovery, because strong families make strong communities.

To help seize the current opportunity, UNICEF calls for support to:

1. rapidly increase attention and action to meet the immediate needs of children and families inside Iraq – focusing on all vulnerable groups;

2. widen humanitarian access to Iraqi children and their families in conflict zones, behind security barriers and in detention centres; and

3. strengthen Iraq’s capacity and initiatives to improve governance and mobilize its own resources to invest in national recovery.

“Iraqi children are the foundation for their country’s recovery,” said UNICEF spokesman Wright. “Where children’s lives are protected and revived, community recovery will swiftly follow. We continue to owe them our very best in 2008 and beyond.”

Eleven seats. Jake Zimmerman told the West County Dems that that’s the magic number to take back the House in Missouri. Eleven is a lot of seats to take, so Dems will be looking to expand the playing field from the obvious chances.

Of the close-to-thirty Republican-held seats that might possibly be vulnerable next year, it’s easy to identify the top ten. Webster Groves, a St. Louis suburb, is a great example of an obvious chance for us. Last year, Jim Trout, a relatively unknown candidate, didn’t have big bucks but he knocked on a lot of doors and came within 150 votes of toppling a three term incumbent Republican. That’s three terms the Republican had.  So Trout’s opponent is termed out next year, and you’d better believe that we’ll be targeting that race like crazy and so will the Rs.

Jim Trout and Jeanne Kirkton, who made a run for that seat in ’04, are vying for the nomination, so Jake figures that one way or another, we’re going to have a good candidate there. And if the Dems have a good year with high turnout, in a district with that DPI and no incumbent, we ought to win that sucker.

We’ve got a bunch of opportunities like that around the state, for instance several in suburban Kansas City.  Another top spot we’ll be targeting is in south St. Louis County:

Perhaps you’ll remember Jim Lembke, the diabolical, despicable Jim Lembke, who’s now running for the state Senate, and who must be stopped at all costs. But for purposes of the House, the diabolical, despicable Jim Lembke leaves that seat open. And suddenly you don’t have the hard-working creature of Satan, who’s been there for, like, six years, you’ll have some new creature of Satan, who nobody really knows who they are yet. And that’s potentially four or five percentage points of difference with a good Democratic candidate. Thank god we have a good Democratic candidate, whose name is Vicki (Englund), and she’s been working hard and raising money early. I like that district. Republicans’ll probably invest some money there because they’ll try and force us to work for it.  But, you know what, I think the odds are very good we’re going to win it.

Jake could mention other great opportunites like that one, but where it really gets interesting is in the second and third tier opportunities. Those races are what give us a chance to get to that magic number of eleven–and to give Jake a chance to be called Mr. Chairman instead of Hey Dumbo. There are so many Nancy Boyda opportunities. Deb Lavender is just one of a crowd of Boyda-type candidates.

The seat that Judi Parker ran for last time, for example. That seat has the potential to be open because Jim Avery’s been expressing no interest in running again as the incumbent. And there are multiple open seats in St. Charles.  Nobody thinks of St. Charles as a hotbed of Democratic territory:

But make no mistake.  Claire McCaskill is a U.S. senator today because of St. Charles and Springfield. Think about that. You know, lots of people like to pat themselves on the back about how, you know, St. Louis came out great for Claire. But it came out for Claire about the way it’s supposed to come out for any Democratic candidate. Ditto Kansas City and the area of eastern Jackson County.  But St. Chuck! St. Chuck turned out to the tune of 30,000 more than she was supposed to get there, than those old DPI numbers said. Springfield showed up in the neighborhood of about 18,000 votes more than the DPI numbers said Claire was supposed to get there.

Now that tells you a couple of things.  First of all, it tells you that demographics change, that the DPI numbers reflect past elections. And, what it really tells you is that there is a shift going on.

It’s like the shift that’s taken place in St. Louis County.  In the seventies, that was a Republican bastion. Democrats couldn’t dream of winning there.  And most intelligent observers of the process would have said it was going to stay that way.  

But it didn’t stay that way. Part of the change was about white flight to suburbs like St. Charles and part of it was just about political maturation. But whatever the reason, St. Louis County is now overwhelmingly Democratic and elects an African-American County Executive, Charlie Dooley.

St. Charles, too, is facing many of the same pressures that turned St. Louis County Democratic.  It’s no longer just acres on acres of new developments, mixed with a few farmhouses, filled with people who moved out there to get away from people with a different skin color.

It’s maturing. Some of the people there have already raised their kids. Local issues are developing as the communities solidify, and land use is becoming an issue. There’s conflict between the Adolphus Busch camp, people who want to protect their duck hunting rights, and the developers. The fights on city councils and the recalls of councilmen over whether to protect land or doom it to strip malls are signs that this community is maturing and that we have a more competitive chance there.

It’s not an accident that Dems have three good opportunities in St. Charles next year.  The first of those chances will come as a special election on primary day, Feb. 5th. Tom Fann is running for the seat that Republican Carl Bearden resigned from. It’s not the closest shot of the three districts, but it’s a real chance. And if any you want to contribute time and shoe leather, you could do a lot of good because in a special election anything can happen. And if Fann wins, whammo, we have the power of incumbency in that district.

So, between now and next November, Jake Zimmerman and Rachel Storch will be huddling behind closed doors, deciding where to put their resources, asking themselves: “Where can we win? Where can’t we win? Where have we got a shot? And where should we get involved on the ground just to make life miserable for the Republicans?  

And, of course–as always–they’re at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to money. They’re sitting on about $200,000 right now, whereas the Republican HDCCC has about $800,000. What’s interesting about the gap is that both sides are getting about the same amounts from institutional sources–from the sort of people who just want to back a winner. They’ve been writing checks in about the same amounts to both sides, which is a pretty good gauge of what those folks think is coming.

The difference in funding is that individual Republicans can put the arm on individual wealthy contributors and get money from sources like the local Chamber of Commerce. Those candidates raise more money than our candidates do and turn a lot of it over to their HDCCC.

One way to put a dent in the funding difference is to urge Democratic legislators in safe districts to contribute to the HDCCC. Any of you who are regular readers of the national blogs will remember that sites like Kos, MyDD, and others put pressure in the last election cycle on Democrats in safe districts to contribute from their campaign war chests so that the DCCC could help out candidates in close districts. That’s a project we need to undertake in Missouri this cycle.

Jake suggested that those of us living in safe Democratic districts make it a project of ours to find out whether our reps have contributed to the HDCCC. If they haven’t, we need to urge them to do so. Let me take it a step further.  As the campaign season progresses, this blog site will collect that sort of data and put pressure on Democratic reps in safe districts to invest some of their money for the good of the party.

But, at the end of the day, how our party does in an election is less about how much money we have and about how Jake and Rachel strategize than it is about having good candidates. It is the job of all activists to keep an eye out for the people who’d make good candidates.  

In Chesterfield, for example, that Republican affluent bastion, with a DPI of 42, the right candidate could pull it off.  Jane Cunningham, the wingnut who’s held that seat, is more interested in censoring people’s crotch activities than in good governance.  But she’s popular. And she’s gone. Okay, not gone. She’s running for the state senate, and as such presents a threat that, like Lembke, must be stopped at all costs. But her House seat is empty, and that means that you can take away five DPI points from the Republican candidate. It means that, with no incumbent to face, the right Democrat might able to take that seat.  

Maybe a strong D candidate wouldn’t win there, but, if not, we’ll win somewhere else, we’ll take some of those second and third tier races. And the more good candidates we field, the more we’ll spread the other side’s resources thin, increasing our chances of taking those eleven magic seats.