Michael Barone, DC Examiner
In the run-up to this weekend's G-8 summit at Camp David, journalists have unfavorably compared European "austerity" with Barack Obama's economic policies.European spending cuts, the argument goes, have hurt people and are arousing political opposition, while Obama's proposals to keep federal spending at 24 percent of gross domestic product indefinitely are likely to succeed.Evil Republican spending cuts, in contrast, would deny the economy needed stimulus and wreak havoc on ordinary people.But the facts undermine the storyline. Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus...

WASHINGTON -- The reelection campaign of President Barack Obama reported raising $25.7 million in April, down from $35 million raised in March.

While the campaign raised fewer dollars last month than the previous one, its support from small donors remained high with 43.7 percent, or $11.23 million, coming from donors giving less than $200 in total.

Big donors were still a source of support with donors giving $2,500 and above contributing $3.69 million in April.

The employment categories that typically dominate presidential campaign finance filings continued to show big contributions. The leading donor group in April was Retired with $2,595,175. Self-Employed was a close second contributing $2,313,319 and the Not Employed category came in third with $1,682,106 in contributions.

Among individuals who listed an actual employer, tech companies and law firms dominated. The top tech firms in terms of employee giving were Microsoft ($51,747), Google ($28,061), and IBM ($13,768). Law firm donors included Bass Berry & Sims ($22,100), Blank Rome ($12,315), and WilmerHale ($13,359).

A few finance company employees gave their share to the Obama campaign: Goldman Sachs employees gave $14,150 while JPMorgan Chase employees combined to give $10,593.

Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson (R) weighed in on President Barack Obama's gay marriage decision last week, invoking a bible passage that calls for gay men to be "put to death."

In a May 10 Facebook post, Gipson called homosexuality a "sin," citing Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28:

Leviticus 20:13 reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

On the same thread, he responded to a follower, calling same-sex relationships "unnatural" and suggesting that they will inherently "result in disease":

UnityMS flagged the post and issued a response to Gipson's comments:

Mr. Gipson needs to realize he represents all of his constituents. He should not cherry-pick which constituents he wants to work for. He should also realize his positions are neither popular nor Republican. LGBT individuals, couples, and families help pay Gipson’s salary. It’s important that he remember that.

While the nation's approval of gay marriage has trended upward, topping out at over 50 percent in a recent poll, a November 2011 survey found that only 13 percent of Mississippi voters thought it should be legal, while 78 percent said it should remain illegal. Even among Democrats, only 19 percent expressed support.

The 137th running of the Preakness Stakes, the second leg of horse racing's Triple Crown, is this Saturday at Pimlico race track in Baltimore, Maryland. The Preakness can either destroy the dreams of the Kentucky Derby winner's team or it can set up drama like no other at the Belmont Stakes. There has not been a Triple Crown winning horse since 1978, when Affirmed completed the trifecta. I'll Have Another, the 2012 Kentucky Derby winner, is hoping to do the same in 2012.

Mitt Romney has locked up the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2012. Just like I'll Have Another, he is riding high right now. Romney is leading President Obama in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll. His next major campaign move, selecting his Vice Presidential nominee, might decide what looks to be a very close general election. If you don't believe me, look no further than Sarah Palin in 2008.

So without further ado I give you the "Mitt Romney VP Odd's Preakness Style" based on the first early morning lines of the race when post positions were drawn. Can there be anything more fun than combining premier US horse racing with presidential politics? I think not.

THE FAVORITES

8-5 Odds - Bodemeister/Senator Marco Rubio (R - FL): Bodemeister led from the gate to nearly the finish of the Kentucky Derby until I'll Have Another caught him. Just like Bodemeister, Rubio sprinted out to an early lead in the veepstakes and has maintained it up to this point. He is a rising star, has been called the "crown prince" of the Tea Party movement, and potentially delivers the most important swing state of them all. He also helps with the all important and growing Latino vote. Can Rubio seal the deal with Romney or will he get passed in the end like Bodemeister in the Derby? Maybe Romney passes if Mitt can't handle Rubio's "star power" potentially outshining him. This pick makes so much sense for Mitt.

5-2 Odds - I'll Have Another/Senator Rob Portman (R - OH): I'll Have Another shocked the horse racing world down the stretch of the 138th Kentucky Derby with his closing and finishing speed. Rob Portman is one those guys who has often been mentioned in the running for Romney's mate, but isn't as exciting to many Republicans as Rubio. Portman has served his country in the United States House and Senate, as well as in two cabinet positions in the George W. Bush administration. He is from the coveted swing state of Ohio, which President Obama won in 2008. Portman is a lot like Romney when it comes to style and substance, but his experience might make him a tad bit safer choice than Rubio. Portman is closing fast on Rubio in I'll Have Another fashion.

6-1 Odds - Went the Day Well/Governor Bob McDonnell (R - VA): Went the Day Well went from 17th to a 4th place finish at this year's Kentucky Derby. His jockey, Jose Valezquez, recently said to Fox Sports, "he was so far back I couldn't make up that much ground, no way." Bob McDonnell doesn't have to make up as much ground because he gives Romney a chance to win the state of Virginia, which President Obama won in 2008. A former State Attorney General who has served in the military, McDonnell has seen unemployment in Virgina drop from 7.3 percent to 5.6 percent during his short time in the Governor's office. If "it's the economy stupid" election, Mitt might show that Virginia is for lovers and chose McDonnell.

6-1 Odds - Creative Cause/Congressman Paul Ryan (R - WI): If Creative Cause gets a clean path in the Preakness he just might pull it off. Why you ask? Based on Trakus data that recorded Kentucky Derby race results, Creative Cause traveled 29 more feet than the winner, but 79 less feet than the runner up. He finished only three lengths behind the Preakness favorite Bodemeister in the Kentucky Derby. Paul Ryan is a high profile Congressman who is every cutting government fan's dream. He has a good rapport with Romney and his "Ryan Plan" was endorsed by Mitt. He is on the cover of the Republican conservative budgeting playbook and this might make him irresistible for Romney.

MIDDLE OF THE PACK

12-1 Odds - Daddy Nose Best/Governor Chris Christie (R - NJ): Daddy Nose Best has been called "very perky" since his 10th place finish in the Kentucky Derby. Christie is the exact opposite of Mitt Romney, he likes to ad lib. Scripts, what scripts? The Republican base loves him, but he might be too much for Mitt to handle. Paging Joe Biden.

15-1 Odds - Teeth Of The Dog/Governor Bobby Jindal (R - LA): Teeth of the Dog's trainer says he has "galloped out real good" lately. Bobby Jindal has been doing well himself, as Americans for Tax Reform's Grover Norquist recently said he was the guy Romney should choose for his VP. Republicans and Louisianans believe he is an effective reformer who has weathered many storms in his state. Jindal has been the flavor of the month many times, and his loose personality might be a good antithesis to Romney.

20-1 Odds - Zetterholm/Senator Kelly Ayotte (R - NH): You say Northeast ticket I say Romney/Ayotte, Romney/Ayotte...Romney/Ayotte. Kelly Ayotte is picking up a lot of steam lately in the veepstakes, just as Zetterholm has won his last three races. A female running mate could help Romney with his lagging numbers with this important demographic. However, Sarah Palin has described Ayotte as a "Granite State 'mama grizzly' who has broken barriers." Say what?

30-1 Odds - Cozzetti/Fmr. Governor Tim Pawlenty (R - MN): Cozzetti's trainer Dale Romans recently said of the horse, "One day he's going to wake up and run lights out." Republicans have been waiting for Pawlenty to do this on a national level for awhile. He dropped out of the 2012 race after the Iowa straw poll and was on the very short VP list for John McCain in 2008. He still has a lot of strong conservative fans. Will Mitt give him the chance to run lights out? Probably not.

TAKE A FLIER

30-1 Odds - Tiger Walk/Governor Nikki Haley (R - SC): Why Tiger Walk? Kent Desormeaux is his jockey. Why Nikki Haley for Romney 2012? Female, Tea Party starlet, and she is a governor from the south. Good contrast with Mitt.

30-1 Odds - Optimizer/Congressman Mitch Daniels (R - IN): Optimizer is using the Preakness to prepare for the Belmont Stakes. Optimizer's trainer believes that the Belmont will be his best race. Mitch Daniels was widely speculated to be a presidential candidate in 2012, but choose not to run. This publicity and positive speculation is only helping a possible run in 2016 should Romney lose to President Obama. Daniels serves out his second term as Governor of Indiana.

LONGSHOT

30-1 Odds - Pretension/Fmr. Governor Mike Huckabee (R - AR): Pretension is the token Maryland horse in the race to make the local fans get excited. Folksy Mike Huckabee does the same thing to the conservative and evangelical base of the Republican party. It would be a surprise, but stranger things have happened in politics.

Happy 137th Preakness and 2012 Republican presidential veepstakes.

And down the stretch they come...

Alex Roarty, National Journal
In this Nov. 4, 2008 file photo, young supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voice their support for him early on election day in New York. The day was a huge moment for Obama with some saying it was a defining moment for a generation of youth who played a key role in electing him. By Alex RoartyThe Great Recession took a sledgehammer to young job-seekers. As a Rutgers University study released this week reported, only half -- 51 percent -- of college graduates since 2006 are employed full-time. Eleven percent of them, the study found, are unemployed -- a...

Michael Barone, DC Examiner
Is it panic time at Obama headquarters in Chicago? You might get that impression from watching events -- and the polls -- over the past few weeks.In matchups against Mitt Romney, the president is leading by only 47 to 45 percent in the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls. A CBS/New York Times panelback poll, in which interviewers call back respondents to a previous survey, showed Romney leading 46 to 43 percent -- and leading among women.

More than half of U.S. adults aren't getting enough exercise, according to a sweeping new report on the state of America's health from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Older people, ages 75 and older, were the least likely to meet the recommendations, with 70 percent not getting enough regular aerobic and muscle-strengthening exercise. Meanwhile, 39 percent of people ages 18 to 24 didn't get enough exercise.

The report, called "Health, United States, 2011," examined a range of health data collected up until 2010. It also showed the influences of education on health and income on health insurance, as well as trends for medical testing in the U.S.

In terms of medical testing, the researchers found that the rate of mammograms among women ages 40 and older has remained about the same (between 67 percent and 70 percent) between 2000 and 2010.

In addition, the data showed that more people are getting colorectal tests, with the percentage of 50- to 75-year-olds getting the test rising from 34 percent in 2000 to 59 percent in 2010.

Meanwhile, for education, researchers found that the education level of the head of the household is correlated with obesity of the children in the household. For example, 24 percent of boys and 22 percent of girls were obese in homes where the head of household had a high school education only. Meanwhile, 11 percent of boys and 7 percent of girls were obese in homes where the head of household had at least a bachelor's degree.

In addition, rates of smoking in U.S. adults between ages 25 and 64 who had a high school education or less was 31 percent in 2010, compared with 24 percent of adults who had completed at least some college and 9 percent of adults who completed at least a bachelor's degree, according to the study.

Life expectancy is also higher for people with at least a bachelor's degree, compared with people who don't have a high school diploma, the report showed. In 2006, having at least a bachelor's degree at age 25 correlated with an extra 9.3 years of life; for women, it was an extra 8.6 years of life.

"Highly educated people tend to have healthier behaviors, avoid unhealthy ones and have more access to medical care when they need it," report lead author Amy Bernstein, a health services researcher for the National Center for Health Statistics, told USA Today. "All of these factors are associated with better health."

The report also highlighted changes in health insurance coverage in low-income families. In families whose incomes were 200 percent below the poverty level, the number of children who were not covered by health insurance actually decreased between 2000 and 2010, from 22 percent to somewhere between 11 and 13 percent.

The report also highlighted that states in the South and Rocky Mountain regions have the worst doctor-to-patient ratios, while Hawaii, Minnesota and northeastern states had the best ratios, CNN pointed out.

CNN also reported that 2 percent fewer adults smoked in 2010 compared with 2009 -- from 21 percent to 19 percent.

For a look at the full CDC report, click here.

Amid the celebration of Mother's Day and a child's college graduation this past weekend, there emerged a kernel of wisdom that can break the gridlock, preserve our nation's strength, and allow America to continue to lead the world to peace and prosperity.

Dramatic? Admittedly. True? Absolutely.

This powerful insight is simply that incentives work.

Sunday's University of Dallas graduation ceremony was a powerful witness to a wonderful mother on Mother's Day. My wife and I watched our youngest graduate from college, enjoyed the company of all four of our children together, witnessed all four complete college in four years, and paid our last tuition payment! Oh, happy days!

Without taking anything away from my wife's nurturing guidance and the talent and drive of our children, my role also played a vital part: I exercised graduate economics! I have great children. America is full of wonderful people. Yet well-defined and well-intentioned incentives can powerfully and positively impact behavior for even the best people.

I negotiated with my children before they were born (it's easier that way) that if there was no dating before they were 16, Dad would help with the first four years of any college where they were accepted. The fifth year was on them. Amazingly, they all met the criteria and completed their degrees in four years at great schools -- Notre Dame, Michigan, and the University of Dallas.

This approach of clearly defined incentives, if applied to many government services, would go a long way in solving our deficit.

How could incentives break the stalemate in Congress and save the union? The simple answer is in their application to health care. In making the case for health care reform, President Obama said, "Put simply, our health care program is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close." As a former CFO, I absolutely agree. California Gov. Jerry Brown recently outlined his budget prescription by warning citizens that he had no choice but to cut spending and raise taxes. I absolutely disagree. Regrettably, like so many politicians, Gov. Brown has ignored the power of incentive in his own state. As a result, many will suffer.

California's Safeway grocery stores estimate that applying incentives to health care could result in a 40 percent reduction of direct health care spending in the United States. This could balance the budget without benefit cuts or tax increases.

How can this be? The problem of rising health care costs could be solved by allowing businesses to apply their well-honed expertise in offering customers the opportunity to have more for less -- in this case, better health at a lower cost. Individuals also must have incentives to make healthy lifestyle choices.

From where do these gigantic savings come? First, benefits would spring from improved transparency. Safeway's study revealed wide differences in the cost of medical care. An easy comparison of providers' cost and quality, combined with an incentive to seek out the best deal, could yield dramatic results for consumers.

Safeway found that substantive savings also would come from better lifestyle choices. By its estimates,

1. 70 percent of health care costs are driven by behavior
2. four chronic conditions are responsible for 74 percent of health care costs, and
3. obesity is a driving factor in all four chronic conditions.

Taken together, this means that the biggest driver of health care costs is obesity, which is largely behavioral and reversible. Kudos to Michelle Obama for shining a light on this priority!

Safeway used these findings to implement a health care plan that rewarded people with incentives and lowered premiums based on progress in four measures:

• Weight
• Tobacco use
• Control of cholesterol levels
• Control of blood pressure levels

Safeway achieved lower health care costs at a time when others were experiencing significant increases. And Safeway employees became healthier over that same period.

Unleashing the power of choices in health care for private companies and government programs could dramatically reduce health care costs while improving the health of the overall population and the competitiveness of the national economy.

Providing incentives to my children helped me to balance my checkbook. By doing the same, America could remain solvent with a lot less pain to beneficiaries and taxpayers. Perhaps Gov. Brown and other politicians need a remedial course in incentive economics.

Mark R. Kennedy leads George Washington University's Graduate School of Political Management and is Chairman of the Economic Club of Minnesota. He previously served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives and was Senior Vice President and Treasurer of Federated Department Stores (now Macy's).

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — Female farmworkers across the United States are commonly sexually harassed and assaulted, in part because their immigration status makes them fearful of calling police, according to a report being released Wednesday by Human Rights Watch.

The survey by the international rights group mirrors two previous reports on the risks facing women and girls that had focused on California, where most of the nation's farmworkers reside.

"Our research confirms what farmworker advocates across the country believe: Sexual violence and sexual harassment experienced by farmworkers is common enough that some farmworker women see these abuses as an unavoidable condition of agricultural work," said the report.

An estimated 630,000 of the 3 million people who perform migrant and seasonal farm work are women. The federal government estimates that 60 percent of them are undocumented.

"It's easiest for abusers to get away with sexual harassment where there's an imbalance of power, and the imbalance of power is particularly stark on farms," the report's author, Grace Meng, told The Associated Press.

The report calls on Congress to pass laws protecting immigrant farmworker women, and for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to repeal rules that encourage local police to report federal immigration violations.

The report describes incidences of rape, stalking, fondling and vulgar language used against women, who say they often don't report it because they are afraid of being fired or, worse, deported.

Meng interviewed 52 farmworkers and 110 attorneys, social service providers, law enforcement officials and members of the agriculture industry in New York, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Colorado, Ohio, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and the state of Washington, but focused primarily on California because of its large farmworker population.

Women who work for labor contractors are more vulnerable than those who work directly for a farmer, the report said.

"The goal of our report was to show that this was a national problem. And to show the governmental barriers that exist to reporting these crimes and abuses. And to demonstrate it's a human rights problem," Meng said.

While previous studies have said that up to 80 percent of women who work in the fields have been harassed or assaulted, a counselor in the heart of California's agriculture region says her experience puts it at closer to half. She said the problem exists in all businesses where immigrant women may lack English language skills and trust in law enforcement, but that farms are the biggest employers so the abuses occur more frequently there.

Incidences are rarely reported to authorities, said Amparo Yebra of the nonprofit Westside Family Preservation Services Network in Huron, Calif.

"We have had a lot of complaints," said Yebra. "Most of the people are farmworkers, but if they get the opportunity to get out of the fields to work in a store, some of the owners take advantage of those people also."

Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal in California, and Bryan Little of the California Farm Bureau Federation says the legislature identified it as a universal problem. The Farm Bureau's affiliate group, Farm Employers Labor Service, provides sexual harassment prevention and training, which employers are required to provide every other year to anyone who works in a supervisory capacity.

"Agriculture is a big industry in California, but it seems unlikely that they passed this law just for ag," Little said. "They must have responded to something bigger going on in the workplace."

Josh Kraushaar, National Journal
For those who think Sen. Richard Lugar's defeat was primarily attributable to running a weak campaign or for living outside of Indiana for decades, I've got one number in dissent: 38 percent. That's the shockingly low percentage of the vote the six-term senator won this month, with a margin of defeat larger than any other senator in a primary over the past three decades. That's a 2006 Rick Santorum-like loss, for a politician who had been accustomed to coasting to landslide victories. It suggests that even if Lugar had run a top-notch campaign, he would have been...

Niall Ferguson, Newsweek
With the sap rising and the governments falling, all the European powers are merrily acting in national character.In the midst of a severe financial crisis, the French have just elected a champagne socialist on promises of a 75 percent top tax rate and a lower retirement age. The Greeks also had an election in which the established parties lost to a ragbag of splinter groups. The outcome of the election was that they need to have another election. (Cue Zorba the Greek theme music.)

Robert Samuelson, Newsweek
MARION, Iowa -- Sitting in the cab of a $350,000 John Deere tractor pulling a $150,000 Deere corn planter, Greg Carson embodies modern American agriculture. It's capital-intensive, high-tech, efficient -- and now immensely profitable. Looking for a bright spot in the U.S. economy? The farm belt is it.Driven by high grain and soybean prices, farmers' cash income hit a record $109 billion in 2011. Land values have followed high crop prices. Since 2006, an average acre of Iowa farmland has doubled. Last year, the increase was 33 percent to $6,708, reports Michael Duffy of Iowa State...

What is the greatest gift we can give a mother this Mother's Day? There are many answers, but one is to help her live and help her children live a healthy life.

As we celebrate Mother's Day and think about mothers around the world, the American people are working through the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to make every day Mother's Day. This program is quietly saving lives every day, restoring the health and hope of mothers and children.

Each year, nearly 400,000 children are born with HIV around the world, with sub-Saharan Africa being the most challenged region. In June of last year PEPFAR and UNAIDS joined with other partners to launch the Global Plan, an initiative to eliminate new HIV infections among children and keep their mothers alive. Its central goal is to reduce the number of new pediatric infections by 90 percent by 2015 in 22 countries which carry 90 percent of the global burden. The goal is daunting, but achievable.

Science has long established that we have the tools to push the rate of new infections of children downward dramatically. In each PEPFAR country, we prioritize a strategic combination of activities based on sound scientific evidence to maximize impact on reducing new HIV infections among children and saving lives. It is working: in 2011 alone, we supported programs that tested nearly 10 million pregnant women. Of these, more than 660,000 pregnant women were found to be living with HIV, and provision of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to these women allowed more than 200,000 infants to be born HIV-free. It's hard to get a grip on such large numbers -- 200,000 babies who now have an opportunity to live long and healthy lives. What better gift can a mother receive than giving birth to a healthy child?

Throughout my travels with PEPFAR, I've met incredibly inspiring women who are so grateful for this gift. In Rwanda, I learned of Theresa and how she discovered she and her husband were HIV-positive during her third pregnancy. She immediately started on ARVs, accessed through a PEPFAR program integrated with maternal and child health services. As a result, her third and fourth children have been born HIV-free. Over this past year in Rwanda alone, we have supported these services for more than 150,000 women, and now about 90 percent of HIV-positive women deliver healthy babies in health facilities -- real progress.

Our programs offer an opportunity to improve the coverage of HIV-positive women on antiretroviral treatment -- keeping them healthy, while also significantly decreasing their risk of transmitting the virus to their unborn children and uninfected partners. When an HIV-positive pregnant woman enters the health care system, it provides an opportunity to link the rest of her family with highly effective prevention interventions, such as HIV counseling and testing for other family members, treatment for eligible male partners, voluntary male medical circumcision, and other life saving health services.

The science is clear, and though the road ahead will not be easy, the opportunity before us is extraordinary. We can now say, as Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton did last year, that achieving an HIV-free generation is possible. As we have learned from the 30-year history and struggle of AIDS, extraordinary things happen when we work together. By uniting around our common humanity in a spirit of sharing, in responding to a challenge in front of us, we can give a chance at a full life to children and mothers around the world. Preventing new HIV infections in children is a smart investment that saves lives, and the United States is proud to partner with countries throughout the world to champion this cause.

This Mother's Day, let's sharpen our resolve to ensure that mothers everywhere have children who are born HIV-free.

Rand Paul took a swipe at Obama's recent support of gay marriage on Friday, saying he "didn't think his views on marriage could get any gayer."

Speaking at an Iowa Faith & Freedom event on behalf of his father Ron Paul's Republican presidential campaign, the GOP senator mocked Obama's announcement that he had concluded "same sex couples should be able to get married."

“Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer,” Paul said, according to Kathie Obradovich of the Des Moines Register.

Both Paul and Obama's comments come less than a week after North Carolina residents passed Amendment One, which prohibits gay marriage and civil unions in the Tar Heel State. A poll released Tuesday shows 50 percent of Americans support extending full marriage rights to gay couples.

Below, a slideshow of other politicians' reactions to Obama's gay marriage announcement:

Agiesta & Raum, Associated Press
By Jennifer Agiesta and Tom Raum - May 11, 2012WASHINGTON (AP) -- Americans are growing more pessimistic about the economy and handling it remains President Barack Obama's weak spot and biggest challenge in his bid for a second term, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.And the gloomier outlook extends across party lines, including a steep decline in the share of Democrats who call the economy "good," down from 48 percent in February to just 31 percent now.Almost two-thirds of Americans — 65 percent — disapprove of Obama's handling of gas...

One of the truly wonderful things about earning a living as a historian is that I get to ponder what sorts of current events are genuinely "historic," and what seem to be, in historians' terms, just run-of-the-mill elections, disasters, scandals, athletic achievements, or social movements. Like my colleagues, I'm often slow to weigh in on the affirmative side of the scale. After all, by definition all of human history took place before what just happened, and it's likely that today's breaking news, however momentous, will end up, in 10 or 20 years, as just another version of yesterday's news.

I got it quickly in 1989 when millions of nonviolent protesters in Eastern Europe dismantled Communist regimes at a dizzying pace -- and since I was teaching a course on social movements, the front page of the New York Times became our new textbook. I may have overreacted the night of Barack Obama's election in 2008, as I watched him in Grant Park, with goose bumps all over my body, and felt the hope he had called for in the campaign.

But just now, with President Obama announcing his support for marriage equality, I think we're in "history-making" territory. Not because of his own "evolution," but because of what his announcement says about the organizing power of the LGBTQ community over the past 20 years. According to Gallup, just 27 percent of Americans backed same-sex marriage in 1996. (I'd like to think I was one of them, but the truth is I don't remember when I came around myself -- I certainly didn't start there!) Now more than 50 percent do. That's social change all by itself.

But opinion alone doesn't change politicians. Organizing, political pressure, and achieved political power change politicians, from mayors to senators and presidents. "Power concedes nothing without a demand," observed the escaped slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass. "It never did and it never will."

Obama's public change of heart came because LGBTQ folks organized and marched and organized and acted up and organized and danced and organized and sat in and organized and demonstrated and organized and wrote checks and organized and sacrificed and organized straight people and voted and organized and married and organized. And because Obama needs them to win this election.

Given this history they have to realize that they still have a long way to go, and that a presidential decision is not enough to guarantee marriage equality in a country where 30 states have banned it. It's still an astonishing achievement. Historic, even.

Charles Mahtesian, Politico
So how did a felon incarcerated in a Texas prison manage to win 41 percent of the Democratic primary vote against the president of the United States?For starters, Keith Judd was either clever or lucky enough to have filed for the ballot in the heart of Appalachia's anti-Obama belt.West Virginia's county-by-county numbers tell an interesting story: Judd defeated the incumbent president in 9 counties across the state, and held him under 60 percent in 30 of West Virginia's 55 counties.

Even having good health insurance is no guarantee of getting the best health care. Ashlie Hubbard learned this the hard way after the birth of her daughter, who has special needs.

Hubbard and her family are covered by the health plan her husband, Jason, receives from his job as a tractor-trailer salesman. It's good insurance for the rest of the family but falls short for Emma, 6, who was born with brain abnormalities. Emma has cognitive disabilities, needs help breathing, uses a wheelchair and a feeding tube and requires round-the-clock care. The family's health insurance offers limited coverage for Emma's physical therapy and home aide visits but doesn't cover nursing care. What's more, when Jason's employer switched health insurance plans, the family lost access to the only pediatric pulmonologist they trusted, Ashlie said.

"It's a big old mess, if you ask me," said Ashlie, who lives near Memphis in Arlington, Tenn. Health care may have gotten more advanced during her lifetime, but it's also gotten more expensive, and visits to the doctor have become harder to come by, she said. Ashlie and her husband worry about bankruptcy, because their daughter will need special care for the rest of her life. "I feel like we're kind of stuck," she said.

Ashlie Hubbard and her family are among the millions of Americans having a harder and harder time getting health care services whether they have health insurance or not. The situation will only worsen if health care reform were repealed or scaled back, according to a new study by the Urban Institute.

Between 2000 and 2010, more working-age adults reported they had no regular source of medical care, hadn't seen a doctor or a dentist within a year, had unmet medical and dental needs and went without health care because of cost, Genevieve Kenney and others at the Urban Institute report in an article published in the journal Health Affairs Monday. The uninsured had it the worst.

The health care reform law President Barack Obama enacted two years ago can't solve all the problems with access to health care, the study says, but it can address one of the biggest: the tens of millions of Americans who have no health insurance. More than 30 million people who would otherwise be uninsured are projected to gain coverage through a subsidized private health insurance marketplace or Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

The law is in jeopardy: Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal the law if elected and the Supreme Court is expected to rule on its constitutionality by the end of next month. "If the key coverage provisions in the bill are ruled unconstitutional or repealed, projections indicate that the numbers of uninsured people will grow," Kenney and her colleagues wrote. "Given what we observed over the past decade, we would be likely to see further deterioration in access to care for all adults -- uninsured and insured alike."

Health care spending increased tenfold between 1980 and 2011, when it reached $2.6 trillion and accounted for 17.6 percent of the U.S. economy. All that spending isn't bringing Americans the best care in the world, either. Rising costs are making health insurance unaffordable for more and more people and the ranks of the uninsured will soon surpass 50 million. Fewer employers are providing health insurance to their workers and, when they do, premiums are higher and benefits more meager.

Those statistics tell a sad story about a health care system that's failing many Americans, and the Urban Institute report illustrates the consequences. "Access declined for adults in every category, but the most dramatic declines occurred among the uninsured," the study says.

The researchers analyzed survey data to determine Americans' access to health care based on several criteria: having a usual source of care, like a primary care doctor; having visited a doctor and a dentist within a year of being polled; seeking care in a hospital emergency room; reporting an unmet medical or dental need; and delaying necessary health care because of cost or other reasons.

In each of these areas, American adults said they were worse off in 2010 than in 2000, the study shows. Children fared better under most of these measures, which the researchers attribute to increases in health insurance coverage for kids, including an expansion of the federal-state Children's Health Insurance Program that Obama enacted in 2009. The study doesn't include people over 65 years old because Medicare provides near-universal coverage to the elderly.

More than one in five adults had an unmet medical need in 2010, almost 20 percent hadn't seen a doctor within a year, and more than 60 percent hadn't seen a dentist. The proportion of people who went without health care because of cost increased from 8.8 percent in 2000 to 13.7 percent a decade later. Even Americans with health insurance reported poorer access to medical and dental care and said they went without health care they needed because of cost, the report says.

"By 2010, the access picture looked fairly bleak for many uninsured adults," according to the report. Forty-eight percent of the uninsured had seen a doctor within a year, a decrease from 54.5 percent 10 years earlier. Almost one-third of the uninsured didn't get medical care they needed because of cost in 2010, compared to 25.3 percent in 2000.

Disclosure: A co-author of the Urban Institute report, Stephen Zuckerman, is married to Huffington Post reporter Andrea Stone

Photo by Flickr user Alex E. Proimos

* Nonfarm jobs increase 115,000 in April
* Unemployment rate edges down to 8.1 percent
* Private sector payrolls grow 130,000

By Jason Lange
WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - U.S. employers cut back on
hiring in April and more people stopped looking for work,
troubling signs for President Barack Obama whose re-election
prospects could hinge on his handling of the economy.
Employers added 115,000 workers to payrolls last month, the
Labor Department said on Friday. It was the third straight month
in which hiring had slowed, intensifying fears the U.S. recovery
is losing momentum.
Even a slight drop in the unemployment rate to 8.1 percent
had a dark tone because the fall was due entirely to people
dropping out of the workforce.
"The bottom line is you don't have evidence that this
economy has reached escape velocity," said Robert Tipp, an
investment strategist at Prudential Fixed Income.
Analysts had expected 170,000 new jobs in April, and the
shortfall could open the door a bit wider for the Federal
Reserve to step up efforts to help the economy.
Major U.S. stock indexes tumbled, with the broad S&P
index ending down more than 1.5 percent and yields on benchmark
U.S. government bonds sliding to lows not seen in
months.
Still, the report was not all negative. The government
revised upward earlier estimates for payroll growth in February
and March by a combined 53,000 jobs.



POLITICAL ECONOMY
The report could rattle nerves at the White House. Weak U.S.
growth and high unemployment create a formidable headwind for
Obama, who entered office during the darkest days of the 2007-09
recession.
Obama, who will hold his first campaign rallies on Saturday,
said he would urge Congress next week to implement "common-sense
ideas" to accelerate job growth.
"We've got to do more if we're going to recover all the jobs
lost in the recession," he told a group of students in the
Washington suburb of Arlington, Virginia.
His Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, repeated accusations
that Obama has not done enough to help Americans get back to
work. "We seem to be slowing down, not speeding up. This is not
progress. This is very, very disappointing," he told Fox News.
The unemployment rate, which soared to as high as 10 percent
during Obama's first year in office, held near 9 percent for
most of last year before falling sharply over the winter.
The decline had raised hopes that the economy had turned a
corner. Those hopes dimmed on Friday.
Even with the latest decline, the jobless rate remains about
2 percentage points higher than its average over the last 50
years, and the Fed thinks the labor market probably won't be at
full health until at least after 2014.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said last month the U.S. central
bank is providing enough support for the economy but kept open
the possibility of a fresh round of bond purchases to lower
borrowing costs should the economy weaken.
"They obviously are going to be on guard now that employment
growth is not picking up," said Sean Incremona, an economist at
4Cast.

UNDER PRESSURE
Many economists think the weakness evident in the labor
market over the last few months is largely payback for stronger
hiring during a mild winter. That would temper fears the economy
is losing steam.
Still, the employment report included several ominous
numbers. The participation rate, a measure of how many Americans
are looking for work, fell to a 30-year low at 63.6 percent of
the population.
The retirement of baby boomers has helped push that rate
lower but many people also have stopped looking for work because
they are discouraged by a sour jobs market. People must be
actively seeking work to count as part of the labor force.
The report also showed government payrolls contracted by
15,000, the biggest loss since November. Public payrolls have
been under pressure as politicians worry about heavy debt loads
and lackluster tax revenues.
The private sector added 130,000 new positions, with
manufacturing adding a strong 16,000 jobs. Jobs in
transportation and warehousing shrank by almost 17,000.

And another one bites the dust.

French President Nikolas Sarkozy just became the latest politician to lose his job because he wouldn't let economic experience - or political common sense - sway him from the path of austerity.

Will Sarkozy's downfall help Democrats learn what he never could? Democrats should consider Sarkozy's fate a cautionary tale - and a call to action. If they rally around the cause of growth, jobs, and optimism, the nation will benefit and they'll rewarded at the polls.

But if they keep pushing their own brand of "austerity lite," they - and we - will have gained nothing from the lessons of Europe. iI won't matter how much more extreme the Republicans are. Democrats, who hold the White House and the Senate, will still be seen as the party in charge - the one that presided over a terrible economy and, if the "Grand Bargainers" have their way, the one that cut popular government programs.

They'll also run the risk of paying the same price Nikolas Sarkozy paid.

The Austerity Democrats

This should be the Democrats' moment, a time to make political gains in the most honorable way possible: by fighting for what's right. Today's radical Republicans want to destroy government and slash the very spending that's needed to rescue the economy. The GOP is even rejecting the common-sense spending on roads and bridges embraced by past Republicans from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. As austerity measures eviscerate Europe's economy and undermine the political popularity of its leadership, this should be the Democrats' finest hour.

Unfortunately, too many Democratic leaders have preferred to echo the austerity rhetoric of their Republican opponents - and of Europe's embattled leaders. The President's last debt deal with John Boehner was a milder version of European austerity, and it slowed our country's tentative growth. And yet he's reportedly pushing for another "Grand Bargain," leaving him with a muddled economic message, and Americans in a prolonged state of fear.

Even Nancy Pelosi, a long-time stalwart of traditional Democatic liberalism, said that she would vote for the "Simpson/Bowles" plan, a set of personal opinions about deficit reduction which wassubmitted by the co-chairs of the Deficit Commission after they failed to lead it to a successful conclusion.

The Simpson/Bowles plan is nothing more than an American blueprint for repeating Europe's failed policies.

The Right Time to Go Left

These Democrats should have taken a cue from the surge in popularity the President enjoyed after he began fighting for jobs - jobs that can only be created through government spending. But they didn't seem to get the message. The President still repeats the meaningless conservative analogy between governments and families - that governments should "cut their budgets in tough ties, just like families do when they sit around the kitchen table ..."

Nonsense. A better analogy, although still imperfect, would be between government and a business ... a store, let's say, that has good workers and good merchandise, but no customers Nobody's shopping there because the showroom is falling apart and it's running low on inventory. The only way for that business to get back in the black tomorrow is by spending more today.

It's called "investment," and it's nothing more than common sense. That's what our government needs. Polls show that the public understands this common-sense solution.

Too Clever by Half

But too many Democrats seem to think they don't have to fight for jobs or spending to get us through these tough times - that they just have to be less extreme than the other guys. And they seem to have the too-clever-by-half notion that they can offer "bargainss" which the Republicans won't take, proving themselves to be more "reasonable" than the other guy.

One problem with that idea is that the Republicans might take their deal, as Boehner did last year. A bigger problem is that they're repeating the false austerity mantras of the right instead of explaining what's really happening, leaving the public confused and in despair.

But the biggest problem with that idea is the economy itself. More sluggish performance from the economy will sow more doubt on the President and his party while spreading even more pain among the general population.

Nowhere is the madness more self-evident than on the topic of Social Security. Its trustees' latest projections are seen as proof that the program's benefits must be cut, in classic austerity-economics fashion. But the lion's share of the changes to its long-term fiscal projections were due to an ongoing recession caused by ... austerity economics!

The Summit

Next week former President Bill Clinton, whose "triangulating" brand of Democratic centrism places him slightly to the right of Sarkozy economically, will join radical right-wing Rep. Paul Ryan for the second time at a "Fiscal Summit" funding by conservative billionaire Pete Peterson and his foundation. Even more disturbingly, Clinton will be joined by a key Pelosi aide, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, as well as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (who will also be making a return appearance).

Will Democrats use the "Fiscal Summit" and other upcoming events to challenge the failed austerity policies of Europe's leadership, or to mimic those leaders by leading us down the same road?

If it's the latter, they'll cause incalculable harm to our economy - and their political futures.

Poison

Austerity economics imposes sharp cuts in government spending in an attempt to restore economic growth. That's like putting leeches on a patient to draw the blood out: Instead of curing the disease it makes it much, much worse. Any lingering doubts about that have been dispelled by Europe's experience , where it has turned struggling economies have been turned into shattered economies.

And now Sarkozy's fall has given us yet more confirmation that the austerity which he co-promoted with Germany's Angela Merkel is a political career-killer. (Gallic pride made it impolitic to point out that France was clearly the junior partner in that duo, with Sarko playing Bob Hope to Merkel's Bing Crosby.)

Now he's paid the price. But Sarkozy's not the first to fall, and he won't be the last. Two leaders have already been defeated in Greece because they bowed before the austerity diktats of European power brokers. In the latest round of elections there, where democratic processes were initially all but overruled by the international financial sector, Greeks repudiated that country's externally imposed, "bipartisan" austerity consensus by soundly rejecting all the major political parties.

Would-be Washington "centrists," take heed.

Great Britain's Austerian Tory/Liberal Democrat coalition felt the pain this week too, as Labour made massive gains in local elections throughout England, Scotland, and Wales.

The "fiskalpakt" that the Germans are pushing on their reluctant continent is even becoming political poison in Germany itself, where Merkel's center-right coalition just took a drubbing in a state election.

That's not just a repudiation of economic policy. It's a rejection of the false "bipartisanship" that's forged when political insiders from the right and the mild left come together to follow unpopular policies dictated from powerful unelected forces.

As the guy in the cell phone ads used to say: Can you hear me now?

Warning Signs

Let's hope so. Because another disturbing trend to come out of Europe reflects an age-old pattern: When people feel fearful financially they turn in ever-larger numbers toward xenophobia, racism, and rage. The most dangerous situation in Europe today is probably the one in Hungary. The government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban shows all the signs of incipient totalitarianism, fueled by and reinforced by its practice of using thinly-disguised code words to reinforce hostility toward any citizen who is not "ethnically Hungarian."

Even after Greece's "bipartisan" leaders trampled on the public's needs and preferences, this week's election results were still somewhat shocking. The Socialists led other Greek parties for many years and won 44 percent of the vote in 2009. But this time around they trailed a party called "the Coalition of the Radical Left," which won between 15 and 17 percent of the vote to its 12 or 13 percent. That may be understandable, since the increasingly bland parties of European socialism have lost their bite - but what's truly frightening is the rise of the anti-immigrant and Nazi-saluting "Golden Dawn Party," which achieved its first Parliamentary presence with 5 to 8 percent of the vote.

In France the racist, far-right party of Jean-Marie Le Pen, now led by Le Pen's more telegenic and less blunt daughter Marine, performed exceptionally well in the first round of this year's elections. Sarkozy openly appealed to xenophobia himself in the runoff. Had Ms. Le Pen not urged her supporters to abstain from voting, his ugly race-baiting appeals might very well have worked.

It can't happen here, somebody's probably saying. But it can - and we're already seeing the warning signs. Our elected officials have an obligation to do the right thing for the sake of our social order, as well as our economy.

Showtime

Republicans are already using our poor economic performance to argue that Keynesian economics and stimulus spending don't work, when the exact opposite is true: We're doing better than parts of Europe because we did have some stimulus spending, but it wasn't enough. Call our policy "austerity lite" - but if we switch to the hard stuff we'll have a hangover that will last for generations. And if the Democratic Party doesn't clearly and forcefully map the case for the policies we really need, the President and his party could find themselves following in Sarkozy's footsteps.

At last year's Fiscal Summit Bill Clinton repeated the austerity-economics claptrap of the right, especially on Social Security, telling the radically right-wing Rep. Ryan that Republicans and Democrats should "break out of theology" and push for "bipartisan cooperation." Now Nancy Pelosi's saying she would have voted for the draconian Simpson/Bowles plan, which is more of the same austerity madness.

If we hear more austerity talk at the "Fiscal Summit" rom party leaders like Clinton, Administration officials like Tim Geithner, and Pelosi ally Chris Van Hollen the result will be disastrous - for the economy, for ordinary Americans, and for the electoral prospects of Democrats everywhere. It would mean that the lessons of Europe, and the fate of Nikolas Sarkozy, has taught them nothing.

It's almost showtime. Will the Democrats meet the moment and fight for the future - or follow in Sarkozy's footsteps and walk blindly toward the failures of the past?

RACINE, Wis. -- Al Trossen feels like a wanted man. The former Teamster voted for embattled Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2010 but isn't sure who to support in the state's historic recall election next month.

"There's so much bashing on both sides," the 71-year-old retired truck driver said. "How does a person know what to believe?"

A few days before a Democratic primary that will decide who will take on the Republican Walker, and four weeks until the general election, it's not easy to find undecided voters like Trossen. One recent poll put the percentage of undecided voters in the low single digits.

But that tiny group will be the focus of extraordinary attention now in a fiercely fought campaign that has become a national battle over worker rights. With the race a virtual toss-up, the rival forces – which include the national Democratic and Republican parties, powerful conservative interest groups and organized labor – must hone their closing arguments for people who so far have been unmoved by months of impassioned appeals.

"I don't think there's a huge persuadable universe out there in this campaign," Republican strategist Mark Graul said. With the undecided amounting to perhaps 2 to 4 percent, said Sachin Chheda, a Democratic strategist, "The challenge on both sides is to get people motivated to vote."

Most Wisconsin voters already love or hate Walker. Tens of thousands of protesters swarmed the Capitol for three weeks last year after he made his push to end most public employees bargaining rights to help address the state's budget problems. Recall organizers were easily able to gather nearly a million signatures supporting his removal, but Walker's supporters also flooded his campaign with more than $25 million.

The campaigns and special interests have spent about $40 million on a political blitz that has penetrated every household.

But voters who are still wavering include some who approved of Walker's cuts to state spending but who found his tactics too confrontational. They also include Democrats who sympathize with state workers but think Walker earned the right to serve his entire term. Some say they're still trying to figure out whether Wisconsin's economy is better or worse off with Walker.

"I want to find out the truth. Have we created more jobs?" said Trossen, among the voters interviewed between the southeastern Wisconsin city of Racine and the Madison-area community of Sun Prairie. Walker credits his conservative, business-friendly policies for helping reduce the state's unemployment rate to 6.8 percent, the lowest since 2008. However, federal reports also show Wisconsin lost more jobs in the past year than did any other state.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, who lost to Walker by five percentage points in the 2010 election, is expected to win the chance in Tuesday's Democratic primary to face Walker in the June 5 general election. Polls show him leading former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk, who has received heavy union backing; Secretary of State Doug La Follette; and state Sen. Kathleen Vinehout.

Sun Prairie resident Cathy Fleury, 50, voted for Barrett in 2010 but is torn over whether he would be an improvement over Walker. She dislikes Walker's tough tactics but says Democrats haven't offered any new ideas for the state's fiscal condition.

"If nothing changes, if nobody comes up with a new platform or any genuine new ideas to make a change, it'll be like a flip of a coin" on Election Day, she said.

Jim Morelli, 52, a safety representative at the Wisconsin utility We Energies, said he intends to listen to what the candidates say about creating jobs and improving the economy. Though he's inclined to let Walker finish his term, "I'm sure there's something they could say to change my mind," he said, referring to Walker's opponents.

The state elections board predicts a voter turnout of 30 percent to 35 percent, or between 1.3 million and 1.5 million people, for Tuesday's primary, which would be the highest for a partisan Wisconsin primary in 60 years. Turnout is also expected to be high in June, and the race now appears to be roughly even.

The candidates are relying on attack ads to sway or motivate voters. TV and Internet ads for Barrett and Falk accuse the governor of cutting funding for education and failing to create the 250,000 jobs he promised in the 2010 campaign. Ads on behalf of Walker portray Barrett as the mayor of a failing city with a poor economy and Falk as a poor fiscal manager.

Undecided voters interviewed stressed that party ties don't matter at this point.

Wendy Hanson of Marshal, about 20 miles northeast of Madison, voted for Walker in 2010 but later signed a recall petition against him. She said she was turned off by his "dictatorial" style, but neither is she impressed by what she sees as a lackluster crop of Democrats. She said no candidates have given her a reason to vote for them.

"The way this is right now it's going to be the way I feel on Election Day, unless something comes out of the box to sway me," the 50-year-old said. "I don't know what that would be."

___

Richmond reported from Sun Prairie, Wis. Ramde can be reached at dramde(at)ap.org.

LAS VEGAS -- Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is campaigning to win the White House as a Libertarian after receiving scant attention in the Republican presidential race.

Johnson easily became the party's presidential nominee at the Libertarian national convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. He hopes to appeal to voters fed up with the traditional two-party system this November.

Johnson was a longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination when he announced in December that he would instead pursue the Libertarian ticket.

He won 74 percent of the vote on the first ballot in Las Vegas, an unusual showing of support. In 2008, Libertarian delegates needed six rounds of voting to pick a presidential nominee.

Johnson supports legalized marijuana, low taxes and immigration reform.

He was elected New Mexico's governor in 1994.

Embattled Indiana Republican Sen. Dick Lugar has fallen behind his Tea Party challenger in a new poll that finds the veteran legislator in danger of losing after 36 years in office.

The Howey/DePauw Indiana Battleground Poll released Friday puts Lugar a stunning 10 points behind state Treasurer Richard Mourdock, trailing 38 percent to 48 percent.

Voters go to the polls Tuesday.

Lugar has been one of Indiana's most popular political figures for decades, and had a reputation as a statesman, running clean, positive campaigns. But with Mourdock riding the Tea Party's enthusiasm and putting Lugar's political life in jeopardy for perhaps the first time, Lugar fired off a string of negative attacks.

They don't appear to have worked, and on Friday Lugar was trying a more positive approach in a new TV ad aimed at getting out the vote and stemming Mourdock's surge.

"America faces serious challenges, but Hoosiers' courage and determination are unbreakable," Lugar says in the spot. "It's this spirit that guides me every day in the Senate."

He goes on to list the conservative agenda points that Mourdock has said he has failed on, arguing that he's worked hard to "overturn Obamacare," to protect "our energy security" and to "destroy and keep from terrorists thousands of rogue nuclear and biological weapons."

Tuesday will tell if the reminder of what Hoosiers liked about Lugar for so many years will be enough.

Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says it is "definitely not" time to attack Iran. Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin similarly caution against Netenyahu's impulse for military action. Sixty-three percent of Israelis oppose a unilateral strike on Iran.

What do these voices of restraint know that western hawks, and much of the American public, don't seem to comprehend? Perhaps that Iran is not nearly the threat its enemies have made it out to be.

In the decade since Bush's "axis of evil" speech, neocons have called for war with Iran. They have portrayed Iran as a nuclear threat. The propaganda has been effective. A poll two years ago found that 71 percent of Americans believed Iran already had nukes.

Yet American and international authorities never claim such a thing. The International Atomic Energy Agency has consistently verified the "non-diversion" of Iran's nuclear resources from civilian to military use. In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate under Bush concluded Iran was not pursuing nukes. President Obama's Director of National Intelligence agreed with these findings in 2009. Just this year, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said unambiguously that Iran has neither been working on nuclear weapons nor shows any intention of building them.

Just as 70 percent of Americans polled once thought Saddam was behind 9/11, though Bush never made this claim, a strikingly similar percentage of Americans believe Iran has nuclear weapons even though neither Bush nor Obama ever said so.

Not that our leaders have gone out of their way to quell the hysteria. In 2009, Obama made a huge deal about Iran's fledgling nuclear facility at Qom. Far from being caught red-handed, Iran had just begun constructing the facility and had reported their activities accordingly. At the time of this scandal, it was not much more than a "hole in the mountain," according to an IAEA official.

Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Israel), retains the authority to pursue civilian nuclear power. Its enrichment of uranium, now at 20 percent, has been legal and consistent with medical demands for the product. Iran has also expressed a willingness to negotiate this if it can meet these needs another way. However, even at 20 percent Iran's production is well below the approximately 95 percent purity needed for nuclear weapons. Many experts think Iran wants the capacity to "break out" and build nukes, but that would likely take years.

Some argue that oil-rich Iran has no need for nuclear energy, but any additional boost in resources is not wasted merely because the nation has other avenues of energy. The United States surely does not refrain from one source because it has others. Iran wants more independence like many other nations, having relied in recent years on importing refined gasoline.

We also hear that Iran seeks Israel's violent destruction. Many cast the Iranian state as a reincarnation of the Third Reich, run by a mad and genocidal president. But Ahmadinejad is not the true "head of state" in Iran, concerning issues of war. The Supreme Leader is the one who ultimately controls foreign policy, the military, and the nuclear program.

Ahmadinejad is often misquoted as saying he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" -- a mistranslation into an English of an idiom that has many believing that he seeks to "exterminate the Israelis." Rather, a more accurate translation is that he desires to "see the Israeli government erased" -- which is also the way American Cold Warriors talked about the Soviet Union. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor has conceded this contextual nuance recently in an interview with Al Jazeera:

"They didn't say 'we'll wipe it out', you are right -- but [that] it will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor; it should be removed."

Indeed, Iran has its share of anti-Semitic hardliners. The last thing we should want is to enhance their influence by seeming to threaten the liberal spirit of the vast Iranian youth. Fear of war from the outside is the best way to unite and harden Iranian nationalism, which would ruin the chances for lasting reform.

Despite the ugly history of U.S.-Iranian relations since 1953, Iranians have shown remarkable sympathy for America's culture and people, including in the candlelight vigils that flooded Tehran in response to the 9/11 attacks. Normal Israelis and normal Iranians also have nothing to fear from one another.

We must ask: Among the United States, Israel, and Iran, which has been belligerent? The United States has tightened sanctions on Iran, which hurt civilians in the name of undercutting the regime. Has the U.S. supported covert ops in Iran? Perhaps. Israel surely has -- including support for the fanatical Jundallah suicide bombers, which it attempted to blame on the CIA.

The neocons accused Iran of supporting insurgents in Iraq, although this is dubious at best. Yet, what we do know is that Iran has regarded the Sunni radicals in Iraq, like it views al Qaeda, as its enemies, and indeed reached out to its Shia coreligionists in Iraq to encourage a ceasefire with U.S. troops.

The Israeli state wants war, despite its people's wishes. Obama claims to want peace, even as he tightens the sanctions -- an act classically regarded a war maneuver. The presumptive Republican presidential candidate has promised to be even more extreme.

Both Israel and the United States have considerable nuclear weapons stockpiles. Iran has none. The U.S. conducts war policies that are widely unpopular among its own people. The Obama administration has provided bunker-busters to Israel, presumably for attacking Iran. In the last decade, both Israel and the United States have engaged in invasions of other countries. The Persians have not launched a conventional war in centuries.

There is much to despise about the Iranian government. Like most Muslim states, it is theocratic and thoroughly illiberal. But if we are searching for an aggressive nuclear regime, determined to wage war despite standards of constitutional restraint, democratic principles, and international law, we have two possible candidates that fit the bill. Iran is not one of them.