On Labor:

• Specter has a 61% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO, including high-profile opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act. Sestak, who in fairness has a much short “lifetime” to compare, has a 96% rating.
• Specter supported AFSCME’s position in 2008 56% of the time (and has a life time score of 54%). Sestak supported AFSCME’s position in 2008 100% of the time (and has a 100% lifetime score).

Watch the difference get bigger after the jump.

On Reproductive Rights:

• Between 2007 and 2009, Specter voted with the National Right to Life Committee 14 times and against it 37 times. Sestak voted against the NRLC on all 7 scored pieces of House legislation in the same period.
• NARAL awarded Specter a 100% rating in 2008 on the basis of his votes on the Hyde Amendment, the Child Custody Protection Act, and Wayne Allard’s “unborn child” efforts. No House votes were scored in 2008, meaning that the representative has no score for the same period.
• Planned Parenthood, for 2008, awarded Specter a “mixed” rating (79% support) on choice issues and Sestak a “pro” rating (100% support).

On Taxes & Fiscal Issues:

• Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform gives Specter a 65% score for his votes in the 110th Congress. Sestak, for the same period in the House, has a 5% rating. (Both rankings are here.)
• The conservative Club for Growth in their 2008 Congressional scorecards, gives Specter a 39% approval rating and ranks him 44/100 Senators. The same group gives Sestak a 4% approval rating and ranks him 296 (in a 17-way tie) of 435 members of the House.

On Civil Liberties & Civil Rights:

• The ACLU awards Specter a 45% lifetime score. Sestak earns a 94% lifetime score.
• The Human Rights Commission, for the second session of the 110th Congress, gives Specter a 70% approval rating and Sestak a 95% approval rating.
• In their midterm report on the 110th Congress, the NAACP awards Specter a 73% approval rating and Sestak a 92% approval rating.

On Environmental Issues:

• The League of Conservation Voters, for the 2nd (2008) session of the 110th Congress awards Specter a 27% approval rating, to Sestak’s 92%.

On Education:

• The National Education Association awarded Specter and Sestak each  a grade of “A” for the first session of the 110th Congress.

On Gun Control:

• The National Rifle Association, in 2004 (his last year of election) awarded Specter a grade of “A” and Sestak, in 2008 (his last year of election) a grade of “F“.
• The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, based on lifetime voting records and a questionnaire, awarded Specter a score of 10/100 and Sestak a score of 100/100.

Liberal/Conservative:

• The American Conservative Union gives Specter a 44.47 lifetime approval rating, to Sestak’s 0%. For comparison, Sen. Feingold has a lifetime rating of 12.04% and Rep. Barney Frank has a lifetime rating of 4.42%.
• Americans for Democratic Action for 2008 gives Specter a “liberal quotient” of 45% and Sestak an LQ of 90%. For comparison, Sen. Feingold has an LQ of  100% and Rep. Barney Frank has an LQ of 100% (both are listed as ADA “heroes”).

More rankings are available from Project VoteSmart on Sen. Specter here and Rep. Sestak here.

(By “lucky” here, read “determined”: I showed up at 4 PM for a 7 PM speech, and if I’d been an hour later it’s doubtful I would have gotten past the metal detectors and up to the stage, although by “up to the stage” you should read “behind a sea of tall people who prevented me from getting any decent pictures.” That’s earlier than I had to show up for the final of the European football cup!)

I was pretty happy with the location at the Siegessäule; Obama was initially considering speaking at the Brandenburg Gate like a president before him, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel didn’t like the idea (she thought it was presumptuous for a presidential candidate).

Neither did I, if for different reasons–the Cold War’s over, and today the Brandenburg Gate is the central symbol of German national unity, so I’m in favor of leaving it to the Germans for the time being. I was bothered enough when we projected our national colors on the Gate for the Fourth of July (our embassy is right next door), because really, would we ever let Germany project its colors on the Washington Monument? Or the Statue of Liberty? We wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t let the Statue of Liberty become a centerpiece for a German presidential campaign, either.

Rathaus Schöneberg would have been slightly more acceptable to me because it doesn’t mean as much to the German people, but again, Obama would have been trying to follow some oft-parodied footsteps. I was personally rooting for Tempelhof, the airport where the Berlin Airlift took place, but given the Hitler associations (the terminal was one of the showcase buildings of Nazi Berlin) and the recent controversy surrounding the airport (a city-wide referendum to keep planes flying at Tempelhof failed; somebody might have asked Obama how he felt about that, and he would have had to piss some Berliners off) I guess it’s a good thing it ended up at the Siegessäule.

So the Siegessäule it was. Most of the complaints I’ve heard have been that the monument commemorates a Europe at war (celebrating Prussian victories over Denmark, Austria, and France) when Obama is trying to build a world at peace. But honestly? If Berlin’s queer community, ecstacy-and-techno-fueled ravers, and Wim Wenders, have all used it as a symbol of love, hope, and humanity, I think Obama’s in good, if kitchy and suspect-by-the-far-right, company.

I’ll stop talking about Berlin history for a few minutes now. The Obama volunteers? Were doing their best to sign Americans abroad up to vote. The beer and bratwurst? Were outrageously overpriced. The rock band? Was mediocre and pretty out-of-place–people were so intent on seeing Obama that they didn’t feel like dancing, which is genuinely a Berlin first. The weather? Was beautiful. The helicopter circling the Siegessäule? Was very 24. The people who still want to try and get Hilary back in the race? Were handing out absurd flyers.

The one McCain supporter? Was holding an umbrella outside of the main event, presumably to protect himself from flying tomatoes. (OK, I didn’t see any tomatoes, but really? A McCain supporter in Berlin? It could well be an elaborate piece of performance art.)

And the speech itself?

I’m still not sure how I felt about the speech itself.

I can say that the crowd was not happy to have to wait an extra twenty minutes for Obama–while I’m sure he had a great reason, Pünktlichkeit is everybody’s favorite German virtue, and when you’re here, you might as well follow it.

I was personally disappointed that Obama didn’t use any German phrases. I understand why he didn’t do it–even a simple “Danke schön” would have been replayed by Fox News a hundred times as proof of Obama’s “liberal fascism”–but at some point I looked around at the two hundred thousand Germans and Poles and French and Italians and Czechs and thought “all of these people can understand you without simultaneous interpretation and that doesn’t deserve some sort of ’sorry I come from the only country where it’s still OK to be monolingual’ humility?”

I really liked the way he used rhetorical devices to call back to Kennedy (“People of the world, look at Berlin!” and they sure are right now, you unbelievably charismatic presidential candidate, you) and to Reagan (by turning every challenge that faces us today into a wall, even to the point of stretching the metaphor a bit thin, and telling us that “these now are the walls we must tear down”), trying to pin his speech up next to those two in the gallery of historical memory.

But is that where this speech will end up? If we achieve all of the positive things Obama gestured towards in his speech, there’s no doubt about it. But if we don’t achieve all of them? If we don’t achieve any of them? Call me a cynic, or say I’ve spent too much time in Germany, but by the end of the speech I felt like Obama had been spinning candy sugar for Europeans.

We’re going to get rid of nuclear weapons? And make education available to everyone? And give some meaning to the words “Never Again” in Darfur? (He could have pressed more on that point; it’s easy to guilt Germans into lending a hand in stopping genocide.) And feed all the hungry people? And find the cure for AIDS? And magically create a world of free and fair trade? And you, Germany, are going to have to keep your troops in Afghanistan and stop letting terrorists run around Hamburg, you hear? And save your beloved Knut (see the picture to the right; most of the political statements I saw around the grounds, since no signs were allowed in, had to do with climate change) from the melting ice caps? And end the use of torture around the world? And…

Wait, Obama, did you say we were going to have to keep our troops in Afghanistan? Didn’t you see the sign somebody hung on a lamp post outside? We really, really, dislike that idea and we’d like to talk about why before you keep idealizing our relationship…

So I can’t decide, now, whether this is a brilliant rhetorical strategy (dazzle ‘em with such a beautiful vision of the world that they can’t say no to keeping troops in Afghanistan!) or a terrible one (I am going to make a lot of lofty seemingly unattainable promises, and the one concrete action I will mention will be one they are vehemently against).

The people I’ve spoken to about it seemed similarly split. They all love Obama–it’s hard not to love Obama–but they were unsure about the speech. I do have to inform you that there were titters in the audience when Obama said “I know my country has not perfected itself.” Some of them came from me.

On the U-Bahn home, I heard a German woman telling her friend “I like him, I really do… but how can he say he wants to end torture but still be in favor of the death penalty?” which, while not my specific quibble, I think can stand in for a lot of people’s reservations.

Yes, Obama’s words and his visions are beautiful. Yes, his ode to the German-American relationship made even me feel inspired–Ja, wir können! I wanted to chant! Rosinenbomber ahoy! (And damn, Obama, was that a missed opportunity or what? Ja, wir können! I’m going to make a shirt.)

But if we’re going to turn those visions into realities, at some point we’re going to disagree on how to go about it. At some point we’re going to have to make hard choices–as Berlin itself shows, you can’t tear down a wall without some collateral damage. And at that point you’re going to have to make speeches that don’t make everybody happy. Are you still going to be up to the task then? Can you make even hard choices sound palatable?

I think that’s the unanswered question on a lot of people’s minds.

But hey, I don’t mean to be a downer here. I can’t make up my mind about whether or not I liked the speech, but there is one question that was answered for me at the event, and answered well: does Obama pass the “Kerl, mit dem ich ein Bier gern hätte” test?

Yes. Yes he does. Anybody want to join me in a Prost for Change?

Clinton primarily spoke about three issues he believes our country is facing: “inequality, identity, and the environment.”

One of the most interesting points in the 45 minute speech was that Clinton believes we’re facing increased polarization.  This seems to contradict a lot of pundits’ views that Americans are growing sick of “partisan gridlock.”

Here’s the story: “Bill Clinton Addresses Governors“

“Clinton wants states to reassert powers“

“Bill Clinton warns of growing polarization“

“The set-up for this summer is disturbing,” says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season…

Arctic ice at its maximum in March, but that maximum is declining by 44,000 km2 per year on average, the NSIDC has calculated (see graph, top right). That corresponds to an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey.

What is more, the extent of the ice is only half the picture. Satellite images show that most of the Arctic ice at the moment is thin, young ice that has only been around since last autumn (see picture, right). Thin ice is far more vulnerable than thick ice that has piled up over several years.

“There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment,” says Serreze. “This raises the spectre – the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year.”

I’m going to miss winter. Anyone care to go in with me for some property in Newfoundland?

And it gets worse:

David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey noted that the larger formation from which the chunk detached—the Wilkins Ice Shelf—could itself collapse in 15 years.

“Wilkins is the largest ice shelf on West Antarctica yet to be threatened,” Vaughan said in the statement. “This shelf is hanging by a thread.

Will Greenland have to collapse before Americans finally get off their asses and enact real policy change?

Invitations have been extended to the remaining presidential contenders- Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain – to participate in such a debate at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia the weekend before the crucial Pennsylvania primary. It would provide voters with the opportunity to hear the candidates speak about their views on the environment, health, medicine, and technology. The backers of this movement range from Nobel Prize winner (and Swarthmore graduate) John Mathers to Congressman (and former Swarthmore physics professor) Rush Holt. Other supporters include more than 100 academic institutions and their leaders, twenty Nobel Prize winners, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the editors-in-chief of Nature, Wired.com, The New Republic, Scientific American, and American Scientist. To show your support and to submit questions that you would like to see answered, visit Science Debate 2008’s website.