If you want to catch the most up-to-date dirt on the shady FBI investigation subplot to Bruno's exit or the swirling gossip around his likely successor, be sure to check out the Albany Project, which, as always, are keeping it on lock when it comes to tracking even the smallest minutiae of New York State politics.

However, if, like David, you agree that Bruno's exit is a major opportunity for progressives to make a national impact through state-level, then you'll want to do a little more than that. The most important question to be asking right now is not when or why or how Mr. Bruno is leaving but rather what exactly a newly emboldened New York progressive caucus in the New York legislature should do once he does.

Frustration with this misguided, expensive and unworkable federal mandate also compelled another governor, Republican Mark Sanford of South Carolina, to call Real ID "the worst piece of legislation I have seen during the 15 years I have been engaged in the political process." If Real ID has any friends in the states, they're not speaking up.

Working at an organization that tracks state level policies, I can vouch for the increasing consenus against Real ID. Even states like Arizona that are leading the charge to crack down on illegal immigration realize that this "solution" is a crackpot idea. The Arizona State Senate gave Real ID a thrashing last week when they passed a bill by a 51-1 vote that would bar the state from participating the federal program. In doing so they joined the growing list of 10 states

Arizonans cite the cost of implementing the program as well as the unfairness of states taking on what should essentially be a federal expense. Others cite the incredible risks of identity theft that the creation of such a comprehensive unencrypted database would open citizens up to. Even if you are a staunch opponent of undocumented immigrants, you'd have to admit that there is no substantial evidence that Real ID will decrease the flow of illegal immigrants into the country.

Again, as with border fences, if we're going to have a real debate about creating a manageable flow of immigrants into the country, we need to come up with more serious solutions than the ones being floated by typically out-of-touch DC pols.

Highlights include this astute analysis of the effect of NAFTA on Mexican peasants and workers:

NAFTA, while bringing trade and investment to Mexico, has had unintended negative consequences on both sides of the border for working people and the poor. Whole segments of the US manufacturing sector have been relocated to Mexico resulting in job loss for US workers. At the same time, the lifting for trade restrictions in Mexico have allowed cheaper US commodities to enter the country, decimating Mexican agricultural markets and throwing millions of small farmers out of business. Additionally, the availability of even cheaper labor sources in places like China has forced manufacturing wages to go down.

I would add to the causes of declining wages in the Mexican industrial sector the typical trend of prices outpacing wages that happens in most developing countries as free trade policies enable foreign investors to take a disproportionate share of newly generated wealth, a phenomenon that is also not too uncommon in the developing world, as David points out in a recent HuffPost piece on NAFTA.

In Connecticut, Republican Governor Jodi Rell vetoed what would have been one of the most promising health care reform bills yet enacted by a state government. (Yes, more promising even than Massachussett's health insurance industry corporate subsidy program, although much simpler.)

In Ohio, Dem Gov. Ted Strickland signed a $1.57 billion economic stimulus package that aims to create 50,000 jobs by investing in infrastructure construction and the development of renewable energy sources. It's nice to see at least some people in government realize that actually investing in job creation is a more sound way to going about fixing the nation's economy than $300 checks in the mail. The focus on creating green jobs also offers a refreshing snapshot of one of the more promising roads out of the oil addiction that is saddling our country with $4/gallon gas and three trillion dollar wars.

And for those Lou Dobbs fans out there (and I know there's a lot of them on this site), it looks like you'll have to wait at least another election cycle before the populist titan makes a run at the governorship of the fair state of New Jersey.

How does it work?

You sign a form that has some fine print mandating that you wave your rights to resolve disputes in an independent court of law and instead agree to have disputes resolved by an "independent" third-party arbitrator selected by and paid for by the corporation with whom you have your dispute. A problem comes up. You get a string of baffling, jargon-laden letters in the mail. Next thing you know: presto! Your dispute has been "resolved." 98.8% of the time you lose. 93.7% of the time you don't even get to show up at a hearing.

Wow. What a great system. Why haven't we figured out how to privatize more parts of the legal system yet? Oh wait a second, we have.

Thanks to my colleague Nathan for the link.

One of the main points that David tried to make in his debate with Dobbs and which he emphasizes in his post is that Dobbs "deliberately separates the issue of free trade from the issue of immigration specifically to stoke anger." He emphasizes that while Dobbs has "admirably progressive views on trade policy," he unfortunately uses those views to "stoke anti-immigrant and xenophobic sentiment."

To my mind, the important thing that David reminds us of here is that we must not lose sight of the fact that "free" trade has been bad for workers everywhere, not just in the US. The solution to the problem is not pitting US workers against immigrant workers, but to fight for increased workplace and wage standards for everyone.

Over at my place of employ, the Progressive States Network, we just posted on smart energy policies that states can use to provide relief at the pump while fueling their economies.

The most innovative proposal? "Pay-as-you-go" car insurance to incentivize less driving. The most controversial? Increasing the gas tax. That's right, increasing.

Check it out.

You know: good riddance and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Sadly, this article is only the most recent example of a national media narrative that reports ad nauseam on anti-immigrant policies but fails to take into account the budding progressive movement to implement more inclusive and economically sensible initiatives.

Of course, in the midst of the current anti-immigrant frenzy, you might think I'm crazy for proposing that there might be any kind of pro-immigrant storyline out there to report. And I would cede that the amount of anti-immigrant legislation being introduced in the states is on the rise. Just as I would cede that an awful lot of that legislation is downright scary in its nativism and economic shortsightedness.

But that's hardly the whole story.

Rather than running scared from this simple-minded chorus of xenophobia, it's high time progressives stood up and called a spade a spade. Allowing immigration status to be used as an excuse to exploit workers is not only morally wrong, it's bad for other workers. Standing by while hundreds of working parents are rounded up like cattle, separated from their children, and detained for days to weeks without regard for due process is not only cowardly, it's un-American.

Instead of tolerating the completely impractical solution of deporting 14 million undocumented immigrants, we need to come up with practical plans for integrating them into our society and helping them continue contributing to a national economy that they are already propping up. In the meantime, we need to make sure that the hysterical calls for cracking down on "illegal" immigrants doesn't continue to victimize the very same class of "legal" workers that the crack-down is putatively intended to protect.

Fortunately, a few enlightened state leaders in Iowa are taking some moderate but laudable steps toward achieving this agenda.

Joan Garry has a thoughtful post on the HuffPost today about the strong example of understanding across cultural lines provided by Paterson's leadership, following up on an similarly thoughtful article in the Times about the personal experiences that went into shaping Paterson's stance on LGBTQ rights.

Also, the Times puts an appropriate emphasis on the national leadership role that a Governor can play when he or she steps up to the plate like Paterson is doing:

... he is stepping to the forefront of an issue that has often tripped up his party nationally, and he is going further than either of the two Democratic presidential candidates have been willing to do.

As promised yesterday, here is a link to the video from my appearance on The Colbert Report. It's hard to come up with exactly the right word to describe what it feels like to be on Stephen's show. It's somewhere between fun and excruciating - and really, it's both at the same time (does saying that make me a masochist?).

Before the show, Stephen came by the green room to say hello and chat. He's much different off the air than on, in that he's not in character. The first time I went on (2 years ago) he made sure I understood his character is satirical (apparently, some guests - mostly conservatives - don't get the joke). This time around we just chatted about other things, and traded a few stories about living in the Willard dorm at Northwestern, where we both went to college.

When I was brought out to the stage, I think he could tell that I was nervous and he yelled out to the crowd "are you ready Sirota?" That calmed me down a bit - sorta took the edge off. But then when he came over and started doing the interview, I knew I was in for it. You'll notice in the clip above that he's aggressive right out of the gate, not letting me get out a full sentence for a little bit.

The trick of the show - which I'm curious if you think I succeeded in mastering - is getting your message across while not coming off as too serious and a party pooper.

Last year, San Francisco took an important step forward by guaranteeing paid sick leave to all of its cities workers. Earlier this year, New Jersey passed a landmark bill to provide paid leave for workers to care for sick family members.

Yesterday, the California Assembly joined the charge by passing a watershed bill to extend paid sick leave its workers. The bill is headed to the Senate, where it is expected to pass easily.

Paid sick days is a crucial issue spanning economic justice and public health issue that has largely gone under the radar of the national media discussion. In the case of paid family sick leave, it is also an extremely productive inroad for progressives to talk about real family values.

For more resources on the issue, check out the Drum Major Institute's very useful facts page, or the resources page at my own organization, Progressive States Network.

The Colbert Show is kicking off my national book tour this week - and am likely coming to a city near you. Check the full schedule here. I was in Madison, Connecticut last night with Ned Lamont at a standing-room-only event where we discussed the progress of the antiwar movement. I'm going to do a more expanded post on that event, including video from SpazeBoy.

Stay tuned - my nationally syndicated column coming out tomorrow goes into this in detail. The column is entitled "The Lamont Lesson." Oh, and if you hadn't seen, check out this Huffington Post article about THE UPRISING's controversial revelation from none other than Lou Dobbs.

I hope you tune in tonight - and let your friends know about it. Then I hope you'll go pick up a copy of the book at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, or through your local independent bookstore.