All progressive people should rally behind Obama as the alternative is too hideous to contemplate. We have watched the Clinton campaign in absolute disgust as they increasingly resemble Jim and Tammy Lee Baker.

This is an open response from a European blogger. Included below is an open letter to the director of Barak Obama's and to Barak Obama. The media continues to do what it can to cast Obama in a secondary position but many of us are aware of this tactic to diffuse his candidacy. I think the party and the public should be put on notice that this is the election that affects the young people and with this new support, for the first time, this tactic will not be tolerated. THIS ELECTION WILL BE BASED ON THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

lETTER FROM EUROPE

Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realise that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do effects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessent bickering amongst yourselves.The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life.What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists.Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote doesn't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy.


MY LETTER TO CAMPAIGN DIRECTOR.

Dear Mr. David Plouffe,

Thank you for your request, although by e-mail for a letter supporting Barak Obama to be directed to the super delegates. I am a visual artist, Filmmaker and global communicator. I have recently returned from Africa and work on both sides of the Atlantic in Europe. I know from my work that people for the first time in a long time are hoping for a change in America. Europeans believe that Barak Obama offers the possibility that America will once again join the global community. His stated environmental objectives create enthusiasm in those in other parts of the world.

There are some here who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the democratic party. This raises the specter of large-scale defections toward the Republican agenda that does not align itself with the peoples democratic and non-militant direction. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people-who have a hope of change and believe that change-risk an upheaval that could possibly tilt the election toward the Republican direction. They would refuse to turn out for the Clinton camp.

Many fear that Obama may lose the election as a result of the strange electoral system and candidate approval mechanisms, felt to be undemocratic. This reflects the basic problem of what many think is a so-called democracy in America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction of the country. The Electoral College can make a change as we saw in the 2004 election which allowed Bush to take office, this renders the popular vote, void. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled races and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party.

Further, should he be forced to that position by the party, he should leave the Democratic Party and form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This is what every one who is really thinking in this country and abroad wants and thinks the USA very much needs. Should that occur I think he should attempt to attract the Green Party and other great thinkers, who believe as he does, and his rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations.

He has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, "right now", not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he could claim the office of president.

He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take these courageous steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party change and changes in American direction. He should take this radical shift, if necessary! By doing this he would serve notice to the Democratic Party by creating a third party should the first place win be denied him. Should the party be given to Clinton, we all lose and the possibility of change goes down with her selection. Should he follow the Clinton policy as suggested by some pundits we all fail. By his taking half the country with him to a third party we all have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress. The only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win by forcing Barak Obama to take second place.

This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing being moved to second place. It would force the super delegates to reflect the will of the people. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the position of many "super delegates" would be to overturn the national-will, regardless of Barak Obama taking the popular vote. This would cause the disaffection of the youth of America. No one has a right to do that since the older generation through "the failed policies of the past" has put the USA and the World in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.

In the final analysis the USA did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage necessary for this time by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. The media and the democratic establishment suggests this scenario by supporting the status quo and have the temerity to think it can choose the way the people think. Wolf Blitzer on CNN is the scourge of presumption. These policies, if continued will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth. Also, it could by default elect John McCain and with him a continuation of war for another hundred years. This is a moot point since just thirty years remain before environmental disaazter takes holdbecause that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics, environmental direction and economics.

Shame on you, Barack. No true progressive would be caught on camera (or, for that matter, dead) drinking commercial bottled water. It's bad for the environment, bad for local communities, bad for indigenous and organic agricultures, bad for the health, even the continued existence, of public water supplies. It is superbly wasteful of transport and manufacturing energy, and contributes to the privatization agenda of the most rapacious multinational corporations.

See the Pacific Institute's web summary of the effects of bottled water:
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/water_and_sustainability/bottled_water/bottled_water_and_energy.html

Read Maude Barlow's new book "Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water"

Watch your mail for a permanent-use Nalgene drinking bottle, with my compliments, which you should have your aides fill from the tap. And if I don't see you using it, you won't get my vote.

And to ike kay ... the alternative to Obama is not the Republicans, it's the Greens.

NALGENE is bad too!

How about a SIGG bottle...

?

I think folks should watch OBAMA hard.. If we get him in office... (which would definately be better than McCain but Not NEARLY as good as KUCINICH... arrrgggh)...

He supports NUCLEAR POWER...

He doesn't have much "background".... so if we watch him.. and keep on him AND remember to elect PROPER democrats... (don't forget that Kucinich is fighting for his seat in Cleveland and needs monetary and other forms of support!!!!).

we might be able to change things around.

But yes. Speeches and rhetoric only move folks to act.. if folks just sit there all glassy eyed and don't do anything.. change won't happen!

It still is all up to US.

Don't rely on miracle solutions.

You would be inclined to guess correctly that the Obama freight train grabs onto this endorsement and stowes it in the war chest. Unfortunately, the SEIU lost better choices for president.
For other groups, who are also endorsing Obama, the very idea of collective bargaining is forbidden in their agendas. Job security is antithetical to corporate interests, pension a long forgotten word and health insurance is too expensive.
For example: Working with the vested interests of Wall Street, computer professionals were seen as an early threat as long ago as the 70s; no way in hell will these knowledge workers be allowed to gain any power. So, today we see a volatile industry, without job security, with stagnant wages, and progress is beholden to major software or hardware corporations, that spend more on marketing, suits and patents
then on innovation.
Worst of all, leadership in technology and creativity has largely been sacrificied to other countries that decided to less greedily invest in their own people.

OK, Caelidh ... you've shamed me into the more expensive Sigg, which I will mail to Obama on Monday. Let's see if it shows up on the campaign trail.

Some readers here may think this a peculiar hobby horse, but the coming conflict over water will make peak oil look like hide and seek. I can't believe the carelessness folks display in their consumer choices ...

The Clinton attack on Obama on social security appears particularly egregious. Contrary to the ad's claim, Obama has ruled out raising the retirement age or cutting benefits (10/27/07, cited below). But Obama HAS advocated two things that Clinton does not: (a) returning the first $500 per year of payroll tax to every worker (in the form of a tax credit), and (b) raising the income ceiling on the payroll tax to either above 97K or above 200K (with a "doughnut hole" exemption between 97K and 200K). In short, Obama's program is to move the payroll tax toward less regressivity.

Clinton to her utter discredit has not only ruled out the last serious proposal of Obama above (and Edwards, when he was still in the campaign) of raising the income limit subject to payroll tax, but has ridiculously described this in inflammatory campaign literature as Obama advocating a "trillion dollar tax cut increase on the middle class".

Bottom line: Obama is going to attempt to expand the tax base for social security/medicaid revenue (the payroll tax) above the 200K level, toward an objective of making the payroll tax less regressive. Clinton has RULED OUT making the payroll tax less regressive and attacks Obama on this.

But in Clinton's ad, as reported, she also rules out most other ways of addressing social security/medicare long-term fiscal viability, namely raising the retirement age and/or cutting benefits. Clinton's program for long-term fiscal viability of these programs in the past has been the proverbial "bipartisan commission" to recommend what to do (things that Clinton says now she won't?).

In short, Clinton's attacks on Obama on this issue appear nonsensical and contradictory. Obama by contrast has a straightforward program: move the payroll tax toward toward less regressivity, and at the same time in a single bullet remove the fiscal viability long-term issues cited by Republican ideologues who want to see social security/medicare perceived as fiscally unviable so they can be gutted ("privatized").

From the Boston Globe 10/27/07:
"...Obama reiterated that he would not raise the retirement age or cut benefits for what he called 'the most successful social insurance program we have.' But he said he would consider raising the cap on the Social Security tax - currently imposed on earnings up to $97,500 - or creating a so-called doughnut hole that would reinstate the tax once income hits a certain level ..."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/28/obama_proposes_increasing_social_security_tax_on_wealthy/

As a sidelight: use a glass bottle; remember glass? I have been carrying water from home in a glass bottle for years, and have never broken one.

I am a self-directed consumer robot. I can only see freedom in the context of being directed by others, who care about self, in the consumer choices I should make. Beep. Bop. Twitter. Tell me what is progressive. I can't read so good and need a PhD to tell me what to think.

Drholmquist says, "I can't believe the carelessness folks display in their consumer choices."

I couldn't agree more. Every day millions of people buy progressive or cool brands that are produced by slave labour in China. Hey, in fact, that Macintosh or Dell you are using was manufactured in China by workers being cheated of their basic rights under Chinese labour laws.

But hey, who cares about Chinese slavery.

Has Obama pledged his ever-abiding love and loyalty to Israel yet, as Hillary has done? Is he pro-war and enthusiastic about pre-emptive war and war profiteering as Hillary the Hawk is?

You know Obama could have easily just used whatever water was supplied by the people who ran the meeting. For all we know it's tap water in a recycled commercial bottle. I also don't think I'd have the option of carrying a glass bottle around with me if I was touring the country trying to win a presidential primary. This is a lot of criticism based on a photo. The coming water shortage and privatization of water may be a problem, but if a future president Obama wants to do something about it I don't think a photo of him drinking bottled water will hurt his chances. If he chooses to do nothing about it that's the time to protest his position. We are locked in a struggle to get the most Progressive candidate possible into the Whitehouse after 27 years of Reaganomics and 7 years of Bush Jr. We want to resurrect our social safety net and stop the two illegal wars we are now involved in. We would like better than Obama, but he's all we have; unless you think Clinton or McCain don't drink bottled water.

This article reports on the candidates arguments about healthcare. However, it should be mentioned that neither Obama nor Clinton is proposing a single-payer plan or socialized medicine where the people fund their own health insurance program. Both candidates want to tinker a little with the current corporatized HMO system, which was designed to limit care for Americans (see Michael Moore's "Sicko" movie). The insurance companies pocket the profit that comes from deferring treatments, and they suck down around about a third of every healthcare dollar for administering this scheme. Government-run healthcare programs, as found in Canada to the north, are far more frugle in terms of administrative costs (which is all insurance companies do). It's something like less than one percent, I believe, up in Canada for these administrative costs.

Obama and Clinton are just putting lipstick on a pig. Try not to get excited about any supposed differences in their healthcare programs, which still have insurance companies limiting our care and calling the shots. If there is any difference, it's that Clinton has received the most lobbyist dollars from healthcare industries - a very bad sign. But I don't see much of a difference between the two candidates on this topic, despite the rhetoric being thrown around in this article.

Drholmquist says: The answer for him is not Obama but the Greens, that kind of anarchy could defeat any rational thought. Some structure is required other than for example the many ideas that fly in the breeze here. Anarchy does not work!!!!

The people who think nothing will change if Obama is elected are extremely cynical in some people and skeptical with others and with with good reason. Yes Barbara, he is presently running with many party hacks, and will be in the future controlled by some measure with party influence, as a result of an agenda that has existed in the USA since the robber baron era. Having said that, as well as many of you writing here who want change, the only offer of that is with Obama. Anyone out there have a better plan?

Barbara's article which has prompted the response, is hoping that something will shake this country into a new direction that includes, ending the war, which is robbing every single person in the USA of wealth, health care and a reasonable life, is paramount. As well as other comforts promised by the industrial revolution but have yet to be forthcoming, without a price many cannot pay, was health, a life of ease, education and so many others used by the political machinery to get the public to do what the leaders want done.

If the average US citizen has some comforts it has come at a price that is questionable. The prices are generations of young people killed to support an ideology that was flawed from the outset. A work ethic that has the wage-earners in families in the USA, working two and three jobs to pay for their basic needs and forty million people living in poverty. The system supports another form of slavery.

All this based in a "free enterprise" system of government that allows corporations the right to, exploit their workers, go where they wish with government subsidy- thereby destroying communities which they were part- and the lives of people without any checks by government; also to pollute the population and communities with toxic waste leading to any number of health related issues. The public is left to pay for the medical attention caused by the pollution the corporations have caused, if they have the money to do so.

The "American Dream" has caused endless abuses to its population, with the false promise of fame and riches that are legend, supported by the Hollywood myth and media indoctrination. The claim that anyone can be president is manifold. However by some fluke of chance and hard work a man has come along that somehow defied conventional wisdom and possibility. He has made the inroads into populist thinking. The masses and particularly the young who want to be heard have embraced him.

Barbara, he has given voice to the dissatisfaction felt by so many people in the USA and the world. Obama has offered change, and yes, we who have lived long enough, know it is necessary to be critical. Obama echoes many of us who know intrinsically, what Americans understand: The USA must move in another direction quickly for its citizens and the world! He knows, as we all do, human life hangs in the balance and America bears twenty five percent of that responsibility.

For those who are cynical and pessimistic, I support your views but there is not too much time left! OBama, Kucinich, and even Edwards plus a few others out there have some good ideas that are worth supporting and trying to get the public behind. Given the nature of the political machinery, this is not a simple task and will require a congress sympathetic to Obama's ideals. It is necessary not only to elect a new president that embraces change but a congress as well that also wants these changes. Obama is not a fool! He knows that this will be difficult, he admits as much.

As populist president, it is his intention to go back to the people to help him get his plans through congress should he encounter difficulty and a deadlocked Congress as is the situation now. We need only look at the surveillance bill hung up for Bush because the House recessed before giving its approval. It was a way to allow it to expire before approval, knowing there would be a howl of public anger if the house moved to put it into law.

The American people voted for a change with this Congress, yet to be realized because it is still tied to the "failed policies of the past" with people like Pelosi and others like her, or the Clintons who are part of that inner back-room type of political deal. Obama is a realist and knows the difficulties in front of him should he get the nomination and the presidency. Unstoppable? Oh Barbara, how much I wish you were right.

The ideas that we all put out here are necessary for others who can convey them to the candidate. While it necessary to maintain a healthy pessimism, I think we must shelve cynicism for a while and not let it affect reality. Nothing is perfect; nothing will be perfect, including the nomination of Obama. But we must do what we can to make it work, as I am certain we all try to do. This is necessary to deal with the last possibility of change in the American way for both the US and global survival.

The war must end! The money spent on the war must be diverted to the rebuilding of the infrastructure of America, as well as to the social services that Americans want. The tax on the excessively rich as well as the diversion of policies away from everything in the world but American need must be looked at in a new way. It is important to help the world but not with military adventures, excepting those, which take place through the UN although, it too must change.

It is necessary to make America and the world a more environmentally aware place. The export of American technology can help its economy and also make it energy self-sufficient. It is not only America that must be assisted but also the world; Obama, I am happy to say, suggests those beliefs in his rhetoric. The USA lives in a world with other nations like China, whose environmental policy can sink us all.

These are the challenges that Obama has made reference to in his speeches. Yes, one can look at him and the entire process, with pessimism, as many do here quite rightly including myself. Yes, there is a possibility that Americans may be wronged once again by the political process. However, if we do not take this last time to try, by helping Obama if we are able, we may also give us one final chance to make the changes all the world needs. I believe as a fervent, committed environmentalist, working in communication, we have lost our last chance if we don't try.

Gimme a break about the plastic bottles. That's why I hate going to liberal meetings. People are so busy bickering about a hundred different 2d and 3d tier issues that they can't focus and get the job done.

Thoughts into action,
I agree 100%. Because neither candidate is talking about single-payer, whoever wins the election will have to receive MASSIVE grassroots pressure to push them further in that direction. The Massachusetts mandated health insurance law is not bringing down costs, because it requires people to buy private health insurance. Low income people can be subsidized, but ultimately their bills to pay the insurance fat cats just get paid by other taxpayers. The only way to cut waste, reduce cost, and cover everyone without deductibles, copays, and preexisting conditions clauses is to create a government run insurance program paid for by a progressive payroll tax. Sort of like an expanded and improved Medicare for all. Oh look, there's already a bill written that would do that, introduced 3 years ago by Conyers and Kucinich. HR676.
In my opinion the energy Obama is generating will get us closer to fighting entrenched corporate power than Hillary. He's being cautious, however. He wants to get elected.

obama 2008 !!!!!!!!!! let's roll the dice....nobody running for president in 2008...HAS NEVER BEEN PREISIDENT BEFORE...SO THE EXPERIENCE ISSUE IS MOOT...HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT ?

Complaining abpout plastic bottles at this time????

Goodness gracious - please take some time out and let common sense prevail. Later we will discuss your plastic bottles.

The world had better pay attention to this election because, if by the remotest possibility, Hillary, a replica of war mnongering Bush, gets the presidency our very survival will be in jeapordy.

thoughts_into_action and hamster, there is one huge difference between Obama and Clinton on single payer health care. That's want Obama wanted when he became an Illinois state Senator but he quickly realized that as he stated it, we would need the right people in Congress and the White House. Hillary Clinton never had single payer on her mind, including not back in 1992. And now she wants to garnish our wages to pay for her plan. Obama says it would be an unfair burden on working people to make health insurance mandatory.

Still think there's no difference? I see many more, as I have posted on Sean Gonsalves' article (7:57pm).

kathyodat

Kathyodat,
Thanks for your excellent posts on this and other topics.
I've been commenting a lot about single-payer and the differences I see between Obama and Hillary, for example see my Feb 15 11:36 pm posting on Barbara Ehrenreich's article. I agree with you that though neither of them are talking about single-payer, Obama is more likely to move (or be moved by public pressure) in that direction. I have ragged on people for claiming Hillary wants to "garnish people's wages", and here's why. That phrase (which is actuallly the media's paraphrasing of what she said, but it's close enough) shows she doesn't really 'get' the single-payer concept and she (and Obama too, incidentally) is framing the issue wrong. There is a big difference between "mandatory" health insurance, which implies you are being forced to purchase a product; versus single-payer, which is a public service financed by the entire society by payroll deductions just like social security and medicare are. This would be a very fair way to finance health care, because
1)you would pay a percentage of your income-- if you made very little, you would pay very little;
2) every American would get the same benefits, whether they have a job or not;
3)government-run health insurance would save $300+ billion a year due to getting rid of profiteering middlemen.
If you consider THAT "garnishing your wages", and consider it evil, then it follows you would favor disbanding social security and medicare, and other public services (roads, fire departments, police departments, schools.)
I believe the Obama movement has the potential to energize many more people to clamor for a single-payer system-- and that's what it's going to take, it's going to take a determined fight against entrenched corporate interests.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/search_simple

GO TO HIS WEBSITE AND START CALLING INTO TEXAS. ESPECIALLY NEED SPANISH SPEAKERS.

###

Riverman,
Crawl back under your rock, please.

hamster -- "Gimme a break about the plastic bottles. That's why I hate going to liberal meetings"

That giant garbage dump the size of North America floating in the Pacific is thanks in large part to OUR usage of plastic bottles and all things plastic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garbage-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html

Yeah ... stay away from liberal meetings. If you dig a hole in the sand and stick your head in it long enough, all that liberal trash will come oozing out.

Riverman,
You can go to pnhp.org to really understand single payer health care.
Think about it. The rich should pay more,much more than they do now, but everyone should pay according to their income. The rich alone can't pay for all the safety nets. Health care alone costs $3 trillion a year. You apparently don't want to pay anything for social security or medicare, which are (gasp) socialized systems for paying basic human needs. Which you may not need right now, but you will, even if you are "wise and careful". Your hero, FDR, started social security. You are a troglodyte Republican like Grover Norquist if you want to do away with social safety nets so YOU don't have to pay taxes. You will then have a utopia where only the fortunate survive, with yippee, no taxes; no welfare or food stamps or student loans; privatized roads, schools, fire departments, police departments. If you are hungry you will be left to starve. Sounds like the middle ages to me. Some people want to EXPAND the kind of programs FDR started. That's what I'm talking about. Nevermind.

On health care: today I heard (by radio) Bill Clinton speaking in Wisconsin, and he was good, making the case for Hillary's mandated universal coverage being preferable on financial grounds to Obama's universally affordable, but not mandated, health insurance coverage.

Only one problem: the most beautiful health care proposal in the world means nothing unless it is implemented. This election--2008--is a rare opportunity to get traction on the health care issue: favorable chances for a Democratic victory, and for the first time since Bill Clinton FAILED in 1994 to implement HIS campaign promise of health care in 1992, the Democrats have an excellent chance to deliver on this issue (Gore 2000 did not even promise more than to cover all children in 8 years; Kerry had a plan which became irrelevant due to failure to become president).

Note how devastating the failure in 1994 was: for SIX LONG YEARS of a Democratic presidency after that--a Democratic president named Clinton who had been ELECTED in no small part on a PROMISE to bring about health care reform--Clinton did not lift a further finger to try again on health care.

Lesson: you get one shot per decade. The opposition will be fierce, and success is not AT ALL assured. Just because a candidate promises a program in a campaign is meaningless unless it is accomplished (exhibit A: Clinton '92).

It is a matter of record that Obama was for single-payer at an earlier stage, and has explicitly stated he is still for single-payer--he just is not going to GO for that THIS TIME, or mandated universal coverage, because of a calculation that it will not succeed, given present context. Hillary and her supporters are saying her plan is better so vote for her. But which plan is better is not the only issue here. Which plan and which candidate has the best chance of success is at least as relevant. Again--if this chance is blown, look for another decade before the Democrats will regroup and retry (based on past experience).

It almost will take, as someone put it, a 65% Democratic President (elected with 65% of voters) rather than a 51% Democratic President, to deliver on a health care program. All present indicators point to Obama as having a very realistic shot at being a 65% president. Hillary with her high negatives and unifying-hatred effect on Republicans is hardly likely to be better than at best a 51% president--if she managed to squeak to victory at all, which is extremely dicey. And remember, if Hillary were to blow it (again), you don't get a second chance for another decade, based on past experience.

Obama's plan is a better sell as I see it. Don't underestimate the number of independent-minded grassroots Americans who get their backs up at "mandates" and "government telling me what to do". I have heard working people during my workday, fed up with Bush, fed up with the lies, no way going to vote Republican ... react negatively about Hillary's idea to mandate, to force people on this issue.

Obama's plan to offer a government-sponsored universally accessible affordable alternative, but not to mandate it, works for me (as a healthy self-employed person, I would certainly buy into it). Granted some healthy uninsured people will not buy into it. But Obama's plan (affordable health insurance accessible to all) IF IMPLEMENTED would be so good compared to present reality that it would change the climate in the US dramatically. Bringing the remaining uninsured (by choice) into coverage would be far more doable at a later stage.

Frankly, all other issues aside, I think Obama has well better than even odds to deliver on this. On the other hand, Hillary's plan, even if she were elected (uncertain), and even if she battled at full throttle for her plan (I don't doubt she would), seems to me a steeply uphill battle with significantly less than even odds of success. And remember--one serious chance per decade seems to be the way it works on this (if this is not so, why did not Bill Clinton try again in his remaining six years as President?).

gyptian
see comments by The Man 5:36 pm and DAB 8:09 pm. Well said.

my point: nothing will get done about the environment until the present criminals are thrown out... the only environment they care about is the one in their vast and useless bank accounts... the ocean of plastic waste is reflective of the one between their ears... etc, etc.

No matter who wins... we lose. These politicians all suck. Give me Ralph Nadar or Kucinich anyday.

scroller:
Obama's plan leaves HMOs in charge. They ARE the problem. Obama can't see the forest for the trees.

Anyway, he used to be for single payer before he came out against it (find the video clip on youtube); shades of his flip flopping endorser, John Kerry (the past endorsing a mirage).

Obama's plan is properly analyzed here by the excellent doctors with authoratative research on the economics of health care: Woolhander and Himmelstein:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/i_am_not_a_health_re.php

The Change Agent's plan is really, really bad folks. And after it's passed and we still don't have affordable health insurance, the huge build up to reform will have collapsed, another generation lost to insurance company rip offs.

Stop voting for emotionally potent oversimplifications. No more Bushes, No more Clintons, No more Obamas. Just plain no more corporate backed candidates.

The criticism you mention applies to Obama and Clinton equally. The difference between Obama and Clinton is Clinton adds an affordable choice to the menu and orders everyone to buy one of the above whereas Obama adds the same affordable choice to the menu available to everyone but does not force a purchase.

Single payer is ideal but is not doable politically yet.

Obama's (and Clinton's, and Edwards' and Kerry's before them) plan doesn't "leave HMO's in charge"; it leaves HMO's on the market as options if people want to continue using them (i.e. it does not execute HMO's).

I disagree that "the huge build up to reform [toward single payer] will have collapsed" if Obama's or Clinton's plans are implemented. That is just assertion on your part. That is like saying states which implement non-single payer plans end interest in further reform, which isn't so.

Your plan to get to single payer health care by refusing to vote for any major party candidate seems no more logical, at least to me. Ted Kennedy, who knows as much about health care as anyone in Congress, is backing Obama. A vote for Obama does not preclude continuing to press for more (from an Obama administration).

Scroller,

Why isn't single payer "doable politically"? Polls show a significant majority of US citizens support it.

And, by entangling the insurance industry even more deeply into the provision of public health - up to the federal government level, it would most decidedly make single payer much more difficult.

Obama is the master refraimer - but the media has also been negligent in not asking him the tough questions. Agree that the water bottle was bad optics, though one's mouth does get dry during speeches and it is hard to have a steady water supply when one is traveling - so can see the dilemma a bit.

Also there is the historical precedence of Sir John A MacDonald's water being spiked when he had to make the speech of his career - which may make candidates queasy of being handed a glass of what looks like water. Luckily for Sir John A, he had enough experience with holding his liquor that he was able to give a powerful speech anyway.

This talk of Obama being assassinated or denied the Presidency are more con than anything. The first makes Obama seem even more charismatic. The latter feeds into the idea that one wants something even more if one feels that one might be denied it. For example, you may have roast beef 10 times a year, but if there was a shortage in roast beef, the idea that you may have to go without it makes you crave it all that much more. Obama is roast beef.

RE: - We have watched the Clinton campaign in absolute disgust as they increasingly resemble Jim and Tammy Lee Baker.

Tammy Faye Baker? I think you got her crossed with Canadian Pamela Lee Anderson. Either way, Hillary Clinton is an intelligent capable woman who doesn't deserve to be compared to those two. And I am no fan of Hillary's - not after her reaction to the Michael John Hamdani incident.

RE: - The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life.What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists.

That is the irony that to be able to be in a position to get the smooch money out of politics, one has to be able to raise enough money to get elected. Giuli spent more money trying to win in Florida than any Federal party spent trying to get elected in Canada's last election and the amount one needs to raise to make a go of it seems to get steeper and steeper with every America election.

Manitoba is the model for Electorial reform and one of the reasons behind it was your one person one vote issue:

Our objective was to reinforce the democratic principle that citizens should exercise equal influence in the electoral process and to address both the reality and, just as importantly, the widespread perception that money can influence government decisions. ...

It is a core democratic principle that, "each should count as one and nobody is to count as more than one." This is the basis for the ban on union and corporate donations and the limit on third party spending.

http://misc-iecm.mcgill.ca/socdem/barret.htm

RE: - He supports NUCLEAR POWER…

Which is clean energy only when you compare it to coal. As long as the media keeps touting it as "clean energy" Obama's support of it won't hurt him. Also, if neither Clinton nor McCain come out against it, it will be considered a non-issue because it does not distinguish the candidates (and the media is trying very hard to make almost all issues seem like non issues as it is).

What was John Edwards's position concerning Nuclear Power?

RE: - For other groups, who are also endorsing Obama, the very idea of collective bargaining is forbidden in their agendas. Job security is antithetical to corporate interests, pension a long forgotten word and health insurance is too expensive.

The split between UAW and CAW was over the fact that Canadians had universal health care. It is not that it is so expensive, but that, since the competing businesses in Canada do not have to pay it, it puts American companies at a slight disadvantage. It is not that Health Insurance is too expensive - the American government pays more per capita on Heath Care than does the Canadian government despite not having the problem of isolated areas with small populations which tend to drive costs up. It is not that government operated Health Insurance is too expensive, but that it is too profitable for Corporations which sell Health Insurance.

RE: - but the coming conflict over water will make peak oil look like hide and seek

The coming conflict? What do you think that Bush plans to talk about when he meets with Harper and Calderon in April? Canada has lots of presently unexploited water.

SPP and water: Is water on the table at Montebello?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

http://www.lindamcquaig.com/Columns/ViewColumn.cfm?REF=46

RE: - The war must end! The money spent on the war must be diverted to the rebuilding of the infrastructure of America, as well as to the social services that Americans want. The tax on the excessively rich as well as the diversion of policies away from everything in the world but American need must be looked at in a new way.

While this is true, we can't forget that Bush managed to turn a budget surplus into a deficit and that his latest trip to Saudi Arabia was to borrow money to get the country through to the end of his Presidency. Whoever becomes President will inherit books which will probably be in a bigger mess than even I imagine. I would also not rule out ENRON type book-keeping to make the books look even better than they are.

Whoever gets in will have to start implementing their agenda carefully and cautiously to avoid having to cancel newly started programs. The Republican's Plan A is to get McCain elected and the Republican's Plan B is to do what they can to limit Obama to a one term wonder. The trick will be to get Obama to run, not against the Repug alternatives, but the expectations he ran on.

The closer Obama gets to the prise, the more he will sell hope as something that can be achieved, but with much effort and a progressively longer timeline.

RE: - Because neither candidate is talking about single-payer, whoever wins the election will have to receive MASSIVE grassroots pressure to push them further in that direction. The Massachusetts mandated health insurance law is not bringing down costs, because it requires people to buy private health insurance.

The easiest way to introduce single payer is to start off by letting government health insurance compete with private health insurance companies - because it neutralizes much of the private health insurers rhetoric - and is affordable now no matter how bad the books are. The ultimate goal, after convincing people that government run health insurance is not all that scary after all is phasing out private insurers.

I don't think that Clinton wants to get rid of Private Health Insurers or to even seriously compete against them. What is Obama's position again?

RE: - Because neither candidate is talking about single-payer, whoever wins the election will have to receive MASSIVE grassroots pressure to push them further in that direction.

How do we know whether something is legitimately a grassroots movement or just astroturfing (something orchestrated to resemble a grassroots movement)?

Vaudree, Good post.
To answer your final question, look up pnhp.org and healthcare-now.org, look them over and judge for yourself. Look up the credentials of the people involved. I have worked with them. They are the real thing.

USAan: "Why isn't single payer "doable politically"? Polls show a significant majority of US citizens support it."

Because a majority of the people is beside the point; corporations run America. According to wikipedia on single-payer health care, referendums for single payer have been proposed at state level in Calif 1994, Mass 2000, and Oregon in 2002, all defeated; passed by Calif state legislature in 2006 and vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, i.e. so far, a completely perfect 0% success rate. Kucinich's (and others) excellent single-payer proposals in Congress don't come even close to passing. The only candidate for the Democratic nomination who proposed single payer (Kucinich) got all of 1% of even Democrats' votes. What is your basis for thinking that single payer would be doable by a Democratic president elected in 2008 apart from wishful thinking? (n.b. I am strongly for single payer as what America should do, but that isn't the question I am addressing here.)

Thanks former nader voter for this link:
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/december/i_am_not_a_health_re.php

I wouldn't be so quick to link Obama with Bush in the same sentence.

Both Obama and Hillary's health care plans are deeply flawed, but I believe Obama is far less bought out than Clinton.

The Clintons had their shot at universal health care and blew it. Why should we try them again?

We are finding out that WORDS are important. A leader leads through words and inspiration. Words stir the imagination, get workers, get new ideas, and multiply the force. But, the WORD has to be authentic or folks see through it pretty quick. Hillary and Bill often come across as inauthentic as does Bush most of the time. Kennedy didn't, one felt he was true to himself and his programs. If Obama can stay on his message and not get distracted into petty policy discussions he may just keep on going as well as he has.

"Service Employees' Union Officially Endorses Obama"...

I'll just bet they did! And there he is, swigging that bottled Fluoride-supplement someone decided to tone-down his IQ with!
Will Alcoa let this guy (who won Maine!), run alongside Hilly after she gets all those 'super-dooper' Delegates she-owns? Whatcha thimk?
A woman and a black-guy (simultaneously one of the great-Chauvinist [the Woman] and WhitePower-advocate [the black-guy] in their whole/spineless-Party! Who could resist [I hear it's 'futile', anyway].

TOO funny for Words (but, Methinks that the bloated orphan-eater, Snidely Gore-himself, may just enter from 'Stage-Left' and be a Spoiler for Insomnia -- and drag along his new-Bud, Baron De Rothschild and Bush's[and that other-Queen's]Poodle from England, along with-him -- just to Instruct Kissinger&Assoc.).
Can you spell "Carbon Taxation"? [My idiot-cousin, Danforth Quayle the III can't -- but he could sure sign his 'X' on that PNAC-thingie...!]
I TOLD him not to hang-out with the 'big-boys', but he never-did 'listen'...!

Careful Obama supporters you might just get what you want.
You seem to forget your present President gave you much the same song and dance ,And he got elected twice, And ain't that something we still don't know much about Bush.
Imagine Obama being the same? Playing dictator signing his wishes into action.
Obama possibly a Puppet? Why not I guess we will not know for sure unless he is elected.
You Senator Clinton haters? I guess you just fail to realise who taught you to hate Bill And Hillary? Now think hard on that question,because it should be easy to find that answer.

And how about the last 7 years Did you enjoy your Clinton vacation? What was that you said after 911? Nuke Afghanistan?
Oh come on you know you said it How so I know? Because I did not see you anywhere on the news carrying an anti war sign.
Where was Senator Clinton Asked her New York Constituents?
Where was Anti War Senator Obama? In the Illinois legislature.
Would you trust a diagnosis from a doctor or lawyers that has little experience? Oh you will not care when he supposily makes mistakes. Or will they really be mistakes?
You don't know do you Just like Bush the guy that was going to clean up the White House.
Hey ,Go ahead trash Senator Clinton, But wait a minute is that what Senator Obama is supposily against. The Same OLD Politics.
Oh Senator Clinton is trashing Obamma huh?
But What If Senator Obama was Pure White? would you feel the same?

My apologies if you have seen this posting before but I thought it worth resending. I am a lifelong progressive Democrat who served as an elected official at the local level for 26 years. In 2004 I ran (unsuccessfully) as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention pledged to Dennis Kucinich. Since that time, I have continued to support Dennis because his positions on the issues most closely match mine.

This year however, even before Dennis dropped out of the Presidential race, I decided to switch my support to Barack Obama. Here are the reasons why.

Our human species, having come to dominate our planet, now stands at a crossroads. We are at a point where our own actions threaten the very survival of our species and perhaps all species on the planet. We are confronted by four great threats to our survival. I believe it is entirely possible that unless we take significant action within the next ten years, any of these four threats may reach a tipping point where our survival is no longer within our own hands.

The first great threat is the escalating catastrophic destruction of our environment, most exemplified by man-made global warming. Second is the barbaric violence unleashed around the world through a belief in, and embracing of, militarism by so many nations and peoples, particularly the US. Third is the crushing poverty and joblessness for vast numbers of people on our planet resulting in increasing starvation and sickness among the worlds' poor. Fourth is the deliberate inculcation among the general public of nihilism, despair, resignation, passivity, compliance and/or acceptance regarding these oppressive conditions.

These four threats all stem from the same root cause: the tyranny of unchecked corporate power, in both the workplace and society, which now dominates the decision making of most nations.

So why am I supporting Senator Obama? Clearly, among the Democratic front runners and prior to dropping out of the campaign, John Edwards had most clearly indicated his intention to take on the entrenched corporate power that threatens our democracy and our survival. In fact, there is hardly an issue where I am in complete agreement with Senator Obama on the specifics of the changes we need to bring about. However, there are four elements that I believe will need to be in place in order for any President - Kucinich, Edwards, or Senator Obama – to bring about the changes we need.

First, to be elected as a Democrat in 2008, any candidate will need to generate a huge turnout that will overcome any attempts to steal the election in such states as Florida and Ohio. Senator Obama has demonstrated that he can inspire people to believe in something bigger than themselves. The young, independents, the dispossessed, even Independents and Republicans are flocking to his politics of meaning and hope. Only Senator Obama appears to have the ability to turn out the numbers that no vote fixing will be able to stop.

Second, once elected, any President will need a significantly increased Democratic majority in Congress to ensure that there are enough votes to overcome the entrenched corporate interests within both the Republican and Democratic caucuses. Far too many of the Democrats will always go along to get along.

The truth of this can be seen by the results of 2006 where, even with Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, we cannot end the war nor impeach the worst President/Vice President combination in history. Only Senator Obama appears to have the ability to turn out the record number of voters that I believe will be necessary to elect Democratic majorities that are willing to confront the corporate lobbyists.

Third, once elected, any President will need to be pushed by a mass movement made up of grassroots Americans who demand the changes we need. FDR was famous for looking at progressive proposals and telling those who supported them, "This is great, I support this, now go out and make me do it."

No President will make the changes needed, in the face of the corporate power that will attempt to block those changes, unless the American people rise up and force that change to occur. It is not enough to go to the polls on Election Day. Democracy demands more of us. It demands that we become effective participants in the day-to-day struggle for the legislation and polices we need to ensure our survival. The corporations are engaged in that participation on an ongoing basis. We can, and must, do no less.

Also, the President we elect must be willing to take those actions that will enable that change. I can only hope that, based not just on Barack's rhetoric, but also his background with NYPIRG and as a community organizer in Chicago, that when given the chance he will rise to the occasion. It is indicative to me that only Senator Obama is running his campaign in such a way as to put in place the community organizing and mass mobilization that will be necessary to advance a progressive agenda once he is elected.

Fourth, and most importantly, a President who believes that he or she can get things done without that mass movement simply will not be able to bring about the changes I believe necessary. Only Senator Obama realizes that it requires "we" not "he" to bring about transformative change.

So I support Senator Obama because he, and right now only he, can put in place the elements required for the changes I believe in. Once he is elected, we cannot sit back and wait for him to bring about those changes. Instead, it will be up to us to fight for the changes we want. That is an opportunity that I last felt in 1968. With Senator Obama, I feel it once again. And that opportunity is all that I can ask for in this campaign.

BILL BENET . . . .WELL REASONED AND ALWAYS THOUGHTFUL.

Thanks Bill, well put. We were also Kucinich supporters, but have switched to Barack Obama. The only problem that I have with Barack is that he backed Ethanol. I also find it incredibly disturbing that RFK, Jr. has endorsed Billary.Perhaps after Obama is elected he can appoint RFK, Jr. to head the EPA, because even if he (RFK Jr.) had that position under the Billary, he would be buried alive by her entanglements with special interest groups, who foster no great love loss for the environment. And, as we all know, just like JFK said:"...big business are a bunch of sobs."

Take care everyone.

Anyone see Bhillery speaking in Texas?

evidently she studied Ann Richards(deceased) tapes and imitated everything... Texas twang, voice, body language, mannerisms. I thought for a second she had risen from the dead(no, not Hillery, shes still dead)

Clinton's are using lies now, modeled after GW Bush's campaign/now. Makes sense, Bill must be picking up lots of points from hanging out with GHW Bush so much.

Someone suggested to me the alternative to Obama was the Greens yes if Barak Obam led a third party not as it is and certainly not with Nader!

I've never seen that post before, Bill Benet, but it's a great one. You should spread it all over the net. Maybe write it up in your local paper. Maybe you've already done both.

Obama is a 33 degree Free Mason. He is also related to Bush and Cheney. We need to wake up. When a candidate is put forward, it's their "boy" (or girl). Obama is a member of the rich illuminati who has always run this country for their own benefit. The only one left who is for the people is Ron Paul, who they don't want. Hence, he is ridiculed, kept off debates, and not asked relevant questions.We need to research on the web, while we still have one! Search http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/48/ or www.prisonplanet.com/ or any of hundreds more. All candidates who are pushed forward from both parties (do we think there are only two?) represent this criminal syndicate.

EXCITEMENT is GREAT BUT, It won't beat John McCain in November. Yes all of the population thats "liberal" can get as excited as they want but, Barrack Obama will not carry "ANY" of the 35% die-hard conservatives that still think George Bush is great and he won't carry many of the middle of the road white folks.

Sorry, but at 63 years old I have been witness to many defeats of liberal candidates at all levels of elections across the country. Did we forget about George McGovern, Bill Bradley, Walter Mondale, John Kerry and the list of defeated liberals goes on and on.

John Edwards was the only Democrat able to win in 2008 and we shuffled him aside for rousting rhetoric. Well the people have spoken and when they get more of the same GOP ("Greedy Old Party") they can lick their wounds and wonder - "WHERE DID IT ALL GO WRONG"?

Look around you folks - America is 80% white and male dominated - Our candidates are NOT! Just when I thought our party would have a chance to enact some change and get some progressive jurists on the Supreme Court, we shoot our collective selves in the foot just "to feel good"

Barrack has 0% chance to win in November, Hillary has a slightly better chance despite what the GOP dominated media tell you.

GET REAL DEMOCRATS - or DO YOU WANT MORE OF THE SAME REPUBLICAN CORRUPTION? Is there anybody in the Democratic Party leadership that knows what is really going on? Do they really think that the GOP cross-over vote, the GOP donors to Barrack in the primary's is a "Popular Movement"? Do you folks really think Karl Rove has gone away?

Thank goodness that I have a pension and some savings but, I really wonder about the rest of you "wishful thinkers" who think that we have a savior in Obama. Good luck in the next Republican generated Depression - they only need a few more years.