There's a lot to dislike about the media's coverage of the elections, but here's a particularly annoying example. Every media outlet is reporting that Hillary Clinton "won" New Hampshire by getting more votes. But this is the first article I've seen that explains that, due to the closeness of the race, Clinton won the same number of delegates -- nine -- as Barack Obama. In other words, in practical terms they tied New Hampshire. Given how much criticism there is over media hype and the extent to which it can unduly influence the elections, it's frustrating that so few outlets are explaining up front how the primary process, which most Americans don't fully understand (myself included), actually works. And this comes on the heels of what I thought was some pretty solid coverage of the Iowa caucuses -- coverage of both the complicated caucus process and all the drawbacks contained therein.
During last night's debate, Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked about whether she would read a book to 2nd Grade Children about same-sex couples. In her reply she said something which caught my attention, and when I re-watched the debate I heard exactly what she was saying.
Clinton said: "I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children with the many differences that are in the world, and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation."
Was Hillary Clinton implying that sexual orientation is a choice, and therefore is something that can be changed? Perhaps she mispoke, but the comment was certainly not taken out of context, so what exactly did she mean when she said that we should "respect other people and the choices that other people make" in regard to sexual orientation?
The American public made clear in the 2006 midterm elections that it was no longer satisfied with Republican rule in Washington. According to a report today from ABC News’ Scott Mayerowitz, some of the biggest firms on Wall Street are voicing the same concern the best way they know how - $$$. The report reads:
Workers at Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and elsewhere are putting their cash behind Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards over the Republican front-runners, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings by ABC News.
I still have "I've Got A Crush On Obama" in my head. But maybe not for long. Here's the answer to the question I think we've all been asking here at Campus Progress: What ever happened to Taryn Southern?
I'm counting down the days til Justin Guarini releases "I'd Give It All To Ron Paul"
Last night, at a theater in Washington DC, I saw Michael Moore's "Sicko". I left the theater with a sense of enthusiasm and passion for an issue that was dear to my heart but never was something I would write about. But now, this has changed.
It was an outrage to see the stories of these innocent people suffering under a system that doesn't want to care for people. Of course I knew that all these things were occurring but when they are placed with true-life stories it really struck a chord with me.
How is it that we, the United States of America, with all our glory and grandeur, all the hype about the land of the free and the home of the brave, all the stories of opportunity, equality, and justice under the law, all about community and how we all care about each other, all the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty and the words of Emma Lazarus uttering "Give me your tired, your weak, your huddle masses yearning to breath free," cannot provide decent health care for 1/6 of our population at all, and probably another 1/2 to 2/3 with insufficient health care? I dont understand how we think we are the best. Who are these 25-30% of the population who always poll in saying that we are on the right direction, or that we dont need universal health care? I just dont understand Americans. What is it about this country that says one things on the surface but does something completely different. Where are our family values? Family values of care, nurturance, community, and respect.
How is it that all of Western Europe and many Latin American countries offer free health care for all? For goodness sake, the country that we for decades have loathed, Cuba, has one of the best health care systems in the world! I dont understand how this is possible. We always talk about how its socialism, communism, state control, the terror! Our allies, Britain, France, all these nations offer free health care. As a consequence, they have a much higher life expectancy, they have lower rates of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, obesity, cancer, etc etc etc etc. It is a cultural problem. Michael Moore was right. The problem is that in America, its all about me. In Europe, its all about us. This Jeffersonian ideal, which has been central to America for centuries, the American dream is individualism. Individualism is a good thing in a way. But we have taken it to a huge extreme. But where are the politicians answering the desires of the people. People in this country want universal health care - over 75%. Yet again I dont understand who those 25% are. The richest 1%, fine. The richest 5% fine. Corporate CEO's, stock holders, businessmen, executives, political officials, entrepreneurs, fine. But ladies and gentlemen, they do not encompass 25% of this country by any measure at all. Who are these people with an ideology that is completely against their own self-interest.
The culprit is this whole idea of big government vs small government. Republicans and conservatives have done a good job of scaring people away from the idea of an efficient government for and by the people. They have deliberately constructed a message that says, we want to get elected to make government smaller, so that it doesnt interfere in your lives. Its all a deception unfortunately. During the Hillary Clinton health care reform crisis of the 1990s, Republicans charged she wanted to socialize medicine. Whats next, they asked? A command economy and a hammer and sickle replacing the stars on the American flag? Fear won. Yet it is 2007 and we are the only industrialized nation with no universal health care plan.
I will digress and say for a moment that our lack of a universal health care system directly impacts every aspect of society. Its plain and simple. Because of this broken system, our people die, spend large sums of money on medicines, and create a pill-popping culture. Have a headache? Go to CVS. Have a soar throat? Go to CVS. OVer the counter medications are the new American candies. Europeans, Latin Americans and Asians dont nearly consume as much medicine as we do. Think about it. No universal health care = no doctor to see because you cant afford one = over the counter medication alternative with no prescription necessary = more money for drug companies. Why do we have grossely obese people in the millions in this country. That is downright disgusting and we are completely to blame. Look at our diets. Look at our eating habits and working habits. Its a deeper cultural problem not just a systemic one.
How do we find it acceptable that people do not have money for treatment and die? What kind of country is this? Shame on this country. Universal health care should be a right not a privilege. A country is better off if the people are healthy and strong, we all know that, so why dont we take care of our most needed. Is it a racial issue? I doubt it considering most of the people in Moore's movie were white. Then what is the problem? It is completely disgusting that we don't provide adequate health care for 9/11 workers. These people and many like them should be at political speeches, conventions, debates, and on primetime news telling their stories and educating the public on this issue. It is a pressing issue. They should be put on stage at the Democratic National Convention next year to tell their stories. Unbelievable. How can we let someone die of cancer because their insurance company denied them money for chemotherapy. How is that not murder? Where is the "pro-life" in that? Republicans talk so much about being "pro-life" and that "every life is unique and special." Why don't they actually adhere to that stance? Ridiculous.
By looking at Britain, we can see that the government cares about the health and well-being of its citizens. Why dont we? Why do we let drug companies do this? Who are these people voting for Republicans and some Democrats who continue to pander to these companies?Who are these people? I can assure you they dont know a thing about the issue. We are the most depressed country in the West. No wonder the drug companies want to keep it that way. I am surprised our collective body hasnt grown immune to these drugs already. Drugs should not be nearly as expensive as they are in this country yet we allow it.
Thank goodness we have reached a political consensus in this country where all the Democrats agree on this issue. The Republicans will go down in defeat on this issue yet why do people still vote for people like this? How, I just dont understand. I really want to know who those 30% opposition faction is in every poll.
Are people opposed to using their taxdollars to fund other people's health care? Dont they understand that it works both ways. You pay into the system a fraction, but you get back a huge reward. Same goes for free education.
It is time we have a universal health care plan. Lets actually join the rest of the highly industrialized world and live up to our status as a superpower.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Utah finance co-chair, Robert Lichfield, is being sued by over 100 victims. Lichfield, it turns out, made his money by running camps where they lock up and torture people. Not convicted criminals. Not even accused terrorists. The people he tortures are children and teenagers.
Some fretful parents are mislead into hiring Lichfield, thinking his “treatment centers” will help their children avoid making mistakes. Other customers are repugnant parents who want to abuse their children and aren’t even man enough to do it themselves. Lichfield’s thugs lock up these youth and, as described in the law suit, subject them to battery, sleep deprivation, starvation, sexual abuse, and forms of cruelty that don’t even have names, all with the promise to parents that this will make their children more obedient.
Similar “behavior modification camps” have been run by Mel Sembler, Romney’s <I>national</I> finance co-chair. Sembler’s Straight Inc. paid out millions in lawsuits before it finally closed. (Actually, it still exists, but under a new name to escape responsibility for what it did under its old name.) Sembler survived with enough cash that, in addition to helping Romney, his other philanthropic work includes heading the Scooter Libby Defense Fund.
At the Take Back America conference held in Washington DC this week, the top Presidential candidates spoke to the 3,000 progressive activists, policy wonks and politicians presiding to convince them that they are the true progressive candidate going into 2008. Yet, what a remarkable shift in political ideology from the past 4 cycles. It seems that a new progressive movement is afoot and it is gaining steam not just due to the massive dissatisfaction with the Bush era and conservative policies, but through the enthusiasm of Democrats in recent months for the chance to seize the moment and move the country farther to the left to a magnitude that hasn't come to fruition since the days of the civil rights era of the 1960s or maybe even the New Deal Roosevelt Era of the 1930s and 40s.
Candidate after candidate rolled on stage uttering words such as the need for a "progressive agenda in America." We all may recall how Democrats have strayed away from their progressive-liberal roots in recent cycles post-Reagan era stigmatization of liberalism in American culture. The byproduct of that was the Democratic Leadership Council and the Presidency of Bill Clinton, a moderate Democrat at best. Therefore it is very fulfilling to hear the Democratic Party of today use "progressive" in a new light, a re-energized way of signaling a new direction for the country. It has signaled the beginning of a new progressive movement and a movement that is actually winning at the polls.
The 2006 mid-term elections ushered in Democratic control of both Houses of Congress. The more important victory was the large number of progressives that got elected into the Senate that year. At the conference, some of these movers and shakers in the progressive movement were featured speakers on panels including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Can we imagine for one second the magnitude of this massive political shift. The Senate, post 2006, actually has its first self-described Socialist. Sherrod Brown, a progressive populist, won in a state that has been solidly Republican for decades yet Ohio now has not only Sherrod Brown but a very progressive governor, Ted Strickland who recently signed into law gay rights legislation. The same goes for Colorado and its rising star governor Bill Ritter and their anti-discrimination bill. Ladies and gentleman, this is not just a temporary blip on the radar screen caused by deep dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. The former governor of Colorado was a conservative Republican, as was the state historically, yet they elected a majority Democratic legislature, a very progressive Governor, and a Hispanic Senator in 2004. The 2008 Senate seat in Colorado is open and the door for liberal Mark Udall representing liberal Boulder to win is wide open. In fact he is heavily favored to win. Can you imagine Colorado, a Western state bordering Wyoming, Utah, Kansas and Nebraska being a bastion of deep blue in the West by 2008? The answer to that is definitely yes and thats exactly whats happening in Colorado. One cannot parallel the blunders in Iraq for such a deep political realignment. It is indicative of a larger political realignment that is currently in the process of developing in this country.
Going back to the Presidential election, the successes of 2006 were part of a larger process going into 2008. Howard Dean, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in his closing speech for Take Back America 2007 stated that the 2006 election was the watershed beginning of a massive shift. The 2008 election will seal that shift for a generation. Again I strongly reiterate, it is much more than just the Iraq War. Conservatism in this country has grown and flourished since Reagan's ascension in 1980 and Carter's embarrassing defeat ala the Iran hostage crisis. Liberalism was dead at that point as we were perceived as weak, incompetent, and wrong for the country. Anti-gay activists and pro-Lifers gained power and momentum. That era continued into the 1990s, and gained even more influence in the 2000s as an atmosphere of fear plagued the post-9/11 world. Can you imagine Al Gore in 2000 using "progressive" to categorize the political ideology of his policy proposals? Never. That is why, I emphasize again, the magnitude of this moment. Every candidate on that stage that we can actually take seriously (excluding Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson basically sounded the same more or less on health care, education, the War in Iraq, national security, terrorism, the environment, global warming, the AIDS crisis, Darfur, spending, corruption, competence, and world leadership. Something remarkable was evident at that conference. Although we may all support varying candidates based on personality, style, experience, or approach, we were all part of the same emerging movement.
On that stage, the candidates spoke to the liberal base of the party. It was evident from the beginning that not only was Barack Obama well received, but it was a pre-conceived fact that that would occur with the multitude of Obama wearing attendees at the conference throughout the three days. Obama's speech was very positively received and I must say that for a guy who strongly prefers Hillary Clinton, I must give him a lot of credit. The crowd went wild for him, clapping at almost every line that he uttered. I will also express my deep sympathy for John Edwards, who has a great message, but was in the predicament of going right after Obama. This created an atmosphere where about 1/3 of the audience left right after Obama finished all the while people stampeding (and I will admit I stood on a char desperately aiming to get a closeup photo) to the front of the stage to get autographs and photos taken. It was just unimaginable that someone could top his speech. People were overwhelmed and emotionally drained creating a very awkward situation for Edwards where the crowd was enthusiastic but not nearly as much as for Obama. Unfortunately, I resorted to watching Bill Richardson's speech online and it seemed like a good speech, and well received but not a first tier breakout speech by any means.
I will devote an entire paragraph to Hillary Clinton because I feel her speech asks for such. First and foremost, her speech was very dull and what I would call "safe." She said nothing that got booed in the first 25 minutes nor much applause either. Now I say that because the progressive crowd at Take Back America isn't too cozy with Hillary because of her stance on the war and funding. People just weren't excited by her. I blame the early morning hour (8am) which was strategic timing so that she wouldn't go on the same day as Obama and Edwards. It was actually announced in the latter part of the first day of the conference that she would speak on Wednesday instead of Tuesday which I understood as a tactical campaign move. It was also strategic for her to talk about Iraq last which was a way for the negative atmosphere not to set the tone for her entire speech. She was indeed booed, as media reports have circulated, for a comment she made referring to the fact that the US military has done its job and that it is time for the Iraqi government to step up and do its job too. I, for one, agree with that. But people like "code Pink" attack people on the left and eat them alive. I actually was very angry at the Code Pink women for heckling her and Nancy Pelosi and I actually struck a conversation with one of the ladies from their organization. It was very discouraging to see that people don't understand the limitations of a certain number of votes in the Senate. I expressed my frustration with the ability within the Republican Party to unite under a mantra that is winnable and as the record has shown has won in the past with great success. Yet our side bickers for not going far enough and we just destroy each other and lose.
With the anger came optimism. There is a new emerging progressive era coming and this country is ready for change. People are sick of conservative government. People are sick of vetoes on stem cell research funding. People are sick of the lack of good health care. People are sick of an incompetent government that destroys our reputation around the world. People are done with the Conservative Era. Our generation is vastly different from any before us. We are much more likely to be pro-stem cell research, pro-gay rights and gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-living wage, and pro-universal health care. Our generation hates the hawkish foreign policy that has dominated this country since the Vietnam War. A new progressive majority is building with the help of the influx of Hispanics. People are ready for not just turning the chapter, but writing a new book. People are ready for a completely different kind of politics. There is something brewing, and I sensed it at Take Back America 2007. Again, its not just about Iraq. We, as progressives, must look at the broader picture.
A new progressive era is upon us as Americans are ready to embrace liberal values because liberal values ARE American values. This mantra was constantly reiterated at the conference. I knew at Take Back America 2007 that progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party and they aren't being alienated but embraced. Progressives are replacing the moderates. Progressivism is becoming mainstream. Universal health care is supported by all the Democratic candidates. Such a plan would have been heretical and Socialist only 10-20 years ago. Every candidate supports Civil Unions for gays and lesbians publicly and enthusiastically. Although I acknowledge that isn't enough, the country is moving in the right direction on the issue. I'm confident that privately many of these candidates support full marriage equality such as Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd. 46% of Americans support full marriage equality, according to a newly released Gallup Poll. That's the highest in history. It is, after all, nearly a majority. A vast majority want us to do something about global warming. A vast majority are willing to do their part to help that happen. This country is based on liberal values. We cannot forget that nor shall we abandon that. A massive political realignment is on the horizon and it is developing right as I write. A new Progressive Era is upon us and we must embrace it and propose our plans to the American people. We must do it in a way that breeds consensus and fairness. I embrace the impending Progressive majority with open arms.
With only six months before the first Caucus in Iowa, the race for the Democratic and Republican nomination is in full swing, but there could be one more name added to the list of potential candidates, a third party candidate. Could a third party Independent candidate really sweep in and bring an end to the two-party domination of politics as we know it?
I too was at Take Back America yesterday, wowed and moved by both Obama and Edwards' speeches. But I find it strange that Matt and Ezra found Edwards so "persuasive," "direct," and "plausible" on foreign policy. Edwards laid out a wildly optimistic vision in which:
1. American energy independence (hence, no more oil cash) forces Middle Eastern nations to invest in education, economic development, and good government.
2.The United States starts to rely on homegrown energy sources (ethanol).
3. Europe doesn't have enough empty space to compete, so it invests heavily in African agriculture and energy.
4. African poverty lifts.
These would all be excellent accomplishments. But the causality here is far from assured. I agree with Brian Beutler that this seems "incredibly difficult to pull off." And more disturbingly, the notion that we can "remake the Middle East" politically just by decreasing our dependence on their oil -- as Edwards suggested today -- is, I fear, as ignorant of entrenched ethnic and religious tensions as the neo-conservatism of George W. Bush. Both theories over-reach and rely upon a grandiose rhetoric in which the United States is not a helpmate to the world's disenfranchised but a direct architect of ideal societies. (To be fair, Edwards' words on aid to alleviate global poverty had an entirely different tone.)
The exceptionalist (and exemplarist) impulse in American history is well-covered, and has of course led to both triumphs and tragedies. Call me a realist, but I'm hoping for a newer, humbler tone to a progressive foreign policy.
Why release a health care plan when your supporters can imagine one for you? The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released an opinion poll on health care, asking respondents which of the 2008 presidential candidates, regardless of party, best represents their views on the issue. The results were surprising: Hillary Clinton took the lead with 15%, flanked by Barack Obama with 5%, and followed by the rest of the pack (Rudy Giuliani at 3%, John McCain and John Edwards at 2%).
Its easy to rationalize Clinton's lead -- her claim to national fame, remember, was her 1990's health care reform proposal -- but Obama's support is surprising. For starters, Obama doesn't have a health care plan, so its unclear what five percent of the population is thinking. He even places 4th among Republican voters, and doubles Edwards in the Democratic field. What's going on here?
My first reaction was to question the validity of the poll; when asked a difficult question, respondents will often just name the candidate they know of or support. But even that doesn't explain why Obama's nonexistent health care policy comes in second place -- According to a recent Time poll, 31% of Americans don't know very much about, just know the name of, or have never heard of Barack Obama. The respective numbers are lower for Giuliani (16%), McCain (20%), and Edwards (25%) -- meaning Obama actually overcame a deficit in name recognition. And in terms of general support, Obama tied McCain and Edwards with 48% of the population saying they would support him in the general election, while Guiliani actually scored 2% higher. Obama has the least name recognition and public support of the four candidates, yet he somehow comes out on top on the issue health care. Does the public know something we don't know?
My theory is that, to five percent of the population, the fact that Obama does not have a health care plan is insignificant to their support of it. They know him so well from his social networking site and his resemblance to the messiah that they are sure he represents their views on health care. That John Edwards has made the issue a central part of his campaign or that the press has routinely criticized Obama for his lack of a health care plan does nothing to change their minds -- the public has Obamamania, and reality only gets in the way.
The annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond, Virginia took place yesterday February 17, 2007 in the Greater Richmond Convention Center amid what was declared as the largest JJ Dinner in Virginia history with over 3,000 guests. Last year's JJ dinner was also a milestone but it only featured 1,400 guests, an indication that the Democratic Party of Virginia is on a roll in 2007, 2008 and beyond. The insider pundits in VA have never been more energized as Virginia Democrats have salivated over the recent domination of the governorship from Mark Warner (2001-2005) and current Governor Tim Kaine (2005-2009). Unfortunately Tim Kaine is constitutionally barred from running for a second term but Democratic party activists in the state are already preparing for the 2009 race with talks of defeated Attorney General candidate from the 5th district Creigh Deeds running as his replacement.
With the victory of Senator Jim Webb last November, Democrats in Virginia have officially designated Virginia as a "purple state" and rightfully so. Northern Virginia, outside the suburbs of greater Washington, DC is exploding with economic and population growth. This region is also a hotbed of growing progressive political leanings. At the JJ Dinner featuring speakers Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Congressman Bobby Scott and Senator Jim Webb, all were in attendance to endorse the candidacy of Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. This was Obama's first campaign visit to Virginia and the first endorsement from a sitting governor. As Virginia becomes a critical battleground state in 2008, this endorsement is significant.
Senator Obama's speech was poignant and well received by the audience. He frequently referred to education, his life story, and his message and motif of the "audacity of hope" which reverberated well with the crowd. Although it was interesting to see the various Edwards and Hillary supporters in the crowd who came just to see the show, over 25 University of Virginia Democrats came to volunteer at the event to show their support for the rising young star in the Democratic Party. It is worth noting also that there was much speculation at the event that if Obama were to win the Democratic primaries, former governor Mark Warner would be an unbeatable choice for Vice President forming a ticket that would crush any Republican ticket. Warner's enthusiasm, charm, and Bill Clinton-esque personality and political leanings would serve Obama well in Virginia which has a more moderate Democratic Party than say Hillary Clinton's New York base.
All in all, the dinner was a huge success for Barack Obama. His rising popularity among Democratic primary voters seems only to grow as the field of the Hillary, Edwards, and Obama triumvirate travel the country trying to prove to Democrats and all Americans alike that they are the best candidate to move the country forward, end the war in Iraq, enact universal health care by 2012, and promote economic fairness. It seems from my observations at the College Democrats of America National Leadership Summit, the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, and the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner that the 2008 Democratic candidates are the strongest and most diverse group of candidates that the Democrats have ever seen in American history. This is a testament to not only the changing face of the party but also of society as the possibility of a female or black president becomes ever-more on the horizon of reality.
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine will endorse Senator Barack Obama this Saturday. Outside of potentially improving Obama's popularity in the South, this endorsement strengthens a 2008 possibility birthed by Mark Warner's withdrawal in October.
As I predicted earlier this month, Sen. Joe Lieberman has all but abandoned the Democratic Party.
Lieberman was on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace on Sunday, and discussed his support for the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. When asked if there were any Democrats running in 2008 that Lieberman would support Lieberman made his intentions known.
"Are there any Democrats who don't appear to be running at this point? Look, I've had a very political couple of years in Connecticut, and I'm stepping back for a while to concentrate on being the best senator I can be for my state and my country."
"I'm also an Independent-Democrat now, and I'm going to do what most Independents and a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America do, which is to take a look at all the candidates and then in the end, regardless of party, decide who I think will be best for the future of our country."
"So I'm open to supporting a Democrat, Republican or even an Independent, if there's a strong one. Stay tuned." Read More »
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
