Photograph by Norman E. Hooben (Location Fort Rucker Alabama)
Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Big Brother Is Now Firmly Entrenched - Watch What You Watch
Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.
Viacom filed suit against Google in March 2007, seeking more than $1 billion in damages for allowing users to upload clips of Viacom's copyright material. Google argues that the law provides a safe harbor for online services so long as they comply with copyright takedown requests.
Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives.
The judge also turned Google's own defense of its data retention policies -- that IP addresses of computers aren't personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has already reacted, calling the order a violation of the Video Privacy Protection act that "threatens to expose deeply private information."
The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason.
Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema.
Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons.
Your New World Order Is Taking Shape
Welcome to your Brave New World
To all who continue to vote for their favorite political party it's time to take a stand and vote for INDEPENDENT candidates who are not beholden to the the political bosses of both major parties...for it is they (Democrats and Republicans) that have got us into this mess.
Storm'n Norm'n
To all who continue to vote for their favorite political party it's time to take a stand and vote for INDEPENDENT candidates who are not beholden to the the political bosses of both major parties...for it is they (Democrats and Republicans) that have got us into this mess.
Storm'n Norm'n
Free-Trade Chaos: Adios to U.S. Manufacturing By Richard McCormack Politicians Don't Understand: Textile Maker Copland Industries Says Multinationals Are Killing The U.S. Economy The federal government no longer represents the interest of U.S. manufacturing companies and their workers, instead siding with the Communist Chinese government that is putting hundreds of thousands of Americans out of good paying jobs, according to James Copland, chairman of Copland Industries/Copland Fabrics of Burlington, N.C. "The U.S. government's policy is creating millions of jobs all right, but it is creating them in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam at the expense of hardworking Americans here at home," Copland told a congressional hearing. "Our country should be ashamed -- totally ashamed - of what our government has done to working people in America." The U.S. government recognized problems with the communist Soviet Union, "but for some reason it fails to see it with China," Copland told a hearing of the House Science Committee's subcommittee on oversight and investigations on May 22. U.S. government free trade and manufacturing policies are the reason for the current economic slump and the gloomy attitude Americans have about their economic prospects. U.S. manufacturing "is in the midst of a crisis unprecedented since the Great Depression," Copland said. "Deeply flawed U.S. trade policy toward domestic manufacturing is the single most important root cause of the illness. Every American deserves the right to provide for his family, to own a home and to educate his kids, but our flawed manufacturing and trade policies are taking this away," Copland told members of Congress. "Our Constitutional preamble says 'a government of the people, by the people and for the people.' We have forgotten about the words 'for the people.' " Copland's company is competing against Chinese companies that don't have to pay workman's comp or provide workers with unemployment insurance; that don't have to deal with EPA or OSHA regulations; that pay no overtime, provide few benefits and abide by no child labor laws; and that receive untold government subsidies and benefit from a currency that is at least 30 percent undervalued. "This is an impossible task," said Copland. "No manufacturer can compete when your competition is a foreign government determined to spend whatever it takes to force you out of the market, and the U.S. government does nothing about it." While Congress and the Bush administration rattle on about the importance of free trade agreements and refuse to adopt anything resembling a pro-American manufacturing policy, millions of Americans' lives are in economic turmoil. "Their jobs are being moved overseas and they can't get other jobs," said Copland. "Don't think there are high-tech jobs available for those folks, because there aren't. They are being shipped to China and India too. If those who were laid off are lucky, they have landed jobs flipping hamburgers or as a greeter at some retail store. People are angry now, and when they connect the dots -- and they are going to connect them -- they are going to know where to focus their anger." Copland Industries/Copland Fabrics makes man-made fiber curtains, draperies and blinds. Since 2001, U.S. imports of these products from China have increased by 6,912 percent, from 845,000 kilograms to 59 million kilograms in 2007. This surge of Chinese imports "has been like a nightmare [that] we have had to face," said Copland. China accounted for almost 107 percent of the total U.S. growth in imports for curtains and draperies between 2001 and 2007, "meaning the rest of the world actually lost U.S. import market share," Copland noted. China now holds 90 percent of the U.S. market for man-made curtains compared to 7.8 percent market share in 2001. "The total market today is 98 percent offshore goods," Copland said. "A flood of imports from China in products like the ones for which we used to make fabric is one of the main reasons why my home town of Burlington has lost nearly 40 percent of its manufacturing jobs since 2001." Chinese finished curtain prices sold in the United States are less than Copland Industries' cost of materials. Copland Industries has stayed in business by "picking up the pieces when our competition goes out of business," said Copland. "We pick up a piece and, believe you me, just as soon as you get into it, here come the Chinese again. We look constantly for something that the Chinese are not doing, that they haven't focused on yet. We are looking constantly for something that may have some natural barrier to them coming over here, but remember, everybody in our industry is doing the same thing, everybody. There have been 550,000 jobs lost in my industry since 2001 alone." Copland Industries has reduced employment from 1,000 to less than 300. Hundreds of mills have been closed in the Carolinas due to the surge of imports from China. "There are small towns where stores are closed with weeds growing up around them," said Copland. "But you know it is really bad when you see the churches closing. Someone needs to think about the hard working people and what is happening to them. The big multinational companies, the importers and big retailers have exactly what they want. They couldn't have written a book and had it more perfect for their world: buy at the China price, sell at the U.S. price and don't worry about whether the average American has a job or he or she can make ends meet. Their world is not what is good for America. "I will tell you that if this thing doesn't stop there will be no survivors. We will not have any manufacturing in the United States. When these plants are closed down, they are closed. If you don't run the equipment and keep it up, it deteriorates to nothing, but the equipment is being sold. Pakistan is buying the equipment. People are selling it for five cents on the dollar. Nobody wants it. And let me tell you what is happening to the buildings themselves. I was just down in Joanna, South Carolina, a huge mill down there has been closed for five years. They are tearing down the mills. Why? Because they are going to sell the bricks, guys. They are going to sell the beams. So don't think that you are going to be able to say, 'Oh, boy, as soon as this thing is over, here we come back, it is going to be regeneration.' " Copland told the politicians that they don't understand how profoundly the economy is being impacted by Chinese imports. Politicians talk about the sagging U.S. economy and home foreclosures, "but what they haven't realized yet is that people don't have any money," said Copland. "The reason they don't have any money is because they have lost their jobs or they now have jobs making a fraction of what their pay was before their jobs were exported. If people had their manufacturing jobs, they wouldn't have the economic problems and financial problems we now have." Fifty million Americans are without health insurance because so many good jobs that provide health care have been exported due to "our flawed trade agreements," Copland told the subcommittee. As long as the federal government refuses to adopt a manufacturing policy, "the United States will have much more difficulty ameliorating the pain an economic recession will inflict on its citizenry in a timely manner." U.S. government officials talk glowingly about the Central America Free Trade Agreement ( "We have got to start paying attention to what we are doing with these trade agreements. We have to get some people who know what they are doing with these trade agreements. We are being out negotiated. We better start paying attention to what we are doing because let me tell you something, we are exporting the wealth of this country as fast as we can export it. It is going offshore. We are going to pay one tremendous price in this country." |
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Cap'n Bob, MSgt Norm'n salutes you SIR !
Faux Brass - Redux
In light of General Wesley Clark’s incredible weekend faux pas regarding the war record of Senator McCain, I’m going to re-post an old article from two years ago - Faux Brass:
Faux Brass: a class of former military officers who have shed the honor and pride of their commissions in favor of retreatist and defeatist policies.
In recent times, a few former military officers have rendered negative opinions on the War on Terror which includes ongoing skirmishes in Iraq and the current trouble in Gaza and Southern Lebanon. Now, let’s be clear that most current and former military “brass” support efforts worldwide in the certain-to-be-lengthy War on Terror. The major media, however, fail to show the overwhelming support for the effort among military brass.
Jack Murtha comes to mind as a former military-turned-politician who gets it wrong — redeploy, he says, to Okinawa(?!). Murtha also shamefully convicts our military prior to any charges being made.
It’s the same with John Kerry who offers that he could have done better if he were president — the trouble is, he offers no ideas, but only the same retreat and concede policy that has been his lifelong pursuit. Thank God that America caused him to concede the last election.
Another ex-military general-turned-presidential-candidate-turned-pundit, Wesley Clark, always portrays the administration in the anti-internationalization light. This from a former NATO Commander — not actually a U.S. Military function. Clark will always defer to the “international community” for policy answers.
Murtha, Kerry and Clark fail to put America first. American interests must first be served before worrying how the “international community” views things. After all, has the UN ever succeeded with anything they attempt, other than stealing from children’s programs and Iraqi oil profits? Nope.
These three examples of Faux Brass, Murtha, Kerry and Clark, each remind me of a certain loudmouth cartoon chicken trying to look like an eagle.
3 Comments »
This Global Warming Thing...I'm getting hot under the collar!
Crossed posted from:http://capnbob.us/blog/2006/08/23/correlating-sunspots-to-global-climate/
Also...For more on the subject go here:http://www.worldviewtube.com/video.php/3702
Correlating Sunspots to Global Climate
More about Why Solar fusion activity is the primary
Also...For more on the subject go here:http://www.worldviewtube.com/video.php/3702
Correlating Sunspots to Global Climate
Unfamiliar with Solar phenomena? Read what the Sun is and how it does what it does:
More about Why Solar fusion activity is the primary
mechanism for climate change on Earth — not people!
This is a study in two observations made over the last 400 years: observed annual sunspot numbers and derived global temperatures. The sunspot numbers were recorded by various solar observers since Galileo’s time. Temperatures have been derived from scientific evidence such as ice and earth cores, and several other valid methods. These were collected by various climate studies and were compiled by NASA scientists to produce an animation of Earth’s climate changes over 399 years between 1599 and 1998.
Climate Change
First look at the NASA video that chronicles global temperature since 1599 AD:
Red indicates warmer surface temperature while blue indicates cooler. The little year clock, although difficult to read, ticks off the years in rapid succession from 1599 through 1998.
You should notice two things as you watch the animation:
- The Earth has generally been getting warmer
- Extended periods of cooler temperatures have occurred
Annual Sunspot Count
Next, look at this graphic depicting solar cycles and the number of sunspots counted each year:
You should notice two things as you observe this graphic:
- The sunspot count per year has been getting generally larger
- Extended periods of low sunspot numbers have occurred
Correlating The Two Phenomena Together
And finally, look at this two-minute presentation that ties both observations together:
A few additional conclusions:
- The media will print or broadcast sensationalized headlines to sell copy regardless of scientific value
- The media will print or broadcast manipulated science with half-truths and invalid conclusions to damage politicians with whom they do not agree
- Politicians seize on these unverified claims in order to blame their opponents
- Uneducated/uninformed people are as gullible as ever
/p>
References
- Western hemisphere climate animation courtesy NASA — adapted from NASA Visible Earth
- Sunspot number graphic courtesy of PAGES
- Animated presentation “Correlation Between Solar Activity and Global Temperature” created by Cap’n Bob
- Ultimate Global Warming - SPF 2 Million Won’t Be Enough
Update: Read about how cosmic rays interact with solar flux to alter Earth’s climate in a subsequent article.
19 Comments
TheLandlord said,
I’ve been reading the global warming junk science/politics for years.
Your presentation here is solid science, and very convincing.
I hope this theory gets out, but I won’t hold my breath given the state of the media.
Keep up the good work.
Mike.Cap'n Bob said,
Mike,
Thanks for the comment and your remarks on our Global Warming article. It’s a topic that anyone with a scientific background will realize that the left not only has it wrong, but will try and use it’s popularity among the uneducated minions to handicap business in America and blame the administration. It’s already started in California!
To see a listing of all articles at our site that touch on the topic, click the “Climate and Global Warming” link under the information heading in the right sidebar.
Retired Geezer said,
Hi Bob,
I linked your post on my moron blog but I don’t have the trackback thingy figured out.
RGmikeslag said,
Outstanding Post Bob, I just found your site and this is simply great. Do you know of anything further that I could look up, webpages, books to read, etc, where I can find further information debunking the People Cause Global Warming Scare?
Have you read Michael Crichton’s State of Fear? It’s written like a research paper (with footnotes, bibliography, etc) showing how it’s all crap and hysteria, but in the form of a novel. Truly awesome.
Where this is concerned I live by the geological motto:
Civilization is here by geological consent, subject to change without notice.
Cap'n Bob said,
Thanks Mike — I have a work-in-progress Climate and Global Warming reference page where a number of resources are linked. It has a listing of all our GW articles as well.
I like to visit World Climate Report and CO2 Science blogs, both of which are updated regularly. I also like to use John Daly’s Still Waiting for Greenhouse as a reference. John is passed on, but his mates in Australia keep the site going.
Michael Crichton — what a guy — love his Aliens Cause Global Warming (PDF) speech he delivered to various audiences on the subject. A great read. I’ll have to make it a point to read “State of Fear.”
And thanks for signing up for the Never Forget Flash. That’s a message that needs perpetuation these days.
mikeslag said,
I’m going to read that pdf shortly, definitely good stuff. Crichton is a genius. Yeah definitely read State of Fear, the bibliography has something like 100 (or more, I don’t have it in front of me) different books, essays, papers, and websites all with facts and figures on global warming. Amazing stuff.
sisu said,
“For every one that doeth evil hateth the light”…
The dandelion in winter. Even as cherries blossom inside the Beltway during these El Nino-induced days of faux spring in the Northeast, in Chelsea-by-the-Sea a dandelion — cum opportunistic ant — shows its colors on the twelfth day of Christmas…
PerStrand said,
Actually I started to look at the cause for global warming by looking at the data. Here are my result. The leading climate scientists use misleading and deceptive methods when they analyze climate data.
Amazingly there are no repository and comprehensive information to be found at any location on the Internet over the existing two theories for global warming.
People should be able to make informative and objective judgment for themselves.
Therefore I collected this information here on my website http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com On it I have collected information and graphs covering both the greenhouse gas and the cosmic ray cloud cover theory and made analysis from the data.mpano66 said,
I can find several dozen more if you like. And again, let me state this: its all pointless. The solution to the hypothesized threat man faces from global warming is what? Reduction in fossil fuel use, yes? I’m all for that. Anyone with a shred of braincell is for that, because dependance of a civilization on a resource that will be depleted within a century and causes brown, unbreathable air is silly. Dont buy into this Global Warming canard. DENY funding for warming research, and spend the money how it should be spent: finding alternative fuels!
bob12smith said,
The NASA video used here is not recorded global temperature of earth between 1500-1998. It’s the output of a climate model which was driven only by solar trends durign that time period, with no greenhouse gas forcings [url]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/iceage_20011207/index.html[/url]
The video shows significant warming between 1900 and 1950, but no significant warming since about 1950. That’s in contrast with recorded global temperature trends which show just as much warming in the past 30 years as occured in the early 20th century [url]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/[/url]
In other words the video shows that solar trends do not correlate with recent global warming in the past few decades.
Cap'n Bob said,
Regarding “solar trends do not correlate with recent global warming in the past few decades.” Keep in mind that the view in the NASA video is trained on the Western Hemisphere only. The temperature reference that bob12smith invokes is shown below:
I clearly see a strong correlation between the original sunspot chart and this graph. The run up in the first half of the 20th century is clearly evident while the cooling trend that sparked global cooling angst in the 70’s is also clearly seen. In addition, the recently discovered relationship between solar flux and the intensity of cosmic radiation supports the 1500 year theory of global warming and cooling cycles (Svensmark, et al).
Rather than focusing on a narrow segment of history (decades), one should focus on the long-term relationship between solar activity and climate. There is far more evidence that the Earth’s climate is influenced by natural phenomena globally than there is to support anthropogenic causes.
bob12smith said,
I agree that the original sunspot graph correlates with global temperature trends, but only up to about 1970. After that the temperature starts rising again while sunspot trends show no accompanying upward trend as they did during the 1900-1950 warming period.
According to anthropogenic global warming theory the anthropogenic signal has only broken through the natural variation in the last few decades. Prior temperature trends across geological time and in the early 20th century would therefore be expected to be explained mainly by natural phenomenon like solar variation and not any anthropogenic causes. So the sticking point for whether anthropogenic global warming is correct or not are the main causes of the warming in the last few decades which may differ from the main causes of temperature changes over geological time.
There is a NASA movie for the entire globe, not just the western hemisphere:
[url]http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002300/a002319/a002319.mpg[/url]This also doesn’t contain the warming trend in the last 3 decades because neither video is showing the actual temperature of earth over time. They are the output of a climate model fed solar trends. That the video doesn’t show the warming recorded in the last 3 decades is because the solar trend fed into the model didn’t produce one, despite the good correlation before this point.
Cap'n Bob said,
Regarding the temperature increases from 1970 onward being the “anthropogenic signal,” let me quote from a September, 2006 article by Bob Carter in the London Telegraph (emphasis mine):
“For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say “how silly to judge climate change over such a short period”. Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.”
Visit the site above for references that back up Mr. Carter’s comments and to view the entire editorial.
bob12smith said,
The CRU temperature record that Mr Carter references shows that the rising temprature trend (the black trendline) has not stopped at or since 1998. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
1998 was an anomolously warm year because of a strong el nino. Two consequetive years can differ a lot like this, so the multi-year average has to be used to work out any trend. It’s that average trend which is relevant to whether the climate is warming or cooling. The CRU record shows the last few years have been creeping as high as 1998 without such a strong el nino for example.
Cap'n Bob said,
I question the graphic in the last comment. It’s from the University of East Anglia whose research turns up occasionally in pro-alarmist claims of man-made warming on a global scale. Their data resembles the tail-end of the now debunked “Hockey Stick” graphic touted by the IPCC and the UN.
Bringing El Niño into the discussion, however, brings us full-circle back to the Sun. El Niño is one phenomenon related to cyclic weather patterns dependent on insolation.
Consider that 1998 was just before the peak of solar cycle 23. This little video from SOHO EIT x-ray imagery compares the year 1996 on the left and 1999 on the right. The increase in x-ray activity can be easily seen. Note that x-ray fluctuations occur in proportion to other solar spectra.
Solar emissions across the spectrum are the primary cause of climate phenomena on Earth including:
1. Triple-cell global atmospheric circulation (modified by Earth’s rotation and Coriolis)
2. World-wide submarine ocean current circulation ( the so-called “conveyor belt”)
3. Ionization of atmospheric molecules including ozone, which deflects ultraviolet radiation
4. Solar particle emissions and magnetic flux which deflect cosmic radiationAs solar activity ebbs and flows, the above phenomena respond accordingly.
The net effects of anthropogenic contribution to warming in terms of energy must certainly be many, many orders of magnitude below the gigajoules of energy emitted by the Sun.
bob12smith said,
The University of East Anglia is the same source Bob Carter referenced.
Cap'n Bob said,
It’s interesting that Bob Carter and Bob Smith can look at the same data and come to different conclusions. I guess I have to lean toward Mr. Carter’s interpretation of the data since he doesn’t appear to have any political bias as is the case with climate alarmists.
Olivia S. said,
I just read your article you posted called “Correlating Sunspots To Global Climate.” And I just wanted to tell you how much I loved it! I cannot tell you how Refreshing it was to hear that side of the “global warming issue”. I completely agree with the ideas in the article. It disgusts me that people buy into whatever the media says about global warming! i completely believe that there are factors out there that impact the climate So much more than just humans. Thank you for an article that was not full of the usual crap I hear about global warming.
Cap'n Bob said,
Thanks, Olivia - I am glad that you enjoyed reading this article.
I have a reference page that includes many links to resources on the topic:
http://capnbob.us/blog/features/climate-and-global-warming/.
I Remember Mama...but oh that Obama! I rememeber the lies of last November...
Thursday, November 29th, 2007
Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies
Barack Obama is lying repeatedly and without shame. Let’s examine Barack Obama’s tactics of hit and run lies.
Last Friday we wrote about how Obama is employing Ripublicans tactics to attack Hillary. We included in our review of Obama’s Ripublican tactics an article called Why Is Obama In Bed With Karl Rove?
Earlier today we posted an article which clearly provides the Obama template for attacking Hillary. The article was about the Hillary Clinton vs. Rudy Giuliani Senate race in 2000. Obama is melding Rove with Rudy tactics to slime Hillary. Here is the relevant paragraph from today’s earlier article:
Mr. Giuliani pounced on Mrs. Clinton’s slightest misstep, sensing vulnerability in this new and nervous candidate. The mayor, a former prosecutor, often exaggerated her misdeeds and slightly mischaracterized her positions, aides said, in a deliberate effort to goad her into correcting his version of her record — while Mr. Giuliani skipped on to his next attack. He was brash and theatrical, flying to Little Rock one day to announce that he would fly the Arkansas flag over City Hall in New York to highlight the fact that Mrs. Clinton was running for office in a state where she had never lived.
Get that?
Obama is lying about Hillary’s record in a blatant fashion so that Hillary supporters exhaust themselves defending Hillary on the lie. Obama then simply moves on to lie on something else.
Obama uses the tactic of repeated big lies frequently. In this past Tuesday’s Adult Experience we catalogued Obama’s outright lies regarding his “preconditions” statements and his “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia.” statement. Obama has also blatently lied about his “attack Pakistan” statements.
Now Obama is lying about healthcare.
We are not going to drown ourselves in detailed refutations of Obama’s lies on healthcare issues. We are likewise not going to invest our energies in fighting off Obama’s lies about lies (Obama lies then he accuses others of lying - this tactic he acquired from Bill Bradley). Too many valiant Hillary supporters have already brilliantly explained the differences between Hillary’s truly universal healthcare plan and Obama’s plan which does not provide coverage for 15 million Americans.
For us the response is very simple - Obama says his healthcare plan is UNIVERSAL but Obama’s plan does not cover 15 million people - Obama is lying to 15 million people - its that simple. “Universal” means “universal”. “Universal” does not mean “partial”.
Obama is lying — deliberately and repeatedly and tactically — it is that simple.
* * *
For those interested in the policy dispute we will discuss the Universal Healthcare plan proposed by the experienced and intelligent Hillary Clinton and the not universal but lies that it is universal plan pushed by Obama - tomorrow.
In the meantime here is the plucky blond lady herself explaining the differences:
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 29th, 2007 at 4:09 pm and is filed under Hillary, Healthcare, Obama. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
93 Responses to “Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies”
- Secret Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pmObama is becoming cockier by the day. I cannot wait until the day he falls. I have no mercy left. Not anymore and not for him.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThis is good. Hammer Obama on specific policies. He is an empty suit through through. His entire candidacy is an empty platform of hoopla…
Per ‘First Read’…
Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama on the issue of health care. Today, the Clinton campaign released letters from health-care professionals across Iowa criticizing Obama’s health-care plan.
Below are the letters…
1) Health care professionals from Cerro Gordo, Hardin and Webster Counties:
Senator Obama,
We are health care professionals who work in Cerro Gordo, Hardin and Webster Counties and we are writing to urge you to support universal health care. Currently, too many Iowans are uninsured, including many of our patients. That’s troubling to us - those patients without health insurance do not get the preventative health services they need to stay healthy. Instead, they rely on costly emergency room care when their health severely deteriorates. This disturbing cycle puts a tremendous strain on our hospitals, public resources and, most of all, our patients’ health.Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has proposed a universal health care plan that will cover all Americans, lower costs, give Iowans choices and make health care more affordable. Given our medical experience, we think those are the fundamental reforms this system needs. Knowing that every patient we see will have health insurance is important to us because they will be more likely to seek preventative care, which helps us preserve their long term health and keep overall costs down.
We understand you have introduced a health care plan as well and that, unlike Hillary’s plan, yours does not cover 15 million people. As a result, over 100,000 Iowans would go without health insurance. We’re disappointed in your plan because we believe that the goal of universal health care is something all candidates should embrace. In fact, all the Democratic candidates but you have proposed universal coverage.
We also understand that your campaign claims that proposing universal health care is excessively ambitious. But we know that Hillary has the strength and experience to achieve her plan to cover each and every American - leaving not one of the 270,000 uninsured Iowans out of her plan.
The numbers of uninsured patients we see each year will only grow if we do not act boldly. On behalf of the uninsured Iowans we encounter in our work, we urge you to propose a new plan that, like Hillary’s, calls for universal health care. We can’t stand to see any Iowan remain without health insurance.
Sincerely,
Lee Hundson, Dougherty, RN;
Sharon Kropman, Mason City, RN;
Nancy Larson, Plymouth, LPN;
Rhonda True, Mason City, RN
Lorie Lyman, Iowa Falls, RN;
Dolores Wolf, Iowa Falls, LPN,
Kathy Lucero, Ft. Dodge, RN;
Susan Evers, Badger, RN2) Health care professionals from Johnson County:
Dear Senator Obama,
We are medical professionals in the Johnson County area, and we treat uninsured Iowans every day. We know first hand that too many of our fellow Iowans who lack insurance often go without basic care and wait to seek help until a simple medical problem turns into something more dangerous.Hillary Clinton has put forward a universal health care plan that will cut costs, give Iowans choices and make health care more affordable. Given what we see day in and day out, we think those are the fundamental reforms this system needs. Knowing that every patient we see has health insurance is important to us because they will be more likely to seek care early, which gives us a better shot at helping them.
We understand you have introduced a health care plan as well, and that it does not call for universal coverage. As a result, over 100,000 Iowans and 15 million people across the country could go without health insurance.
We also understand that your advisers have said proposing universal health care is excessively ambitious. To hear that sentiment from a Democrat is beyond disheartening - in fact, you are the only Democratic presidential candidate to not call for universal health care in your plan. It is not overly ambitious to expect our government to provide basic health insurance coverage for our citizens.
We urge you to reconsider your position. The number of uninsured patients we see each year will only grow if we do not act boldly, both for their sake and for the sake of Iowans working two and three jobs to be able to afford health insurance for their families.
The last thing we need is a Democratic presidential candidate taking hope away from uninsured Iowans, leaving them to wonder if they will be among the over 100,000 left out in the cold, uncovered by your plan.On behalf of the uninsured men, women and children we treat, we ask you to go back to the drawing board and develop a plan that ensures that no Iowan will ever have to go without health insurance again.
Thank you,
Lynne Himmelreich, Oxford, ARNP, CNM, MPH;
Jill Vibhakar, Iowa City, MD3) Health care professionals from Wapello and Mahaska Counties:
Dear Senator Barack Obama -
As health care professionals who routinely care for those who cannot afford health insurance, we are writing to urge you to support universal health care in your campaign. We understand from first hand experience the dangers of going without basic care. Every day many of our patients wake up hoping that they can get through the day without needing medical treatment that they can’t afford.Hillary Clinton has introduced a health care plan that will cover every American. Her plan provides people with the choice of keeping their own insurance or selecting another quality plan. We know that you have introduced a health care plan, but it doesn’t cover all of us. In fact, your plan would leave 15 million Americans - including over 100,000 Iowans - without insurance. Moreover, we were saddened to read that your campaign thinks that proposing universal health care is excessively ambitious.
As the only Democratic presidential candidate to not propose universal health care, we hope that you will rethink your health care plan. If we do not act quickly to ensure health coverage for every man, woman, and child in our great nation, insurance will grow even more unattainable for so many people just like our patients. We believe that universal health care is an achievable dream - and we want all of the democratic presidential candidates to show they are willing to work tirelessly until all of the 270,000 uninsured Iowans have health care.
Hillary has pledged to use her strength and experience fighting special interests to make this dream a reality - will you?
Sincerely,
Judy Dejong of Oskaloosa, Mahaska County, RN;
Nancy Emanuel of Ottumwa, Wapello County, RN;
Carol Holmes Skinner of Ottumwa, Wapello County, Retired Nurse4) Health care professional from Muscatine County:
Senator Obama -
I am writing to you as a registered nurse who has cared for many Iowans, both young and old, in and around Muscatine County. I am active in the community and feel strongly that all of us deserve access to quality and affordable health care.I am writing to you because your campaign’s comments that proposing universal health care is excessively ambitious are worrisome to me and many folks in the Muscatine and Quad Cities area. Uninsured Americans have enough challenges; not knowing if they would be among the people covered (or the 15 million people not covered) under your plan only intensifies their situation.
Hillary Clinton has a universal health care plan that will provide affordable, quality health care coverage to every single American. Iowans will have more choices, and health care would be more affordable. However, if they are happy with what they’ve got, Hillary’s plan lets them keep their current coverage.
Your plan doesn’t make the same promise - over 100,000 Iowans could likely stay uninsured if your plan comes to fruition. That’s 100,000 too many. On behalf of the uninsured men, women and children in our community, I ask you to give Iowans - and our country - a plan that gives us the same hope as Hillary Clinton.
Sincerely,
Linda Reichert, of Muscatine County, Muscatine, RN5) Health care professionals from Pottawattamie County:
Dear Senator Obama,
As active and retired members of the medical community, we are writing to urge you to reassess your health care plan and instead support universal health coverage for every American man, woman, and child. While we admire your interest in changing the health care system, we do not understand why you have proposed a plan that leaves 15 million Americans without health insurance - including over 100,000 Iowans.Every day, our local hospitals treat patients who could have avoided health crises with simple preventative care. Instead, emergency rooms have become the primary care facilities for Iowans that have nowhere else to turn; driving up costs, overwhelming hospitals, and lowering the quality of health of many residents.
Hillary Clinton has proposed a health care plan that would provide universal coverage for every American. Her plan allows those satisfied with their health care plan to keep it, while providing cost-effective alternatives to those who want to switch plans or are currently uninsured. This universal health care solution is what we need to reverse the trend of rising costs and record numbers of uninsured Americans.
Your campaign recently said proposing universal health care was excessively ambitious. We want to point out, however, that you are the only Democratic presidential candidate who has not proposed a plan to provide universal health care coverage.
We believe it is Senator Clinton who has the strength and experience to make universal health care a reality. In thinking about the stark reality facing uninsured members of our community, we ask that you reconsider your position on this important issue.
If John F. Kennedy could challenge America to reach the moon in 9 years - a feat that required American ingenuity, imagination, and technology never before dreamed of - surely we can meet the challenge of providing health insurance for every American. We already have the technology, skills, and know-how. Now we just need a President who believes we can do it.
Sincerely,
Karole Anastasi, Honey Creek, RN and manager for clinics division of Alegent Health Systems, retired;
Vivian Dau, Oakland, RN, school nurse, retired;
Bobbie Moore, Honey Creek, RN, University of Nebraska Medical Center6) Health care professional from Woodbury County:
Dear Senator Barack Obama -
As a practicing nurse, day in and day out I see patients who wait far too long to see a doctor for fear of not being able to pay for necessary medications or procedures. It is because of my life experiences that I strongly encourage you to support a universal health care plan. Each one of the many patients I see daily would be more likely to solicit a medical opinion if they had the health insurance to help cover their costs.Hillary Clinton has a comprehensive quality health care plan aimed at covering all Americans. Her plan provides every man, woman, and child the choice of keeping their current insurance or selecting another quality plan. I understand that your plan leaves many families out.
Under your proposed health care plan, Senator Obama, over 100,000 Iowans would remain uninsured. The idea of health care being universal and offered nationwide is neither ambitious nor excessive, it is absolutely necessary.
As a lifelong Democrat, I really cannot understand how you can be the only Democratic presidential candidate to propose a health care plan which is not universal. I strongly urge you to reconsider the implications of your proposed plan. It is imperative for this and future generations that every person is eligible for quality health care coverage.
Hillary Clinton has vowed to fight for health care for every single American. Will you join her in this important fight?Sincerely,
Madonna Griffith, Lawton, RN7) Health care professional from Kossuth County:
Dear Senator Obama,With the abundance of qualified candidates in the race for the Democratic nomination it was difficult for me to decide who I would be supporting. But as a health care professional, I know it is imperative that universal health care be achieved in the next presidential administration.
It was incredibly disheartening to hear your campaign advisers say that proposing universal health care is excessively ambitious. Under your current plan for virtually universal health care, over 100,000 Iowans and 15 million Americans will be left uninsured. They will continue to rely solely on emergency care, which is expensive for the individual and the government.
Hillary Clinton’s universal health care plan gives the consumer the advantage by offering more choices and lowering costs. It allows consumers to keep the insurance they have if they like it and change it if they don’t or aren’t currently covered.
Hillary Clinton has worked her whole life for change. She has taken on the Republicans and special interests to work for real change. Nobody has worked harder or longer to improve health care.
As the only candidate in the Democratic presidential campaign to not propose universal health care, I think it will behoove you to re-evaluate your decision to exclude 15 million people from your health care plan. The country is ready for change and we need a leader who will get us there.
Sincerely,
Dona Tebben of Corwith, Kossuth County, Home Health Aid and Family Support WorkerHealth care professionals from Story and Warren County:
Senator Obama,
As health care professionals we both deal with uninsured Iowans every day. It pains us when we see patients who come for care in poor condition because they waited too long before seeking the basic care they need.This is an extremely serious problem that demands bold action, not half-hearted attempts. With over 270,000 uninsured Iowans and over 47 million uninsured nationwide, we need a president who has the strength, experience and political courage to end this fight once and for all. Senator Obama, we encourage you to change your plan and take the necessary steps to ensure all Americans will be covered.
Hillary Clinton has a plan to insure every single American - including the over 100,000 Iowans who would lack coverage under your plan. We have decided to support Hillary because in our opinion you cannot run for president today without putting forward a plan that will insure each and every American. Hillary understands that in order to achieve this important goal we need to fully commit ourselves to this cause.
We were disappointed to hear that your campaign thinks proposing universal health care is excessively ambitious. You are the only Democratic presidential candidate to not propose universal health care and, unfortunately, efforts like yours that vow to take universal coverage slow and work towards coverage as a long term goal shows a lack of commitment. Insurance companies will certainly exploit that weakness and use it to their advantage at the negotiating table.
Hillary’s plan will give consumers the choice of keeping their own coverage or selecting from a menu of other quality insurance plans while keeping premiums under a locked percentage of their income. With the power of choice, insurers will have to compete for their consumers, which will drive down costs and finally make the consumer the center of health care coverage.
Fifteen million Americans and over 100,000 Iowans would still lack coverage under your plan. For us and for Hillary Clinton, that is 15 million and 100,000 people too many.
Sincerely,
Catherine Bagley of Nevada, Story County; RN;
Marilyn Kirkpatrick of New Virginia, Warren County; CPC - kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pmThis is good. Hammer him on specific policies day in and day out. This guy is the emptiest suit I’ve never seen. His entire platform is hoopla…
Per ‘First Read’…
Another day, another Clinton campaign knock on Obama on the issue of health care. Today, the Clinton campaign released letters from health-care professionals across Iowa criticizing Obama’s health-care plan.
Below are the letters…
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pmEdwards also comes out swinging, although he’s also criticizing Clinton, he’s certainly getting a bit smarter these days…
Per First Read.
DES MOINES, IA — Citing “very substantive policy differences” between his health care mandate and those of his leading opponents, Edwards began a press conference by reiterating his charge that Obama’s health care plan is “not universal.” Obama has been facing off with Clinton over their health care mandates the last few days.
“[Sen. Obama’s health-care plan] does not require that everyone be covered,” Edwards said, “and as many as 15 million Americans would be without coverage. And I’ve seen an estimate that up to 90,000 Iowans would be without coverage.”
The former North Carolina senator also continued to differ with Clinton on the issue, largely repeating his campaign’s charge from yesterday. “Sen. Clinton’s plan, which came out in September, is very similar to mine that came out in February. But I have not seen any specifics about how her mandate would work or how she would enforce her mandate,” he said. “I’ve laid out exactly how my mandate would work and we have a way to make sure it’s enforced.”
Edwards said that in his plan, subsidies would be available to help low-earning families. “The fundamental structure of the plan provides subsidies and the subsidies go up to about $100,000 of income. So for lower-income families, they will be basically 100% subsidized, and the subsidy decreases as they go up toward $100,000 of income, so that’s how they afford it. The way we bring people into the system is anytime they have contact with the health care system or the government they get enrolled, basically.”
Edwards’ media avail on health care followed his address at a meeting of the Iowa State Association of Counties. He released a list of 52 county elected officials from 37 counties who endorsed him ,and spoke to the audience about forging a “new partnership with local communities.” Highlighted at the meeting were proposals to invest in rural economies, help local governments by using the federal government’s power to negotiate prices for what they need, and ensure that federal funding for transportation is sufficient.
Edwards was the last presidential candidate to speak at the meeting. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd spoke to the group yesterday morning.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:27 pmWhen Edwards stops attacking Clinton, his numbers are up.
The dumbest stragetist Trippi was certainly doing Obama’s bid.
- B Merryfield Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:52 pmOk .. now you’ve got me off on another tangent. It’s amazing what you can find when you do a simple Google. Try the words Obama, lie and see what you find.
Sorry, but my first find comes via RedState (truth is truth regardless of the source):
redstate.com/blogs/rc/2007/mar/05/barack_obama_lies_about_his_fathers_story_in_his_selma_speech
The whole speech is posted here by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times:
blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/obamas_selma_speech_text_as_de.html
When someone will tell lies like this about their family and create a myth for themselves, what else will they lie about? Well, we know the answer to that one.
- basement angel Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:53 pmKostner
Dems don’t like watching Dems attack other Dems. It’s never a good strategy and it’s a sign that a candidate is simply content with cheering the supporters he already has. When a Dem candidate starts savaging another Dem candidate, it frequently means the race is over and the savager has given up on winning. At the point, he’s just going to hurt his opponent to any degree that he can.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pmBy By Susan Estrich
“Fluid” is the word of the day.
That’s how one of my savviest friends described the situation on the Democratic side with the opening bell little more than six weeks away. No locks. No sure things. Fluid.
The conventional wisdom is that Iowa is the four-letter word for Demcrats. But that’s only partly true. Iowa picks losers. New Hampshire picks winners. Iowa winnows down the candidates. Hillary can lose Iowa and be just fine, if she turns around — almost literally, in just five days — and wins New Hampshire. But if she loses them both, we’re in for a marathon.
Iowa is, right now, up for grabs. Could Obama win? He could. Could Hillary win? She could. Could Edwards win? Also possible. Hillary has yet to seal the deal. Obama has yet to translate the media’s sense of momentum into real movement on the ground. Edwards is still in there, kicking, with more strength, particularly in rural areas, than Washington-based insiders are likely to acknowledge.
And then there’s the Huckabee of it all. The question in Iowa is always which side gets the most attention. A Huckabee win is good for the Democratic second and third place finishers in Iowa because it limits the attention that the Democratic winner gets, and raises questions as to what winning Iowa really means.
If the headline the next day is “Who’s Huckabee?” it’s not “What Happened to Hillary?” There’s only so much space, air time, and attention to go around. If Iowa Republicans cast their vote for someone who no one thinks could go the distance, how much credit do Iowa Democrats get for their choice?
In 1988, Dick Gephardt won Iowa, and got almost nothing from it, in part because of the upset on the Republican side, where George Bush finished third behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson? He got so much ink that it was only a week later that the two bronze medalists from Iowa finished first in New Hampshire.
In Iowa, most of the talk is domestic. The war matters, but it’s the economy and the bread and butter issues that are commanding the most attention. Not so, from what I hear, in New Hampshire. There, the top three issues are the war, the war, and the war.
If you want to know what’s about to happen in politics, you can always tell by paying attention to the smartest guy in the game. Bill Clinton, I mean. His comments about where his own opposition to the war is may be nitpicked to death by the factcheckers, but no one should doubt the acumen that lies behind them. Neither Obama nor Edwards have yet to succeed in drawing clear lines between themselves and Hillary when it comes to how they would handle the war as president, as opposed to who was against it first, but that’s where the danger, or opportunity, lies.
In the real world, there may well be reason to believe that a much scaled-down but continued U.S. presence in Iraq could be useful in preventing the possible bloodletting that an immediate and total withdrawal might unleash. Certainly, the experience of the Clinton administration in Yugoslavia suggests that there are occasions where this country can play an invaluable role in preventing the sort of genocide that preceded our involvement there, and that unrestrained ethnic rivalries can produce.
But that’s a real world position, not a political stance in an anti-war Democratic primary, which is what New Hampshire is likely to be. In the real world, it may be that you can be too far left on the war, but in the political calculus that is New Hampshire, it’s not clear that such real world rules apply. New Hampshire voters, especially some of the so-called “independent” voters who could go any way, are overwhelmingly anti-war voters.
Who will they vote for? Fluid is the word. Which is another way of saying, who knows? At this point, don’t believe anyone who tells you that they do.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 4:55 pmright.. I think dailykooks are naderite “dems” who realized at later stage how their votes hurt gore, and how he was “greener” than nadar. so now they with guilt remorse, support a democrat candidate with strong populist messages, no matter if he is totally phony, like edwards. They are NOT democrats with party affiliation. They are independent nadarites. so arguing with them is like arguing with a brickwall. its not that you can change their minds. ask them how many had voted for nader, and you can immediately see 90% figure.
also, their newfound “love” for Obama is JUST BECAUSE he is their “anti hillary”. howevr, like taylor marsh, obama is NOT anti hillary. he wants to make america a gods garden. when I pointed it out last night on mydd, saying he was too close to religion, there were tonnes of links thrown at me. do these people actually think I dont have any clue of his positions/stances?
As for core obama supporters on blogs, I think they are MOSTLY young college kids who got sucked into this “obamania”. these kids dont care about issues, they care about how popular it is to support him. in my univ, half of the girls support him because he is cute, and guys because they feel closer to agreeing with him because he is “young”. Now how many of these so called “cute” groupies will come out to vote for him in primaries will be anybodys guess. these guys actually believe that the so called NH discussion forum on foreign affairs was an excellent podium to show his expertise in the issues. they didnt even bother to care about the fact that all the members he had in the panel were supporters of his campaign, and that not a single panelist was there to challenge him. the phony forum was a farce, yet he got awesome reviews from his supporters and media really thought he was a know all “expert” on foreign affairs. so I can rant on and on but I guess I have made my point clear on this phony self absorbed nutwit.
- B Merryfield Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 5:15 pmAnother pro-Hillary website
- terrondt Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmgladiatorstail, you are soooo right on. these so called gore converts hated gore in 2000 and love him now. SUCH F*CKING PHONIES.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:12 pmJust caught CNN reporting a new Florida poll. Clinton creamed both her democratic opponents and Rudy by a wild margin. Damn, even if punk Obama wins every early state, does it really matter when we go into Feb 5th? Only media are hyping that ridiculous IA race…
Florida:
Clinton 51
Obama 21
Edwards 11I believe Clinton/Rudy matchup is 51:42….
- hwc Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pmKostner:
Even crazier, it is abundantly clear at this point that Edwards, Obama, and Clinton — no matter the actual order — are going to come out of Iowa with roughly the same number of delegates in their columns, give or take two or three. In effect, the Democratic party will have wasted tens of millions of dollars in a lily white state with an arcane caucus where 95% of the population can’t even be bothered to participate. And, will have done serious damage to the Democratic prospects in Florida as part of the bargain. For what? A difference of two or three convention delegates among the three top candidates.
If anything good comes of this ridiculous process it will be kicking Iowa to the curb and scheduling its next caucus for July 2012.
The entire Iowa caucus is nothing but a neighborhood block party for the Georgetown Social Club…something that gives them an opportunity to gather and cluck over the rubes in the heartland and spin narratives that are wholly divorced from the issues facing our country.
Color me disgusted.
- hwc Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:25 pmThe thing that really disgusts me is that the structure of the Iowa caucus means that a non-representative sample of Democratic party voters gets first crack. It’s like letting the DailyKos straw poll be the first widely reported event of the Presidential selection process. Hard core activists drive the caucus. Rank n’ file Democrats, especially the diverse elements of the Democratic constituent groups, are systematically excluded.
- MJS Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:44 pmThere will be a particularly large group of Illinoisers this coming weekend in Iowa for Barack!
- mj Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 6:47 pmI disagree with Susan. Being a neighbor of NH, the voters want a withdrawal from Iraq, but don’t assume that makes them anti-war. I think they will come home to Hill because they want a responsible withdrawal.
- united 12 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pmmjs,
i so agree, WHO, AND WHERE THE F—, IS IOWA?
its pathetic, that we let this little drop in the ocean, hold our democratic process blackmail…
and thats why people here in san francisco, and other places in san francisco, voted for the fefb 5th date…
it was big talk around here. we hope this election will show the country that, iowa is nice, but no longer in the big picture…is that mean? i dont mean it to be.
just need to right wrongs… - united 12 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:05 pmsorry, others in california, is what i was trying to say.
- united 12 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:06 pmoh by the way admin, can you put in an edit button?
thx
- mj Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pmOh, now, don’t disparage Iowa. I think they will come out for our girl in the end.
- ra1029 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pmAny idea where Hillary campaigned today?
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:29 pmand the surprise is that Iowa voted for bush in 2004
- RalphB Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:39 pmI agree with what Howard Dean said is ‘04 about the Iowa Caucuses being fundamentally undemocratic. I’m sorry he didn’t chuck them overboard when he became party chairman. I really thought he’d try to dump them.
For a long time, the Iowa Caucuses have forced democratic candidates further left in order to win, and in the general election that’s always a handicap.
- MJS Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:41 pmMJS and MJ are two totally diff people. lol just to let u know
anyways, yeah…personally…I don’t understand who the heck though iowa as first was a good idea. lol
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 9:48 pmra1029 - Saddleback, the evangelical/AIDS thing.
- mj Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 10:05 pmOh, I completely agree with Dean, but in this primary, we don’t want to piss off Iowa.
- united 12 Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 10:08 pmmjs, yeah i know that, but i’m elderly…
funny thing, i was responding to h w c at the time i made a comment about iowa, explain that if you can?
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 10:28 pmthis is interesting:
wapo is trying HARD to beat Obama down on this pac story. weather they will get anywhere is anybody’s guess.
Obama Campaign Worker Discussed PAC Donations
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 30, 2007; Page A08Democratic Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign helped recommend several of the donations his political action committee made in recent months to politicians in key primary states as the campaign was working to secure endorsements, campaign officials said yesterday.
The acknowledgment alters the campaign’s original account of how donations were directed and raised questions among some legal experts about whether the presidential committee was using Obama’s leadership PAC to benefit his campaign. The Obama campaign said it is confident it complied with the law.
Obama’s Hopefund Inc. distributed more than $180,000 in donations to political groups and candidates in the early presidential voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and more than $150,000 to federal candidates in other states with primary dates through mid-February. The donations accounted for nearly three-quarters of the money the PAC has given out since this summer.
An Obama campaign spokesman last week said that “there is no connection” between the PAC donations and the presidential campaign.
But Bob Bauer, the private counsel for both Obama’s campaign and Hopefund, said yesterday that campaign workers were involved over the summer in identifying and recommending possible recipients when Hopefund was deciding how to spend its remaining money. In particular, Bauer said, senior campaign strategist Steve Hildebrand was consulted “multiple times” on potential donations.
Hildebrand was a paid consultant at Hopefund last year and is now a deputy campaign manager.
“He was being paid in part to help us identify targets of opportunity, and to the extent there was any one person who had an overview of what we were trying to accomplish, it was Steve Hildebrand,” Bauer said. Asked if other campaign officials also made recommendations, Bauer added, “I have no doubt.”
ad_iconBauer stressed that Hopefund also solicited input from others, including the fundraising committees for Democratic House and Senate candidates. The PAC also processed requests directly from local candidates. In the end, Bauer said, his law firm made the final decisions and dispatched the donations.
Obama stopped raising money for Hopefund when he announced his presidential bid in January, but he has stood out from some of his rivals by continuing to make donations from Hopefund as the primaries approach. Most other presidential candidates shuttered their PACs.
Bauer said he is confident that the PAC and the campaign complied with rules the Federal Election Commission enacted in December 2003 governing how leadership PACs can operate when their candidate is running for office. “There’s not even a remote question about whether this is legal,” he said.
Campaign law experts, however, said they were less certain. They noted that the 2003 rules state that any leadership PAC expenditure coordinated with the politician’s campaign should be treated as “in-kind contributions” subject to a limit of $5,000. The rules define a coordinated expense as any made in “cooperation or concert with or at the request or suggestion” of a campaign.
“I think this is something the commission should look at. If the money was, in fact, used to help the campaign, was requested by the campaign and coordinated with the campaign, then it could be considered an in-kind contribution,” Lawrence Noble, the FEC’s retired chief counsel, said.
Former FEC chairman Scott E. Thomas, a Democrat who served on the commission when the 2003 rule was approved, said the FEC at the time was focused more on how to keep PACs from subsidizing presidential campaigns by picking up the costs of polling, salary and other goods and services.
“He is clearly pushing the envelope, no doubt,” Thomas said. “I would clearly recommend the commission take another look at this to see if there is some reasonable line that can be drawn so presidential campaigns aren’t directing donations from the PAC a few months before the primaries.”
While PAC donations went to politicians who endorsed Obama’s presidential bid, campaign spokesman Bill Burton said, “Hopefund did not make contributions to obtain presidential endorsements and the campaign never expected or instructed staff to recommend a contribution because it would win an endorsement.”
- mj Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pmAny news on Hill’s visit to saddleback?
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pmHello everybody,
My latest report from chatting with an Iowa… This time I caught a politically active person. He’s in Ames and will definitely caucus. I had a lengthy conversation with him. BTW, Ames is a college town, his precinct had 19 delegates in 2004, it went to Kerry/Edwards/Dean by 7/6/6. So it’s definitely a Dean stronghold and supposedly an Obama stronghold as well.
He told me it’s still very fluid at the moment, as politically active as he is, he’s still undecided. He would probably go with Biden right now, second choice might be Edwards. Last time, he went for ‘uncommitted’ first, then went with Edwards in the end. He respected Hillary, does not seem to be impressed with Obama at all, but I didn’t push him further on why he wouldn’t go with Hillary.
I asked him whether Obama was quite strong in his area, and he couldn’t answer since things are still fluid on the ground. He told me it appeared Edwards and Clinton had the strongest ground game at least in his precinct for the time being…
I told him if Obama was only able to match Howard Dean’s showing or slightly better than Howard Dean in his precinct, he probably can’t win IA caucus. He agrees. His feeling is that Edwards would probably win if caucus were held tomorrow. But again, quite fluid…
I will try to follow up with him in a few days to detect whether there’s any momentum of any candidate…
- filbertsf Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pmSecret wrote:
“Obama is becoming cockier by the day. I cannot wait until the day he falls. I have no mercy left. Not anymore and not for him.”Secret, spend some time on mydd and you’ll end up being more disgusted by Obama’s supporters. The one thing I actually look forward to is when I never have to see another pathetic diary/post from an Edwards or Obama supporter. I can almost bet that these “Democrats” will join the legion of Wingnuts to bash a Hillary presidency.
I don’t even see them as fellow Democrats. The crap that they post is similiar to the sentiments that can be found on Free Republic.
One of the reasons I still visit mydd is to counter the rabid stupidity of Obama/Edwards supporters. Like rats, they’ve infested that poor place.
- celiff Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:29 pmOh I have a great pick-me-up story for anyone feeling sad about Iowa. I was in the IC office tonight, and the breck girl was about 1 block away holding an event in the Hotel Vetro, when in came a woman from the Edwards event. She said it was over. She then requested a Hillary yardsign, a Hillary bumpersticker, and a supporter card. It was hilarious. That was the highlight of my night.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pmKostner,
Your conversation is in sync with many other ground reporters. but the point is “who are these people Obama seems to be gaining support with”?
if it comes to groundwork, I am sure veterans like Vilsack can handle it for Hillary. her campaign is known for best get out to vote campaign till date. I see her using same strategy she used in NY. limiting her agenda to one or two states towards the end of the primary campaign and flooding them completely. her ground game is only to intensify more. I hear that Obama is going to flood Iowa with Chicago during final week of campaign. but then again, it all depends on how good his get out and vote strategy is.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:34 pmgladiatorstail,
I don’t believe organization is all… That guy keeps on remind of the importance of second choice, which is pretty scary in a race in which three candidates are basically tied…
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pmceliff,
great story, so that woman came back from an Edwards event and picked up a Hillary sign. LOL.
- celiff Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:36 pmYup. She was apparently not pleased by the event.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pmdo you know if Ames is supposed to be Obama’s stronghold?
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pmbtw, did that lady attend Clinton’s event before?
- MJS Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pmDId you guys message or contact any gay bars/clubs or agricultural areas in Iowa or New Hampshire yet?
Great to hear about that Celiff! lol I really want to volunteer for Hillary. Do you know if there is a Support Hillary Center here around the Chicago area?
- MJS Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:41 pmI would assume most college-towns and more “youhful” areas are probably part of Obama’s aimed demographic. He most believes he has places like Ames right in the bag.
- kostner Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:44 pmMJS,
I will keep in touch with that guy. We have a rough yardstick here. In 2004, Dean only scored 17% state wide, but he was on par with Kerry & Edwards in his precinct. If Obama is only slightly better than Dean there, I doubt he can win Iowa.
- CJ Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm..celiff…he probably said hillary so many times there getting frustrated at these 2 bimbo’s,enough is enough of there baby boys whinning,good for that lady you should have sign her up for here..lol…them people in iowa are funny counting you out celiff,i think they want to be on a winners side..so maybe thats why some of them are always chaging back and forth.i do believe hillary is winning there i think the polls in iowa could be paid by msm,i woulnd’t put anything passed them,of doing that,and they keep at that so they can have a race. i think she
has 31% and bo.27% ed.22% they are making millions of bucks in iowa.bill was there today,i just dont think its fair for the other states at all.we all should be apart in the process 1st.i hope it changes next time around in 2012 - sm Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:54 pmBrilliant dissection by Paul Krugman in the New York Times of the glaring deficiencies in Obama’s health care plan and his mudslinging.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 30, 2007From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.
As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.
In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that “the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it,” he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.
The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.
But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.
First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.
Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?
Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.
Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.”
Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.
That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.
Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicine”: he doesn’t want the government to “force” people to have insurance, to “penalize” people who don’t participate.
I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.
What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.
Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.
- celiff Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:55 pmYeah, Ames is pretty conservative, but I am sure obama is doing well on campus there. The gaybars are a tough cookie. I called Studio, and the main manager was off. I am going there tomorrow night. And the lady that saw the light tonight, she did not say if she has seen HRC speak anywhere. I hope she gets to see her.
- celiff Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:57 pmYup. He constantly talks about Hillary. He had an event here 2 weeks ago on Foreign policy, and he attacked her then, and tonight’s event was billed as a foreign policy speech again, so I am sure he did the same. People on the phones keep saying that either he is to inexperienced and/or that he should be home taking care of Elizabeth, that is just what older Iowans think. He needs to take care of her.
- kostner Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:00 amceliff,
what county is ames in? the guy told me he’s close to University of Iowa(correct me if i’m wrong?)
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:04 amkostner: guy keeps on remind of the importance of second choice
yes, but something nobody talks about (good) is the amount of horsetrading that’ll be taking place. Remember, the caucus system is something like a neighborhood meeting. If you’ve ever attended any meetings at local civic orgs, you know about the big battles that can take place.
Most people attending caucuses are not like blog people, ready to go to the mat over trivial differences between candidates. This is where savvy precinct captains come into play, particularly if they rep local establishment.
Let’s say I were a precinct captain for candidate A and want to peel off support for candidate B. I’d show up at the caucus ready to deal on local stuff like “ok, stand with us and I’ll stand with you on funding for your community pool,” etc.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:06 amThat’s good to hear, from both of you! (Kostner and Celiff)
It looks like you guys are at least slightly able to convince others to support Hillary somehow. My school and basically my community here is heavily Republican-leaning. Our congressional house respresentative frikkin voted WITH Bush’s policies 79% of the time.but of the democrats and admitted independents here, they seem to want Illinois’ favorite corrupt lieing son to win, so we’ll see.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:07 amHLR, do you think Hillary knows about this? If she knew, she could find strong and strong-willed volunteers to serve as precinct captains for each major area! And she should!
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:10 amMJS — I’m sure Hillary and her IA associates are way ahead on this
celiff — are the campaign offices throwing New Year’s Eve parties? I will be in IA right after Christmas helping out and am trying to figure out what to do NYE, as I don’t know anyone in IA.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:13 amcharlie rose is` ripping edwards!
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:14 amHLR, I really hope they understand and fully comprehend EVERYTHING!
and ugh, I just watched the Republican youtube debate….
I would probably much rather 4 more years of George Bush than ANY of these “candidates” and/or bible-thumping, ignorant, narcistic, egotistical, prejudiced buffoons. - MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 amdetails, Glad!
- kostner Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 amHillaryLandRocks,
actually that’s exactly what that guy told me. The horsetrading… He told me he’s ‘uncommitted’ for the first round last time, but joined Edwards group in the second round. I asked him if he’s ‘uncommitted’, why even bothered to show up in the first place. He told me bargaining, negotiation, trying to put stuff into local agenda blah, blah, blah.
It’s completely undemocratic, and disgusting, I certainly hope Clinton campaign’s precinct captains are well seasoned to cajole those minor candidates’ supporters into her tent in the end.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:17 amhe is debunking his constant lobbyist rhetoric.. its on pbs right now!
- mj Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:21 amA Purpose Driven Candidate
by Aaron Bruns
Hillary Clinton laid out her plan to end global poverty and fight disease in Africa during a visit to the Global Summit on AIDS at Saddleback Church in California — the home parish of pastor Rick Warren, author of “The Purpose Driven Life.”Amid numerous Biblical references, Sen Clinton proposed $50 billion over five years for providing universal access to treatment, prevention, and care for global HIV/AIDS, and vowed to stamp out malaria deaths in Africa by the end of her second term.
Of course, she has to win one term first, and visiting the largest megachurch in California won’t hurt that cause. Warren is something of controversial figure in evangelical circles; some more conservative critics say hosting Barack Obama at this forum last year, as well as Warren’ signature on a Global Warming Pact and what they say is his tendency to play fast and loose with some Biblical tenets in favor of a more broad message of love, have shown his true liberal colors.
But there’s no question as to Warren’s influence in the Christian community. More than 400,000 ministers and priests have been trained in his methods at seminars, and nearly 200,000 subscribe to the weekly newsletter.
A visit to his church allows her a safe forum to talk about and display her faith, as well as reach out to that vast network of Christians.
Watch her entrance, and her explanation about why she showed up.
If you got to camerondotblogsdotfoxnewsdotcom you can watch the video
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:23 amkostner — exactly. Last summer, I saw a whole street go from a “hostile” attitude to a newcomer in a state race to enthusiastic supporters … why? Candidate got their street sign fixed.
- celiff Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:24 amOur office is going to have fun that night. That is my birthday (Jan 1), and we will have fun the night before. Where will you be in Iowa. BTW y’all, Ames is in Story County north of Des Moines and is the home of Iowa State University, my rivals. I live in eastern, liberal Iowa in Iowa City, home to the University of Iowa Hawkeyes. HLR, if you are in Davenport or Iowa City, let me know and we can meet up, and you can help in our office.
- mj Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 amClinton Urges Sweeping Action on AIDS Published 11/29/2007 - 11:21 p.m. EST
(AP) By MICHAEL R. BLOOD
Associated Press WriterSen. Hillary Rodham Clinton used an appearance at one of the nation’s largest evangelical churches Thursday to sketch a broad agenda to take on disease around the globe, calling it “the right thing to do.”
The centerpiece of a speech laced with Biblical references and reflections on her own faith was a call to spend billions of dollars to combat HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases at home and abroad. She said she would try to stamp out malaria deaths in Africa within eight years.
Money and government alone cannot solve the problems, she said. AIDS “is a problem of our common humanity, and we are called to respond with love, with mercy and with urgency,” she said.
With the presidential campaign intensifying in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, Clinton was alone among leading candidates to fly to coastal California to appear at Saddleback Church in Orange County, where pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren convenes a conference each year to highlight the global threat posed by HIV/AIDS.
Earlier this week Clinton released her proposal to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, which focuses in part on fighting the spread of the illness in minority communities. As president, she would double the HIV/AIDS research budget at the National Institutes of Health _ to $5.2 billion annually _ and spend at least $50 billion within five years around the globe.
On Thursday, speaking to about 1,700 conference attendees, she said as president she would also call for spending $1 billion a year to address malaria infection in Africa. She set a goal of eradicating malaria deaths in Africa by the end of her second term.
Many Christian conservatives dread the possibility of another Clinton White House, a point of agreement in a year when prominent leaders in the movement have divided their loyalties among GOP contenders.
There was a sprinkle of criticism from conservatives in response to Clinton’s appearance at the church, but it was muted compared to last year when more than a dozen conservative leaders signed a letter urging Warren to rescind an invitation to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who supports abortion rights. The church defended his appearance.
Warren is theologically and socially conservative, but he is known for avoiding the scrum of partisan politics. The author of “The Purpose-Driven Life” has devoted much of his time in recent years mobilizing evangelicals to fight AIDS in Africa.
The speech gave Clinton a chance to appear on stage with the popular pastor _ who greeted her with a hug _ as well as talk at length about her own faith.
“I’ve been raised to understand the power and purpose of prayer,” she said at one point.
Warren thanked her for attending. “We invited all of them to come, but she was the one who showed up,” he said
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:28 amceliff — I’ll know as soon as I get my “Iowa HillStars” assignment packet. It should be here soon (if not already, haven’t checked today’s mail yet). No matter what, I’ll call your office to wish you happy birthday.
- celiff Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:30 amThanks (: Yeah, hopefully you get eastern Iowa, about which I am somewhat of an expert. But western Iowa is pretty conservative. There are really dedicated supporters in western Iowa though. Ah, you are a Hillstar! Awesome. We have a Hillstar working in our office from Manhattan.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:31 amI think the only way I can go to Iowa would be to hop on the Obama-express lol
but you - gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:31 amok, and the final nail on coffin comes from krugman himself.
Mandates and Mudslinging
Article Tools Sponsored By
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 30, 2007From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
And it’s not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don’t feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.
As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.
In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that “the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it,” he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.
The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.
But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.
First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals’ plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.
Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won’t work, pointing out that many people don’t have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn’t require that drivers have insurance? If not, what’s his point?
Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws.
Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: “Their essential argument,” he says, “is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way.”
Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.
That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.
Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against “socialized medicine”: he doesn’t want the government to “force” people to have insurance, to “penalize” people who don’t participate.
I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.
What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.
Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.
- celiff Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:32 amThere is a Hillary office in Chicago, I just don’t know where.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am - HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:39 amMJS — Hey, I live in northeastern US. I was joking w/ a friend the other day that the cheapest way I can get to IA is to hop on one of those Obama buses.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:40 amgreat article, glad! too bad MSM will be too busy salivating on whatever new ~*dirty*~ truths Obama will reveal tomorrow about Hillary.
- celiff Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:41 amOne of the people in our office is running for state senate and he is a huge Clinton supporter, and he is in college still. He isn’t much older than me. Another Clinton supporter in Des Moines.
- celiff Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:42 amSomeone from the Obama side told me today that they will be bussing plenty of students back to Iowa to caucus.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:42 amWow! you are really very very dedicated HLR! More power to you! LOL @ the Obama bus comment, though its probably true.
I hope Hillary doesn’t expend ALL her forces these coming weeks on Iowa. She must remember that we still have battles in New Hampshire in what is becoming an increasing tighter race!
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:44 amCeliff, I’m not sure where you heard that, but currently, the plan indeed is for any voluntary *cough* Illinoisers to cross the Iowa threshold.
I’ve been mingling a lot more with the Obama-lites here and it seems to me most of them don’t even really care so much about Obama as they do about beating Hillary. It shocks me that high-school kids here are so anti-hillary. Must be the parents, I say. lol
But either way, I’m pretty sure they’re in for sore disappointment.
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:51 amMJS — NH would have been more convenient, but I decided on IA after seeing the media nightmare post-Oct 30th debate “stumble”. All hands on deck!
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:53 amMJS — what do you mean by cross the IA threshold?
BTW, I recently read an article that voting in NH is even more lax than IA. You don’t need residency.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:56 amdid I say, I saw Edwards endorsing Obama and rallying his supporters against Hillary in Charlie Rose’s interview?
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:58 amGT — Clarify. He couldn’t possibly have endorsed Obama. If so, why is he running?
- mj Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:59 amLook at this POS:
HALPERIN’S TAKE ON OBAMA AND BLOOMBERGNo matter why the meeting was set up or what ends up on the agenda, the richness of this union cannot be overstated. Bloomberg (the self-styled outsider, reformer, and agent of change), getting together with Obama (whose national success is based on the same type of image) is the kind of exciting surprise that will spin out a billion threads and turn Friday’s news cycle into a series of mini-cycles as the political world wakes up to the headline and starts to try to figure it all out.
Among those who will be very interested in what the two potential presidents will discuss: Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Rudy Giuliani, and, perhaps most of all, Bloomberg’s chief political strategist Kevin Sheekey.
Both Bloomberg and Obama understand the politics of symbolism, and both know that they are among the baker’s half dozen or so people with a chance to move into the Oval Office in January of 2009. Could they make a deal? Form an alliance — or a ticket?
Most constitutional and election law experts believe that a party’s vice presidential nominee (like a presidential one) can spend unlimited personal funds on a general election campaign. So, just for fun, say Obama this week named Bloomberg as his prospective running mate if the Illinois Senator wins the Democratic Party’s nomination. How much would that sway the electorate?
That is of course wild speculation — of just the kind that anyone reading these words is going to see a lot of in the next (rapid-fire) 98 news cycles.
(And if you want to see something that rhymes with “muster-buck,” go watch the press stakeout of this one.)
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 12:59 amHLR, many will travel to Iowa in a bid to do whatever it takes to make sure Obama is the victor there. Some will do it irrationally and possibly get caught, but i suspect most will think carefully about it. from what I’m hearing, some of these parents are anti-hillary too!
I wouldn’t be worried though. To be honest, Iowa is such a trivial state imo.
- MJS Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:11 amew.
i just stumbled upon the nohillaryforpresident site and its really funny how all these uptight douches are freaking out about her major leads in polls and stuff. lol
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:27 ammj: say Obama this week named Bloomberg as his prospective running mate if the Illinois Senator wins the Democratic Party’s nomination. How much would that sway the electorate?
They expect Democratic women to vote for a ticket w/ Bloomberg on it?
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:29 amHLR,
Rose’s question was if Edwards is done in Iowa, and he loses in NH, where would his supporters go, and he was predicting that they should be going to Obama, and not Hillary. So much for democratic party. now it is 2 vs 1.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:31 amhere is interview if anyone is interested.
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/11/14/1/a-conversation-with-john-edwards
- mj Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:45 amWhat a jerk. That he would even be discussing that speaks volumes. He’s really just running to screw Hillary Clinton. It’s down right bizarre.
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:47 amGT — thanks for the link, listening now.
- HillaryLandRocks Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 1:59 amok, the link is to an old interview. New one not available yet.
- admin Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:03 amComments tonight have been facinating. The New Years in Iowa comments sounds grand. The Iowa news items from Celiff and Kostner are encouraging and good to know HLR will soon be toasting Celiff’s birthday. The press clippings are great. We’ll soon check out the Charlie Rose interview to punish ourselves.
- hwc Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:05 amThat’s a link to an old Charlie Rose interview with Johnny Edwards. Tonight’s show is not posted yet.
BTW, it looks like the big dog hisself, Bill Clinton, is on Charlie Rose tomorrow night. Worth settin’ the TIVO.
- gladiatorstail Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:42 amyeah i saw that.. btw hwc u crack me up on mydd
- hwc Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 2:53 amMyDD: I’ve had enough.
- freckles Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 3:00 amI have a question. I looked it up a few weeks ago and can’t remember the answer — or even if I found an answer.
I know that in the GE, a few states carve up the electoral votes — the rest it’s winner-take-all. (unless CA falls for that prop they’re trying to promote)
But in the primary, is it all apportioned delegates or are some states winner-take-all?
- wbboei Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 3:20 amDuring the last couple days, the Clinton campaign has raised two questions re. the candidate Obama:
1. Did the Obama campaign direct Hopeland to make contributions to officials and entities in states holding nominating contests? Yes or no?
2. With the critical foreign policy challenges America faces in the world today, does Obama who served in the Illinois State Senate just three years ago, and would have less experience than any President since World War II, have the strength and experience to be the next President?
These are material questions. The first one goes to Senator Obama’s administrative ability and his integrity as well. The second goes to his qualifications to be President. As such, they deserve responsive answers.
To date no such answers have been forthcoming from the Obama campaign, not even the usual evasions. That is according to the Chicago-Sun Times, Obama’s home town paper.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/hunter/672543,CST-NWS-hunter29.article.Given this lack of responsiveness, voters can only assume the worst.
- Hillary Is 44 » Blog Archive » Fighting Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 6:18 am[…] Archives : Links : About : Webmaster : Confidential Tips : Friday, Nov 30th - 6:18 am « Barack Obama’s 15 Million Lies […]
- Hillary Is 44 » Blog Archive » O + O = 0 Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 8:00 am[…] And make no mistake, Obama abandons 15 million Americans to the land of the uninsured. For the arguments substantiating this claim read HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE. […]
- Hillary Is 44 » Blog Archive » Vote Healthcare - Vote Hillary Clinton Says:
February 4th, 2008 at 1:12 pm[…] written before about health care. Today, Paul Krugman once again takes on the failure and flim flam man who is Barack Obama. The […]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
DirtCrashr said,
July 1, 2008 @ 16:06:56 PDT
Among those who served but poorly and ignobly in civilian life, don’t forget that asanine imbecile terrorist-hugger worst-ever President and former-President, Jimmah Carter!
Cap'n Bob said,
July 1, 2008 @ 17:16:26 PDT
We agree - and it scares the hell out of me to think that Obama is in a position to displace Carter as the worst President - ever.
Norm said,
July 2, 2008 @ 19:22:28 PDT
Greaty post !!!
A bit old, but it will divulge my thoughts about John Kerry http://patriotfiles.org/TroopStories&Articles_Page7.htm#kerry