The following photos have just been posted at our Photos section:

• 504 Democratic Club going to Florida
  
• 504 Democratic Club in Broward County
  

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS AND CREATING
EQUALITY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
Benefiting the Obama Victory Fund

Please join Americans with Disabilities, Families, Friends and Advocates

October 23, 2008
6:00 – 8:00 PM
FoxKiser
750 17th Street NW
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006

Host Committee
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer
U.S. Congressman Edward J. Markey
U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison

Polly Arango, Mazen Basrawi, Edward C. Bell, Peter Blanck, Catherine Brack, Marca Bristo, Catherine Campisi, Henry Claypool, Rebecca Cokley, Daniel Davis, Gerben & Janice DeJong, Fred Fay, David Ferleger, Daniel Fisher, James Gashel, Rebecca Hare, Allen C. Harris, Bonnie O'Day and Robert Hartt, Eve Hill, Marissa Johnson, June Isaacson Kailes, Janine Bertram Kemp, K. Charlie Lakin, Edward and Patricia Leahy, Paul Longmore, Bryon MacDonald, Kathy Martinez, Susan and Jamal Mazrui, Tom Nerney, Becky Ogle, Thomas Panek, Jorge Pineda, Jim Reed, Curtis Richards, Jeffrey Rosen, Marcie Roth, Katherine Seelman, Fred Schroeder, Natalie Shear, Karen Peltz Strauss, Sue Swenson, Marvin Wasserman, John Wyant, and Jonathan Young and Nellie Wild

Program

Congressman James R. Langevin

First Lady Anne Holton (Host Committee Member)

Michael Strautmanis, Senior Advisor,
former Chief Counsel to Sen. Obama

Support the Event
Host Committee: $1,000 and up
Sponsor: $250
Patron: $100 minimum to attend the event
Supporter: $25

All contributions can be made at: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/OVFMidAtlantic?custom1=Breaking+Down+Barriers

Even if you CANNOT ATTEND, please still make your VOICES HEARD ON BEHALF OF THE DISABILITY COMMUNITY by contributing at:
https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/OVFMidAtlantic?custom1=Breaking+Down+Barriers

Please note that the amounts on the website pages are preset buttons that cannot be changed, so you should simply choose the "Other" option and insert the amount you wish to contribute.

RSVP to attend the event to: camilleforobama@gmail.com or (773) 718-2632

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

PDF document of the flyer for this event
(Size of document: 2.79 MB; Make sure you have the Adobe Reader in order to view, print and/or save the document)

Time and Date:
12 Noon - 4:00 PM
Saturday, August 23, 2008



Featuring:
Live Jazz and R&B
50/50 Raffle for Prizes
Complimentary Wine and Cheese buffet
Chess competition will be available to all participants

$10 Minimum Donation/Gift
Please make all checks payable to "The 504 North Star Democratic Club"
15% of all collected monies will support the Barack Obama New York Delegation

Location:
The Legendary Jazz Lounge at Minton's Playhouse
206 West 118th Street
between Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd and St. Nicholas Avenue

You can comment on this entry, or request for more information about this event, by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/7809

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

January 22, 2008

The upcoming 2008 Presidential Primary (February 5th) is particularly exciting for the disability community as we continue to strive for greater representation in society, the Democratic Party and at the Convention. On behalf of the Officers and Executive Committee members, I am writing to ask that after you vote for the Presidential candidate of your choice, that you support all and any of the following 23 people with disabilities who may be on your ballot running to be delegates regardless of which candidate they are supporting.

Name	Congressional District - Representative	504 Club Member	Candidate
Brooke Ellison	1 - Bishop	No	Clinton
James Sanders Jr.	6 - Meeks	No	Obama
Thomas Duane	8 - Nadler	Life Member
Elaine Berlin	8 - Nadler	No	Edwards
Arthur Schwartz	8 - Nadler	Life Member	Obama
Anastasia Samoza	8 - Nadler	previously	Clinton
Norman Rosenthal	9 - Weiner	Yes	Obama
Belinda Dixon	13 - Fossello	No	Clinton
Dilia Schack	13 - Fossello	No	Clinton
Kenneth Dash Sr.	14 -Fossello	No	Clinton
Sylvia Friedman	14 - Maloney	Life Member	Edwards
Arthur Leopold	14 - Maloney	No	Obama
Ida Torres	14 - Maloney	No	Clinton
Pamela Bates	15 - Rangel	Yes	Clinton
Gloria Alston	16 - Serrano	No	Obama
Barbara Werber	23 - McHugh	No	Clinton
Lynne Tillotson	24 - Arcuri	No	Obama
Lori Gardner	24 - Arcuri		Clinton
Denise Williams-Harris	25 - Walsh	No	Clinton
Janice Dunne	26 - Reynolds	No	Obama
Bryce Hopkins	27 - Higgins	No	Edwards
Sue Samuels	28 - Slaughter	No	Obama
Mushtaq Sheikh	29 - Kuhl	No	Clinton

If you are not presently a member of the 504 Dems, please join.

Most Club communication occurs via our listserv (join at 504Dems-subscribe@yahoogroups.com) but we're working on reviving our newsletter. Our goal would be to primarily e-mail it. So please include your e-mail on your membership renewal form and indicate if you are interested in joining the listserv, or just receive the newsletter.

Edith Prentiss, President

president @ the504dems.org or 212-781-8309

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By JEFF ZELENY and PATRICK HEALY
New York Times
February 1, 2008

LOS ANGELES — Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met for debate here Thursday, sitting side by side and sharing a night of smiles, friendly eye-catching and gentle banter. Cordial as the encounter was, the candidates did not mask their own divisions, even as they previewed the attacks one of them will ultimately make against a Republican rival.

Still, it was almost as if the battle was to see which of them could outnice the other.

At the end of the nearly two-hour encounter, as the audience of Democrats and Hollywood celebrities rose to its feet at the Kodak Theater, Mr. Obama held Mrs. Clinton's chair as she rose. The two rivals, almost hugging, held each others' elbows and whispered in one another's ear, offering a striking image that captured the tenor of the debate.

"When we started off, we had eight candidates on this stage. We are now down to two," Mr. Obama said. "I think one of us two will end up being the next president of the United States."

Gone were the sharp and sometimes personal attacks that have characterized a year's worth of debates, particularly a combative session last week in South Carolina, which both sides conceded had tarnished their images.

Still, the candidates were at pains to lay out their differences on issues like national health care, the Iraq war and experience in their last appearance together before voters in more than 20 states weigh in Tuesday on the presidential nominating fight.

As she has through much of the campaign, Mrs. Clinton found herself defending her 2002 Senate vote to authorize war against Iraq — a position that has been enduringly unpopular with Democrats. The vote has forced her to discuss her shifting stands on Iraq instead of the antiwar principle she has sought to embrace in the campaign.

"I think now we have to look at how we go forward," she said. "There will be a great debate between us and the Republicans, because the Republicans are still committed to George Bush's policy."

Mr. Obama, given his opposition to the war from 2002 onward, argued that he would be in a strongest position to challenge the Republican nominee over Iraq.

"I think it is much easier for us to have the argument when we have a nominee who says, 'I always thought this was a bad idea, this was a bad strategy,' " Mr. Obama said to applause. "They screwed up the execution of it in all sorts of ways."

"The question," he said, "is, can we make an argument that this was a conceptually flawed mission from the start, and that we need better judgment when we decide to send our young men and women into war?"

Still, unlike when they last met for debate, when they attacked each other over personal conduct as well as issues, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama aimed their sharpest words at Republicans.

Mrs. Clinton criticized President Bush over his stewardship of the economy, while Mr. Obama chided Senator John McCain of Arizona, one of the two Republicans leading in their race, for supporting Bush-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans after initially opposing them.

"Somewhere along the line the Straight Talk Express lost some wheels," Mr. Obama said, referring to one of Mr. McCain's political slogans.

Both lavished praise on John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who dropped out of the race this week and whose endorsement they are actively seeking.

Mr. Obama said he and Mr. Edwards were determined to fight special interests and big business. Mrs. Clinton twice noted early on that her universal health care plan — which, unlike Mr. Obama's, includes a requirement that all Americans have health care — was very similar to that of Mr. Edwards.

Mr. Obama countered that about "95 percent" of his plan and Mrs. Clinton's were the same, but that he believed his proposal went further to reducing costs.

But their tone Thursday night was largely friendly. Each candidate laughed agreeably and nodded at the other's remarks, and they praised each other at different points and looked ahead to the battle with the other party.

"They are more of the same," Mrs. Clinton said of the Republican candidates. "Neither of us, by looking at us, is more of the same — we will change our country."

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton sidestepped a question about whether either would select the other as a running mate. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, the moderator, called it a "dream ticket" in the eyes of many Democrats. In fact, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have built up resentments toward each other over the campaign and seem unlikely to want to pair up for the general election.

"We've got a lot more road to travel," Mr. Obama said, "and so I think it's premature for either of us to start speculating about vice presidents." When pressed, he said, "I'm sure that Hillary would be on anybody's short list."

Mrs. Clinton responded in kind. "Well, I have to agree with everything Barack just said," she replied, to laughter from the audience.

Later, Mrs. Clinton was forced to fend off a question about her ability to "control" former President Bill Clinton from interfering in her administration should she become president in 2009, given his assertiveness on the campaign trail. (Mrs. Clinton has acknowledged that her husband has become "carried away" at times recently.)

"The fact is that I'm running for president, and this is my campaign," she said to applause. She added: "At the end of the day, it's a lonely job in the White House. And it is the president of the United States who has to make the decisions. And that is what I'm asking to be entrusted to do."

On one flash point — immigration — Mr. Obama cited his role in immigration reform legislation in Washington last year. He voiced his support for states giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers.

"People don't come here to drive, they come here to work," Mr. Obama said.

It was an issue that stirred controversy in a debate last year, which Mr. Obama sought to raise by pointing out that his rival gave "a number of different answers on this over the course of six weeks."

"Now she does have a clear position, but it took awhile," Mr. Obama said Thursday. "The only reason I bring that up is to underscore the fact that this is a difficult political issue."

It was the first dust-up of the evening between the candidates, occurring near the end of the first hour. Mrs. Clinton smiled and offered her reply.

"I just have to correct the record for one second," she said, explaining that she initially supported the concept of giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants so she could help Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York, who was being criticized over the issue. Turning to Mr. Obama directly, she said: "You were asked the same question and could not answer it. So this is a difficult issue."

Asked by Mr. Blitzer whether she was "missing in action" during the immigration debate, Mrs. Clinton was quick to reject the suggestion.

"I cosponsored comprehensive immigration reform in 2004, before Barack came to the Senate," she said.

In a week where Senator Edward M. Kennedy endorsed the candidacy of Mr. Obama, as did Caroline Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton was asked why they had chosen her rival and whether she would represent the kind of change that would inspire a nation.

"I have the greatest respect for Senator Kennedy and the Kennedy family," Mrs. Clinton said. "I'm proud to have three of Bobby's kids supporting me — Bobby, Kathleen and Kerry supporting me."

She added, "I think having the first woman president would be a huge change for America and the world."

The candidates could not question one another in the debate, but took questions from viewers. A 38-year-old woman in South Carolina, who sent her question in by e-mail, said she had never voted for someone not named Bush or Clinton. She wondered how Mrs. Clinton would represent change.

"You have to make the case for yourself," Mrs. Clinton said. "And I want to be judged on my own merits. I don't want to be advantaged — or disadvantaged."

The debate also featured questions about the strengths of Senator McCain and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts — the two leading Republican presidential candidates. Asked about Mr. Romney's experience as a chief executive officer, Mr. Obama drew laughs when he reminded the audience that Mr. Romney has significantly outspent his rivals, investing millions of his own money.

"Mitt Romney hasn't gotten a very good return on his investment during this presidential campaign," Mr. Obama said, adding that he would match his financial management skills with Mr. Romney's. (Hours before the debate, Mr. Obama's campaign announced that he had raised $32 million in January alone.)

Not only was the debate much less contentious than Wednesday night's debate among the remaining Republican candidates, but it was also far more muted than recent Democratic debates — an obvious calculation on the part of both candidates, who have been criticized for being overly harsh and personal. Democratic leaders feared that the negative tone would carry over to the general election, tamping down voters' enthusiasm.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/7119

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
January 14, 2008
New York Times

LAS VEGAS - After staying on the sidelines in the first year of the campaign, race and to a lesser extent gender have burst into the forefront of the Democratic presidential contest, thrusting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into the middle of a sharp-edged social and political debate that transcends their candidacies.

In a tense day of exchanges by the candidates and their supporters, Mrs. Clinton suggested on Sunday that Mr. Obama's campaign, in an effort to inject race into the contest, distorted remarks she had made about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama tartly dismissed Mrs. Clinton's suggestion, adding that "the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous."

Mr. Obama's campaign then attacked Mrs. Clinton for failing to repudiate one of her top black supporters for "engaging in the politics of destruction" with an apparent reference to Mr. Obama's acknowledged drug use in the past. And throughout the day, supporters of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama each accused the other of injecting race in search of political gain.

The exchanges created apprehension among many of their supporters who viewed this moment - if perhaps inevitable, given the nature of the contest - as divisive for Democrats. At the same time, it offered a portrait of a party struggling through entirely unfamiliar terrain that has been brought into relief by Mr. Obama's victory in Iowa and Mrs. Clinton's in New Hampshire.

Two factors have helped create the atmosphere in which race and gender are coming to play a more prominent role. The first is that Democrats now increasingly view both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton as credible and electable candidates, given their victories.

In addition, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are now moving into a series of contests, particularly in South Carolina but also in California, where black voters could play a pivotal role.

Indeed, both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama spoke from the pulpits of black churches on Sunday, Mr. Obama in Las Vegas and Mrs. Clinton in South Carolina.

The candidates and their campaigns have not been innocent bystanders to all this. In fact, since her loss in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton has, subtly but unmistakably, pushed gender, engaging in a series of events intended to present her in softer ways. Many Democrats believe that Mrs. Clinton won New Hampshire after a decisive swing of women into her camp, particularly after a debate on the Saturday night before the primary in which John Edwards and Mr. Obama joined forces in criticizing her.

"I never thought we would see the day when an African-American and a woman were competing for the presidency of the United States," she told black parishioners at a Presbyterian church in Columbia, S.C. "Many of you in this sanctuary were born before African-Americans could vote. So this is not a piece of history that is happening to someone else; this is happening to us."

Mr. Obama, reflecting the different way he has talked about race during his own campaigns, took pains in speaking at a church service here on Sunday to avoid portraying his election as historic because of the possibility of putting an African-American in the White House.

"We're on the brink or cusp of doing something important; we can make history," Mr. Obama said, speaking to a few hundred worshipers at the Pentecostal Temple Church of God. "I know everybody is focused on racial history. That's not what I'm talking about. We can make history by being, the first time in a very long time, a grass-roots movement of people of all colors."

Mrs. Clinton said Sunday, in an interview on the NBC program "Meet the Press," that she was hopeful race and gender would not be an issue in this contest.

Still, supporters of Mr. Obama said in interviews Sunday that they were concerned Mrs. Clinton and her allies might be deliberately raising the issue of race at the very time that Mr. Obama had shown signs of taking off.

"I don't want to believe that, but I've got to tell you I'm wondering," said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat who is black and an Obama supporter. "I don't want to believe it is true."

Mrs. Clinton and her supporters denied that. Geraldine A. Ferraro, who was the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1984, said she thought Mr. Obama and his campaign were fanning the issue to draw black voters away from Mrs. Clinton before the primary in South Carolina, where about 50 percent of the electorate is expected to be black.

"As soon anybody from the Clinton campaign opens their mouth in a way that could make it seem as if they were talking about race, it will be distorted," Mrs. Ferraro said. "The spin will be put on it that they are talking about race. The Obama campaign is appealing to their base and their base is the African-American community. What they are trying to do is move voters from Clinton by distorting things. What have they got to lose?"

In a sign of how the issue was churning the waters, Mr. Edwards, also speaking at a church in South Carolina, expressed pride in Mr. Obama while criticizing Mrs. Clinton for what some have seen as her suggesting that President Lyndon B. Johnson deserved more credit than Dr. King for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"As someone who grew up in the segregated South, I feel an enormous amount of pride when I see the success that Senator Barack Obama is having in this campaign," said Mr. Edwards, who grew up in North Carolina. He added: "I was troubled recently to see a suggestion that real change came not through the Rev. Martin Luther King, but through a Washington politician. I fundamentally disagree with that."

Mr. Obama spoke in general terms Sunday about the attacks on his candidacy on a day when Mrs. Clinton specifically challenged his record on opposing the Iraq war.

"I think they have decided to run a relentlessly negative campaign, and I don't think anybody who's watching would deny that," he said. "I gather that she's determined that instead of trying to sell herself on why she would be the best president, she's trying to convince folks that I wouldn't be a good one."

Aides to both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama expressed squeamishness at the direction the conversation was heading. And publicly, the campaigns spent much of the day shadow-boxing on an issue that advisers to both of them described as volatile. The issue broke through when Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who appeared at a rally with Mrs. Clinton in Columbia, S.C., seemed to allude to Mr. Obama's use of cocaine as a young man.

"To me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in the book - when they have been involved," Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson later issued a statement saying he was referring to Mr. Obama's work as a labor organizer in Chicago, which he described in his book "Dreams From My Father."

Asked about Mr. Johnson's statement, Mr. Obama said, "What's there to respond to?"

"I'm not going to spend all my time running down the other candidates, which seems to be what Senator Clinton has been obsessed with for the last month," he said.

Reporting was contributed by Julie Bosman in Myrtle Beach, S.C.; Patrick Healy in New York; Katharine Q. Seelye in Columbia, S.C.; and Jeff Zeleny in Las Vegas.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6998

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

January 4, 2008

The candidates have spent a year and tens of millions of dollars in Iowa, and Thursday night the first actual voters offered their first assessments. Some candidates and their strategists were hoping the caucuses and the New Hampshire primary next week would settle the race, weeding out the contenders for the two major parties' presidential nominations. Watching the campaign in cold, snowy and mostly empty Iowa, we were hoping for something else - that this year's Iowa-New Hampshire rush to judgment will be the last.

For all of Thursday night's drama, the results in Iowa did not
preclude a race going into New Hampshire, and, we hope, beyond - to South Carolina, Florida and the cluster of primaries on February 5. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton, but she's got plenty of money left, and John Edwards got a boost. Mike Huckabee's win was unlikely to deter Mitt Romney or the Republicans who did not contest Iowa: John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani.

Keeping this race alive so significant numbers of Americans in more populated states can participate would begin to make up for the ludicrous spectacle of the past year, which enriched the television networks and the political consultants (some $300 million already spent) far more than it enriched the political dialogue. We hope both parties will wake up and end the undemocratic system in which the choice of a new president rests far too heavily on nonbinding votes in January by voters that don't necessarily represent the rest of the country.

We don't question the enthusiasm or the commitment of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire. But Iowa, where a huge turnout amounts to less than 10 percent of the population, is about 92 percent white, more rural and older than the rest of the nation. New Hampshire has a non-Hispanic white population of about 95 percent. Iowa's Democrats are more liberal and more protectionist than the nation's Democrats. Its Republicans are more conservative, and religiously driven, than the nation's Republicans. And yet, The Boston Globe reported that Mr. Romney spent $7 million on ads in Iowa. That's nearly $4 per registered voter.

We do believe that the time has long passed for both parties to not only break the Iowa-New Hampshire habit but also end the damaging race to be third, with states pushing their primaries closer and closer to New Year's Day.

Instead, the country should adopt a more sensible and more representative system of regional primaries, in which states are divided into regional groups that vote on a designated day. The honor of going first would rotate year to year among the regions. That would give a far broader range of American voters a say in this vitally important choice.

Make no mistake, there are choices to be made in this first election in many, many years in which both parties' nominations are being contested. Most of the Republican contenders (with the exception, most of the time, of Senator John McCain) offer the same kind of politics of division that has so polarized this nation over the last seven years. It is a politics that thrives on religious and social intolerance and fear.

Mr. Huckabee, the Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, cloaks himself in affability and Christianity. But he bullied Mr. Romney into pleading with religious conservatives to accept his Mormon faith as Christian enough for a Republican nominee and, after professing charity, has recently become a scourge of undocumented immigrants.

Fear often appears to be the only plank on which Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, is standing, when you can tell where he is standing at all. Mr. Giuliani, who parlayed the 9/11 tragedy into a lucrative business and now speaks, bizarrely, of the "9/11 generation," has switched his views a dizzying number of times - on immigration, on abortion, on New York.

Almost as dizzying, in fact, as the pirouettes executed by Mr. Romney, who wants American voters to forget his record as governor of Massachusetts - where he endorsed gay marriage and reproductive choice - and believe what he says now that he wants to be president. Among Mr. Romney's tailored-for-the-campaign proposals is to double the size of the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which even President Bush knows must be closed.

All of the Republicans want to continue President Bush's disaster of a war in Iraq, including Mr. McCain. He, however, has taken a courageous stand for immigration reform, which seemed to doom his candidacy last year, and is a strong advocate of the need to confront global warming and to stop the abuse of prisoners in Mr. Bush's system of secret prisons.

The Democrats are united in their opposition to the war, but none have spelled out a persuasive plan for getting American troops home without setting off a wider conflagration.

Senator Obama generates enormous excitement with his youth, and his promises of change - even if it's not entirely clear what he intends to change or how. Senator Clinton, meanwhile, wavers between wanting to be seen as ready to serve as president because of her eight years in the White House with her husband - and trying to satisfy voters' yearnings for new ideas and new ways.

Mr. Edwards has a strong populist message, but it sounds a bit odd coming from a former tort lawyer and hedge fund executive who ran as a completely different person in 2004. One of his ads features an out-of-work Maytag employee who said Mr. Edwards promised his 7-year-old son: "I'm going to keep fighting for your daddy's job." We're still waiting for Mr. Edwards to explain how he, or any politician, can turn back the tide of economics and globalization. We'd prefer if he explained how to make it work for all Americans.

None of this has led us to a choice in the nominating contests, never mind for the presidency. The majority of Americans are in the same position. That's why they should be allowed to see and hear more of these candidates, and not have to settle for the judgments of the people of Iowa and New Hampshire.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6927

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By PATRICK HEALY, January 4, 2008

DES MOINES - The Democratic and Republican establishments and their presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Governor Mitt Romney, were brought low in Iowa on Thursday night, shaken seriously by two national newcomers who won decisively on messages of insurgency and change.

The victors in Iowa, Senator Barack Obama for the Democrats and former Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, are as far from the status quo as possible. One is the son of a Kenyan father and a white Kansan mother who entered the United States Senate just three years ago. The other is a former Baptist minister who was best known until recently for losing over 100 pounds and taking on the issue of childhood obesity.

The two winners burst the aura of strength and confidence that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney had tried to cultivate for months, and left both parties suddenly without a clear path to their nominating conventions, let alone November.

Mrs. Clinton's loss was especially glaring. Her central strategy for much of 2007 was to appear as the inevitable nominee, but Iowans shredded that notion. She tried in recent weeks to convince voters that another Clinton administration could be an agent of change, but Iowans clearly did not buy it.

Without question, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Romney have the money, the campaign apparatus and the legions of supporters to stay in the hunt for the nomination and to right their campaigns. But Mrs. Clinton's lackluster finish raises anew questions about her electability, and whether independent voters - twice as many of whom backed Mr. Obama over her - will ever come around to Mrs. Clinton.

And Mr. Romney, who outspent Mr. Huckabee 6 to 1 in television advertising in Iowa, now faces a far more crowded field of rivals in the New Hampshire primary who are eager to tear into his wounded candidacy

All the candidates now move to that primary on Tuesday, which Mrs. Clinton had tried to make a fire wall for her campaign, as it was for her husband's presidential candidacy in 1992, when he finished strongly in second place.

"If Hillary doesn't stop Obama in New Hampshire, Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who was John Kerry's senior strategist in 2004.

Clinton advisers declined to say Thursday night if she would now pursue a different strategy against Mr. Obama. But a shift seems likely now that Mrs. Clinton's multilayered, sometimes contradictory message - offering an experienced hand, for example, but also running as a candidate who could bring change - fell flat in this first contest.

"We built a campaign for the long haul - we feel very good about our operation in New Hampshire, and polling has us up," said Howard Wolfson, a Clinton spokesman. The danger for Mrs. Clinton, of course, is that those polls may not hold after the outcome in Iowa.

Further undercutting Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama peeled away broad swaths of women from her base of support, and the political potency of baby boomers fell apart in Iowa. Half of the Democrats under 45 said their first choice was Mr. Obama, according to a poll by Edison/Mitofsky of voters entering caucus sites.

At the same time, it was also historic that so many Iowa Democrats voted for an African-American man and a woman. For Mr. Obama, especially, the ratification of his candidacy by Democrats and independents in a predominantly white and rural state suggests that he may be able to build a broad and multiracial coalition in his bid for the White House.

The nomination fights will only intensify from now, though the steel that Mr. Huckabee will deploy in the battle is unclear. He seemed to come out of nowhere - a former governor who was so little known among Republicans that many of them could not even name the state he once led (Arkansas) - and turned from asterisk-status to giant-slayer in spite of a paltry political organization, slim dollars and a final week marked by gaffes.

As when Pat Robertson made a surprise second-place showing in the Iowa caucuses in 1988, Mr. Huckabee enjoyed substantial political support from evangelical Christians and took advantage of a muddled Republican presidential field to gain his 11th-hour victory.

For Mr. Romney, of Massachusetts, his loss will register as a deep blow to his candidacy - a failure bound to worry establishment Republicans and wealthy donors who have viewed him as their man. It will also energize and inspire Republicans who are backing Senator John McCain in the New Hampshire primary.

Mr. Romney's drive to the Republican nomination was supposed to begin with him looking formidable and confident coming out of Iowa. Mr. Romney, his wife and his sons planted themselves here for months and poured in money, including millions of his own; he now heads to New Hampshire clearly wounded and a target for even more rivals, like Rudolph W. Giuliani, former Senator Fred Thompson, and Mr. McCain, of Arizona.

Mr. Huckabee, a folksy and fairly plain-speaking politician with a sense of humor that many Iowans enjoyed, appealed to Republican caucusgoers who put a premium on a candidate's Christian faith, and who were deeply wary about seeing a Mormon, Mr. Romney, become president.

But Mr. Huckabee also struck many populist themes that have deep appeal to middle-class Iowans and farmers, promising to tailor his economic priorities to their needs and taking tough stands on a key issue here, immigration.

But Iowa voters are not New Hampshire voters, as Mr. Huckabee and his advisers are well aware. Devoutly religious voters do not exist in nearly the same numbers in the Granite State. And the fervent anti-tax sentiment among Republicans there is likely to clash with Mr. Huckabee's record of raising taxes in Arkansas.

"If Huckabee scares the Republican establishment and makes the party fear losing, you could see a rapid rallying around a second candidate," said Nelson Warfield, a Republican consultant not working for any candidate. Still, he said, "Nothing makes a man look like a leader more than a winner."

Mr. Robertson's Iowa victory in 1988 - when he came in second to Bob Dole and edged out the ultimate nominee, George H. W. Bush - gave him little bounce in New Hampshire, given the lack of a fervent evangelical base. "I'm going to be the nominee," Mr. Robertson said right after his victory, crediting God in particular with his success. But his fortunes faded after a drubbing soon after in New Hampshire.

Mr. Huckabee talked about God on the Iowa campaign trail, as well, but on Thursday night there was one other word that he - as well as Mr. Obama, Mr. Romney, Mrs. Clinton, former Senator John Edwards - discussed especially and emphatically: "change."

As Mr. Edwards put it, "the status quo lost and change won" in the caucuses. Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee repeated the words incessantly in their victory speeches, brandishing the word as a talisman that overcame Mrs. Clinton's decades of experience and Mr. Romney's leadership bona fides. Yet change was not only the political message; change was the two men themselves.

Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6925

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By GAIL COLLINS, New York Times January 3, 2008

DES MOINES

As the presidential candidates tell them every single day, Iowans deserve to be the nation's kingmakers because they are exceptional citizens who take their responsibilities very, very seriously. So tonight, even though it's very cold - even though it's Hokies vs. Jayhawks in the Orange Bowl - the sturdy Iowa voters will pull on their parkas and go out to fulfill their historic destiny. Perhaps as many as 15 percent of them!

"Money will become irrelevant once somebody wins the Iowa caucus," said John (I Currently Have No Money) Edwards. "The winner of the Iowa caucus is going to have huge amounts of money pouring in." Edwards, the Democratic third-runner, has spent more time in Iowa than many Iowans, who have a tendency to flee to Florida in the winter.

People, ignore whatever happens here. The identity of the next leader of the most powerful nation in the world is not supposed to depend on the opinion of one small state. Let alone the sliver of that state with the leisure and physical capacity to make a personal appearance tonight at a local caucus that begins at precisely 7 o'clock. Let alone the tiny slice of the small sliver willing to take part in a process that involves standing up in public to show a political preference, while being lobbied and nagged by neighbors.

Ah yes, good work fighting for democracy around the globe, American troops, Pakistani lawyers, international election observers. The tiny slice of the sliver of the small state approves.

Tonight, the Iowa Deciders will divide into 1,781 local caucuses. Past history suggests that a few of these gatherings may not draw any attendees whatsoever and that several others will consist entirely of a guy named Carl. Attendance has no effect on the number of delegates involved, and we hardly need mention that the whole thing is weighted to give rural residents an advantage. Iowans in politically active neighborhoods where 100 people show up may find their vote is worth only 1 percent as much as, say, Carl's. This gives them the opportunity to experience what it is like to be a New Yorker or Californian all year round.

Iowa Republican caucuses, which involve writing a name on a piece of paper and going home, are like Athens in the Age of Pericles compared with the Democrats, who are closer to Turkmenistan in the age of Saparmurat Niyazov. Tonight the Democratic caucus-goers (We are expecting way more than 100,000!) will divide up into groups supporting each of the different candidates. (Secret ballots are for sissies.) Then some of the smaller groups will be dissolved under rules so complicated they are known only to the local insiders and experts hired by the candidates to decipher them. (Sometimes these turn out to be the exact same people!)

"What if the largest groups are not immediately apparent because more than one nonviable Presidential Preference group contains the same number of eligible attendees and will not realign?" the party guide asks rhetorically. This is the simplified version of the rules prepared for the benefit of the media, but the answer, obviously, is that you flip a coin. ("A game of chance is used to determine which groups may remain.")

On the Republican side, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are at a grave disadvantage because of a failure to campaign enough in Iowa. (You'd think Florida was a state or something.) Fred Thompson is so desperate to go home that he's practically begging people to vote for somebody else. Mitt Romney is by far the best organized. His victory in the important Iowa straw poll last summer demonstrated that he would really be a president who knows how to rent a bus. Meanwhile, the very enthusiastic evangelicals are going to try to prove that if a commander in chief has a heart like Mike Huckabee's, it won't matter whether he knows where Pakistan is.

Obama backers believe Barack will win on a record-breaking turnout of new participants, some of them being actual Iowa residents. (Checking is for babies.) Or everything could come down to the minor candidates' supporters - rule by the tiny piece of the slice of the sliver.

In the Democratic caucuses, if your group is the smallest in the room you might have to: A) Relive the moment in ninth grade when you were the last one chosen for volleyball and then B) Walk over and join a different team. Dennis Kucinich has told his followers that if - by some wild chance - they find that they are not one of the most popular groups, they should switch to Barack Obama. Kucinich's positions on most issues actually seem closer to John Edwards's, but last summer Edwards was caught on tape whispering to Hillary Clinton that Dennis was really not a serious contender. Petty, perhaps, but in a contest that begins with the presumption that nobody is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth without making at least two visits to Pottawattamie County, it resonates.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6921

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
January 1, 2008

DES MOINES - Iowa is packed with presidential candidates and hundreds of campaign aides, advisers and contributors. Twenty-five hundred representatives of news organizations have been granted credentials to cover the caucuses Thursday night, twice as many as in 2004. Rarely has a political event been so intensely anticipated as a decisive moment, at least on the Democratic side.

But what if it is not decisive?

What if at the end of Thursday, the three leading Democrats - former Senator John Edwards and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama - are separated by a percentage point or two, leaving no one with the clear right of delivering a victory speech (or the burden of conceding)? A number of polls going into the final days have suggested that after all of this, the Democratic caucus on Thursday night could end up more or less a tie.

In truth, amid all the endless permutations of outcomes that are being discussed - can Mrs. Clinton, the putative front-runner, survive a third-place finish, or Mr. Edwards a second-place one? - aides are beginning to grapple with the frustrating possibility that all the time, money and political skill invested here might prove to be for naught when it comes to identifying the candidate to beat in the primaries and winnowing the top tier.

"It would be like a six-month trial and a hung jury," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "I think it is really possible."

Rather than clarify the state of play and consolidate this crowded field a bit, an outcome like that would almost certainly muddle things further and potentially extend the time before Democrats know their nominee.

For different reasons, Iowa is not likely to determine much for the Republicans, either. Only Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, are going all-out here, and whatever happens between them, the Republican race already seems likely to go on at least until the cavalcade of primaries across the country on Feb. 5.

But for the leading Democrats, an inconclusive ending here would be a much more complicated result.

Because none of them would be judged a decisive loser, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama would all be able to go on to the New Hampshire primary next week, no questions asked. And you can bet on this: the other Democrats in the race - Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., Representative Dennis J. Kucinich and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico - would feel less of the morning-after-Iowa pressure to pull out.

It would be hard for any candidate to play the "I beat expectations" game and claim some sort of chimerical victory, much the way Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the winner after coming in second in New Hampshire in 1992 - although Mr. Edwards, who for much of the year campaigned in the shadow of his two rivals, would no doubt try.

"Frankly, if there's a three-way tie, that changes the dynamics of what has been reported the entire year: that it's a two-person race," said Jennifer O'Malley Dillon, the Iowa campaign director for Mr. Edwards, who has put in more than a year preparing for this week. "It changes the way people look at the race, and they'll see it as a three-way race."

It is a good bet, in fact, that one candidate would try to claim a victory, even if it was by a single percentage point or less. Still, that is not likely to get him or her on the cover of Time or Newsweek (that would be the old-school way of measuring the political impact of winning in Iowa). The other two would be left fighting for the right of second place. And politics being politics, it is likely there would be a campaign trying to present a three-way tie as a victory.

Beyond that, New Hampshire, which for Democrats has seemed something like a stepchild in this year's nominating process given all the attention being paid to Iowa, would get a chance to have some real influence over the nomination. For 25 years, there has been debate and study about how the outcome in Iowa affects New Hampshire voters. This time around, because of the decision by the New Hampshire secretary of state, Bill Gardner, to set the primary on Jan. 8, voters will have just five days to examine the candidates and make their decision.

One of the bedrock political assumptions of the year - and certainly one that has informed Mrs. Clinton's campaign - is that winning Iowa and New Hampshire would set the table for sweeping the 20 or so states that vote on Feb. 5, the day when many Democrats believe that their contest will effectively be decided. But if Iowans end up being equally divided among what many party leaders view as an unusually strong cast of candidates, who is to say that voters in the Feb. 5 states won't be as well?

None of this is meant to suggest that such an outcome would mean that what has taken place here over the past year is insignificant. Quite the contrary. Watching these candidates, Democrats and Republicans, deliver their final speeches, take the last rounds of questions from Iowans and shake the hands of supporters one more time, it is apparent that most of them are much better at campaigning than they were a year ago.

Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, an old Iowa caucus hand who has moved here to help out in the final days, said as much in explaining why he would be comfortable with even an inconclusive outcome. "The experience here in Iowa," he said, "has been tremendous for the entire campaign."

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6909

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By LESLIE WAYNE
New York Times
January 1, 2008

DES MOINES - Spurred by a recent Supreme Court decision, independent political groups are using their financial muscle and organizational clout as never before to influence the presidential race, pumping money and troops into early nominating states on behalf of their favored candidates.

Iowans have been bombarded over the last few days with radio spots supporting John Edwards that were paid for by a group affiliated with locals of the Service Employees International Union, which just kicked in $800,000 - on top of $760,000 already spent.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, rolled across Iowa on Monday in a customized black-and-gold bus emblazoned with his picture and the logo of the International Association of Firefighters, which has spent several hundred thousand dollars supporting him. And at campaign events in Iowa, backers in AFSCME union shirts turned out Monday to show their support for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York. Those appearances come in addition to the union's $770,000 advertising campaign promoting her candidacy.

The groups are prohibited from coordinating their efforts with the campaigns. But the candidates, while often distancing themselves from these efforts, certainly benefit from their activities. Iowa airwaves have been filled with commercials from these groups as they take advantage of the June ruling that lifted a ban on broadcast messages from independent groups within 30 days of a primary or caucus.

Independent groups also act as a vehicle for negative advertising that campaigns are reluctant to engage in. The Club for Growth, for instance, has spent $700,000 so far, largely on broadcast spots here and in other early voting states that criticize Mike Huckabee's record on taxes while he was Arkansas governor, an effort that has received several hundred thousands of dollars from an Arkansas political rival of Mr. Huckabee, a Republican.

The shifting stand on abortion by Mitt Romney, a Republican former governor of Massachusetts, has come under attack in broadcast advertisements here and in New Hampshire from the Republican Majority for Choice, a group of Republican women who support abortion rights.

In the final two weeks before the caucuses on Thursday, independent groups have so far spent at least $5 million in Iowa, with much of the money benefiting the campaigns of Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton. During the last presidential primary election cycle, these groups spent nothing on advertising before the caucuses, largely because of the prohibition on such activity in the 30 days before nominating contests. But independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and MoveOn.org played a major role in the 2004 general election.

The June ruling, in a case involving a Wisconsin anti-abortion group, allowed television issue advertisements from third-party groups - whether unions, corporations or wealthy individuals - to run right up to an election day. Under the McCain-Feingold law, which limits the role of money in campaigns, these spots had to cease 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general one.

"This more permissive standard," said Kenneth Gross, a veteran campaign finance lawyer, "means there will be more money, more ads and more saturation."

Unlike national political parties and their candidates, many of these interest groups face no limits on how much they can take in from their contributors and often do not have to disclose their donors' names until after an election. As a result, it is difficult - if not impossible - to determine just how much money they are spending. While there is, ostensibly, an independent relationship between a campaign and these groups, restrictions on coordination between the two are considered so murky that they are often difficult to apply.

In Iowa, the efforts on behalf of or against the candidates involve not only television and radio advertisements, but also the nitty-gritty of a campaign: direct-mail brochures, bus tours, pep rallies, telephone calls, educational efforts to explain the caucuses, and traditional get-out-the-vote efforts. Independent groups pay for billboards, banners, yard signs, caps, T-shirts and mugs and set up Web sites on behalf of their favorite candidates, efforts that often look as though they were produced by the campaign itself.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois is the only leading Democrat who has not attracted support from any of these groups in Iowa. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards are the biggest beneficiaries of independent efforts, largely because of the union support the two have garnered. And yet both candidates are proponents of stricter campaign finance rules.

Mr. Edwards, in particular, has made tightening such rules a cornerstone of his campaign, putting him in a delicate position as he denounces expenditures coming indirectly from some of his closest supporters, like locals of the service employees' union.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards has called on the groups, known as 527s for the section of the tax code they fall under, to stop running advertisements supporting him. But he has said he will not ask them directly.

"I do not support 527 groups, Mr. Edwards said. "They are part of the law, but let me be clear: I am asking this group and others not to run the ads. I would encourage all the 527s to stay out of the political process."

Mr. Dodd is getting a spirited boost from the firefighters' association, which is traveling with him on a 23-city tour on a bus with an enormous picture of him and the union's logo on its side.

"You can see that bus from two miles away," said Harold Schaitberger, the union's president, who flew in from Washington to lead the effort for the 287,000-member union.

Mr. Schaitberger declined to say how much the group planned to spend, other than that it would be "a considerable sum."

The bus tour shows how the lines are blurred: a previous tour cost the union $100,000, while this one, using the same bus, is being paid for by the campaign. The union has also posted "hundreds" of four-foot-by-eight-foot Dodd signs, he said. Federal records show that the group also spent over $10,000 in the last few days on billboards and $102,000 on full-page advertisements in Iowa's 23 largest newspapers last Sunday.

Emily's List, a political action committee that supports women running as Democrats, is making a special effort for Mrs. Clinton. Its campaign is titled "You Go Girl!" and is directed at women who have never attended a caucus.

The group's own polling showed that Mrs. Clinton had a two-to-one lead among women who had not previously attended a caucus. As a result, that group, which Emily's List pared to 60,000 names, became the focus of its efforts with a direct-mail campaign, a phone bank and a "You Go Girl!" Web site. All efforts feature women with Midwestern accents explaining how the caucus works and urging them to support Mrs. Clinton.

"Getting someone who has not caucused to go out is the hardest effort," said Maren Hesla, director of the effort, which she says has cost $300,000 so far and "we're not done spending."

The Web site is also linked to a number of Google search terms. If an Iowan searches terms like "safe toys," "stocking stuffers" or "after-Christmas sale," a banner advertisement with the link to the Web site will appear.

Mrs. Clinton is also the beneficiary of a $770,000 television advertising campaign from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The spot features Iowa voters talking about how Mrs. Clinton can "start this job on Day 1," which is one of her campaign's themes. The union estimates that it will spend more than $1 million on this television campaign.

Mr. Edwards's efforts to distance himself from third-party efforts has not halted the ardor of some union groups campaigning on his behalf.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners has formed a group, Working for Working Americans, that has paid around $500,000 for television spots supporting Mr. Edwards. The advertisements focus on the issue of job loss and cite the closing of the Maytag factory in Newton, Iowa. They say Mr. Edwards would end the practice of giving tax breaks to companies that move jobs overseas, and urge voters to "give voice to your values" while showing pictures of Mr. Edwards. Federal records show money for the spots came from the union's general fund.

Mr. Edwards is also benefiting from more than $1.5 million from the Alliance for a New America, which has primarily been running a radio campaign in Iowa. While most of the money has come from service union locals, one big donation of $495,000 that came in last Friday was given by a longtime Edwards supporter.

The name of the donating entity is Oak Spring Farms, which lists its address as Central Park South in New York. The entity is a partnership between Rachel L. Mellon, the 96-year-old widow of Paul Mellon, and her lawyer, Alexander D. Forger. Oak Spring Farms had previously given $250,000 to Mr. Edwards's One America committee, a 527 committee he set up to fight poverty.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6908

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

With just two weeks to go before New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary, we're in the final push. There's no better way to help Barack Obama become our president than to join us in the Granite State. You can make a difference as we reach out to undecided voters and convince them that Barack Obama is the leader that we need right now.


There are two ways you can help:

1) Canvass with us this weekend in New Hampshire

This is our last weekend before we need to Get Out The Vote. Now's the time to stand up and get involved for Barack:

http://nh.barackobama.com/NECanvass

No prior political experience is required to take part -- a member of our staff will train you, answer your questions, and provide you with all of the information you need before you hit the streets. Carpools and buses are available to all.

Join us to canvass, meet our campaign staff, and get to know fellow Obama supporters:

http://nh.barackobama.com/NECanvass

2) Make a commitment to Get Out The Vote on January 8

There's no more important time to volunteer than Primary Day. Your time and efforts will get voters to the polls and help Barack win the first-in-the-nation primary:

http://nh.barackobama.com/NEJan8

With your help, in less than two weeks we will show the nation what we know to be possible.

Let's do this together.

Thank you,

Nancy

Nancy Hogan
New Hampshire Get Out The Vote Director
Obama for America

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Disabled Voter's Committee
of the Iowa Democratic Party's
Disabilities Caucus

November 15, 2007

Purpose: The following collection of candidates' statements is hereby provided so that Iowa voters who have disabilities can use the information in making their choice of the next President of the United States.

Note: Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich do not have Iowa campaign offices. Senator Barack Obama is the only candidate who specifically addressed the issues listed on the Iowa Democratic Party Disability Caucus Issues List. Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, and Edwards and Governor Richardson answered a questionnaire from the A.A.P.D.; all information relating to issues is from that document and the candidates' websites and other published materials. The materials were all used with permission of the candidates' campaigns.

Issues: These are the issues that the Disability Caucus of the Iowa Democratic Party Disabled Voters' Committee chose as the most important because of their significant impact on the live of people who have disabilities. The Committee asked all the Presidential candidates for their positions on these issues.

1. Do you have a comprehensive, universal healthcare plan?

Sen. Joseph Biden supports universal health care to ensure that all Americans, including those with disabilities, have access to affordable, quality health care. He thinks we will get to universal health care by: (1) focusing on reducing the cost of health care; (2) covering all kids; (3) giving everyone access to, at a minimum, the same health care plans that members of Congress have; and (4) lowering the cost of providing health insurance for employers and providing catastrophic coverage.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a plan that stresses simplicity, cost control, and consumer choice. It is the American Health Choices Plan, which greatly improves care for Americans with disabilities by guaranteeing them coverage. People with disabilities will have more health insurance options under this plan because they will be able to choose from an array of private health insurance plans that offer benefits like those offered to Members of Congress, as well as a public program similar to Medicare. Insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage or charging higher premiums for individuals with pre-existing conditions and they will be prohibited from charging significantly higher premiums based on medical condition, age, gender, or occupation. The American Health Choices Plan preserves and expands existing critical support programs that fill gaps in private insurance. It will also provide tax credits to assure that no American's health insurance premium exceeds a certain percentage of income and the Best Practices Institute will fund medical research and disseminate this information to health care professionals and patients. The American Health Choices Plan requires coverage of important prevention service to diagnose and treat illnesses before they become serious and require expensive intervention because it involves the use of privacy-protected information technology and the empowerment of physicians to be a part of the quality development process. In addition, since persons with disabilities who have chronic health conditions may often need coordinated care services, the Clinton plan revises reimbursement to health care providers to provide incentives for the development of innovative models of care including "medical homes" and chronic care management.

Sen. Chris Dodd would ensure that all Americans will have quality, affordable health coverage. He will create a health insurance marketplace called Universal HealthMart that is based on, and parallel to, the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP). The Dodd plan would include business and individual contributions based on the ability to pay. It will have premiums that are affordable based on leveraged negotiating power, spreading risk, reduced administrative costs, and incentives for technology and prevention care. It will also have portable coverage; insurance purchased at Universal HealthMart will follow individuals.

Sen. John Edwards understands that health case is of special concern to people with disabilities. His plan guarantees universal coverage for everyone in America. Under his plan, families without insurance will receive coverage at an affordable price and families that have insurance will pay less and get more security and choices. Managed care should be a choice for people with disabilities and they need access to specialists that is now artificially limited by narrow definitions of medical necessity.

Mike Gravel proposes a universal healthcare voucher program in which the federal government would issue annual healthcare vouchers to Americans based on their projected needs. All Americans would be fully covered and would be free to use their vouchers to choose their own healthcare professional. No one would ever be denied health insurance because of their health, wealth, or any other reason.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich would streamline national health insurance to create "Enhanced Medicare for Everyone". It would be publicly financed health care, privately delivered, and would put patients and doctors back in control of the system. Coverage would be more complete than private insurance plans, encourage prevention, and include prescription drugs, dental care, mental health care, and alternative and complementary medicine.

Sen. Barack Obama is committed to ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage by the end of his first term in office. He recognizes that people with disabilities experience difficulties gaining access to quality health care. As president, Sen. Obama will require all health care providers to collect, analyze, and report data on the quality of health care given to vulnerable populations, including those with disabilities. This will improve care and health outcomes. His plan will also help people with disabilities by emphasizing care coordination and integration, which can dramatically improve care for patients with multiple conditions and doctors. Sen. Obama also supports additional training of health care workers so that they are better able to address the needs of the disabled populations.

Gov. Bill Richardson's plan for universal coverage would ensure that Americans with or without disabilities would have access to affordable, guaranteed coverage.

2. What is your plan for total consumer control of prescription drug programs?

Sen. Joseph Biden will work to expand access to Medicare Part D for people with disabilities. He supports allowing the Federal Government to directly negotiate for better drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies which would lower the cost to consumers. He will also close the "doughnut hole" gap in coverage that occurs once someone hits $2,250 in coverage.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been actively involved with ensuring fair and equal access to Medicare Part D prescription drugs. She introduced legislation in the Senate to help the most vulnerable seniors and disabled Americans transition to new Medicare plans. As president, she will continue to fight for fair access to Medicare Part D prescriptions and to ensure that policies do not undermine continuity of care for any population served. Sen. Clinton also believes that we need to have a better understanding of the best pharmaceutical treatment options for all patients. Thus, she proposes establishing an independent public-private Best Practices Institute, which would be a partnership between the public and private sector that would let doctors, nurses, and other health professionals know what drugs, devices, surgeries, and treatments work best.

Sen. Chris Dodd will assure that people with disabilities have fair access to Medicare Part D by requiring Medicare to negotiate drug prices and immediately eliminating the so-called "doughnut hole" in Medicare Part D drug plans.

Sen. John Edwards believes that the federal government must ensure that Medicare Part D participants are able to access the prescription drugs they need to maintain their health and independence. As president, he will rewrite the drug bill to put patients and people above drug companies and HMO's, empower the government to negotiate better drug prices, and allow the safe reimprtation of drugs from other countries.

Sen. Barack Obama worked with Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) to urge the Department of Health and Human Services to provide clear and reliable information on the Medicare prescription drug benefit and to ensure that the Medicare recipients were protected from fraudulent claims by marketers and drug plan agents.

Gov. Bill Richardson will establish programs in each state to ensure that people with disabilities are made aware of all options available to them under Medicare Part D.

3. How will you adequately fund Medicaid waivers and other programs that facilitate independent living?

Sen. Joseph Biden was an original cosponsor of the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act (MiCASSA), which would provide a variety of personal assistance services under the Medicaid program to enable disabled individuals to live at home rather than in institutions. He cosponsored the Family Opportunity Act to allow low-income families with disabled children to buy into the Medicaid program. He cosponsored the Lifespan Respite Care Act, which would facilitate the provision of temporary rest breaks (respite care) for caregivers who take care of a chronically ill or disabled individual. Sen. Biden sponsored legislation to protect children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities by providing non-profit groups that work with or care for such individuals with easy access to thorough, efficient criminal background checks through a national center on volunteer and provider screening.

Sen. Hillary Clinton understands that people with disabilities need assurance that individuals who provide direct-care services in home- and community-based settings are in sufficient supply and are well-trained. Therefore, addressing the shortage of health-care professionals and increasing choice of providers is critical to improving access to care for community-based services. The American Health Choices Plan addresses this issue by providing funding to schools of nursing to recruit and train faculty. Sen. Clinton believes that the Medicare homebound rule has been enforced in a far too restrictive manner and, as President, she will embrace a fair modification of Medicare rules so that Americans with disabilities are able to live their lives fully, without fear of losing their Medicare benefits. Sen. Clinton co-sponsored the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act, which provides individuals with disabilities and older Americans with equal access to community-based attendant services and supports. She believes the Olmstead opinion was a tremendously important moment in the disability movement and will support efforts to help states comply with it.

Sen. Chris Dodd will support creation of additional community-based options for individuals with disabilities because he understands their right to live their lives to the fullest in whatever setting they choose. In a Dodd Administration, Medicaid policy will not be stacked against community living. Sen. Dodd's Living with Dignity Initiative includes specific steps to attract, support, and retain home health aides and attendants; he will provide resources to improve wages, training, and working conditions for aides and will also establish strong workplace safety regulations such as ergonomics regulations.

Sen. John Edwards supports providing choices for people with disabilities to live in the community and will support legislation that strengthens freedom of choice. He has proposed a Living with Dignity Initiative that will fund state efforts to expand home care and reform the long-term care, including tax credits for long-term care, asset and income protection programs that prevent families from spending above their incomes, and experiments with long-term care insurance. He will also support the recruitment and retention of home care workers through better wages, training, and working conditions. His plan guarantees quality, affordable health care for American; it will strengthen Medicaid support for long-term care and emphasize home and community-based care to allow caregivers to keep their family members nearby.

Sen. Edwards believes that people with disabilities should be able to fully enjoy the benefits of living in a home of their choosing and in a community of their choosing. His Living with Dignity Initiative includes specific steps to attract, support, and retain home health aides and attendants.

Sen. Barack Obama believes that individuals who want to remain in the community and can safely do so should be provided the necessary assistance and supports. Therefore, he would increase funding for both HCBS and Independent Living Programs and prioritize efforts to streamline application and administrative requirements for states which choose to implement or expand these initiatives.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports providing choices for people with disabilities to live in the community. He would increase the wages of care attendants.

4. How would you create a standardization of government entitlement programs, e.g., housing, medical care, and income supplementation?

Sen. Barack Obama would standardize and coordinate government entitlement programs to make them more user-friendly. He believes that too many Medicare and Medicaid "dual eligibles" are subject to time-consuming
and complicated administrative processes that delay access to care and can result in lower quality care. He supports streamlining the benefits process for individuals with disabilities so that people receive the care they require in a timely manner. Both programs should give individuals with disabilities more information about the care to which they are entitled to receive under both programs so that decisions about care can be made in a unified manner. He also believes that the demonstrations projects that the Community Choices Act of 2007 seeks to create to improve coordination between benefits received by dual Medicare and Medicaid recipients are an important step to undertake in addressing this problem.

5. Do you support an ADA affirmative action provision like the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Sen. Joseph Biden co-sponsored the Americans with Disabilities Act, which extended the civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities. He will ensure that United States Supreme Court and other federal judges follow established precedent and Congressional intent with respect to the ADA and all other civil rights laws, thereby preserving equal rights for people who have disabilities and other minorities. Sen. Biden understands that the greatest barrier to full integration of individuals with Disabilities into mainstream society is not the limitations of their individual disability, but rather, it is the physical and attitudinal barriers imposed by society.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was a co-sponsor of a Senate Resolution that recognized and honored the fifteenth anniversary of the ADA because she is a strong believer in the value of the ADA. As president, she pledges to uphold the values intrinsic in the ADA and she will welcome advocacy groups to meet with her administration and voice their concerns. She will appoint judges who understand and respect the value of civil rights.

Sen. Chris Dodd supports an ADA Restoration Act because of the incremental erosion of the rights guaranteed by the ADA by the courts.

Sen. John Edwards is committed to protecting the civil rights of people with disabilities with full enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. He will ensure that the ADA remains consistent with the original intent of Congress.

Sen. Barack Obama is a former civil rights lawyer. Therefore, he knows firsthand the importance of strong protections for minority communities in our society. He is committed to strengthening and better enforcing the ADA so that future generations of Americans with disabilities have equal rights and opportunities. Sen. Obama believes we must restore the original legislative intent of the ADA in the wake of court decisions that have restricted the interpretation of this landmark legislation. He supports the ADA Restoration Act, a law that would bring us closer to the ADA's ideal of barring discrimination against anyone on the basis of disability.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports an ADA Restoration Act because the ADA has been seriously weakened by Supreme Court decisions.

6. Do you support insurance coverage for mental health treatment that is equal to treatment for physical health treatment, i.e. mental health parity?

Sen. Joseph Biden was a cosponsor of the Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act and remains committed to the goals of that Act as a cosponsor of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007.

Sen. Hillary Clinton believes that government must ensure parity in health insurance coverage of mental health benefits. She cosponsored the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, which prohibits employers and health plans from imposing durational treatment limits and financial limitations on coverage for mental illness that do not apply to all other medical conditions.

Sen. Chris Dodd has long supported and will continue to support efforts to ensure mental health parity for all Americans because he believes that it is essential that we require employers and health plans to cover treatment for mental health conditions on the same basis of all other illnesses. A Dodd Administration would not only pass mental health parity legislation, it would strongly enforce it.

Sen. John Edwards believes mental illness and physical illness must get the same insurance coverage. He has long supported mental health parity legislation; he co-sponsored the Wellstone Mental Health Parity Act.

Sen. Barack Obama supports efforts to increase federal support for researching and fighting mental illnesses, as well as legislative efforts to mandate that private insurers cover physical and mental illnesses in a similar manner. He will make combating mental health and substance abuse disorders a higher priority. This is why he supported the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, which requires employers and insurance companies that offer mental health coverage to provide parity between mental health and physical health coverage.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports mental health parity legislation because he believes it is time for us to treat behavioral health issues the same as we treat other medical disorders.

7. How will you reduce the number of individuals with serious mental illnesses who are in the criminal justice system?

Sen. Barack Obama believes that tackling the problem of the high number of mentally ill prisoners will require a concerted effort to reach out to and provide treatment for the mentally ill before some end up in the criminal justice system. He supports efforts to increase federal support for researching and fighting mental illnesses, as well as legislative efforts to mandate private insurers to cover physical and mental illnesses in a similar manner. He will make combating mental health and substance abuse disorders a higher priority. He supported the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. Sen. Obama will also help state and local governments improve the availability of mental health services, train their law enforcement personnel to recognize the signs of mental illness in offenders, and give prosecutors more tools to deal appropriately with mentally ill offenders. He is a strong supporter of the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2004, and, as president, will ensure that it is adequately funded. He also supports improving our background check system to keep guns from ending up in the hands of people who are mentally ill.

8. How do you plan to fully include people who have disabilities in all phases of disaster planning and hazard mitigation?

Sen. Joseph Biden will guarantee that people who have disabilities are fully included by appointing activists with disabilities to the Homeland Security agencies. He will also fully fund Homeland Security.

Sen. Barack Obama passed legislation to require states to properly plan the evacuation of special needs individuals because one of the most devastating aspects of Hurricane Katrina is that most of the stranded victims were society's most vulnerable members—low-income families, the elderly, the homeless, and Americans with disabilities. He knows that too many states and cities do not have adequate plans in place to care for special-needs populations. He believes that the legislation is only the first step in ensuring that the most vulnerable individuals in local and national emergencies are adequately safeguarded.

More Issues: Here are other statements from the Presidential candidates with respect to issues of importance to people who have disabilities.

IDEA

Sen. Joseph Biden has repeatedly voted in favor of the federal government fulfilling its original commitment to pay forty percent of the costs of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

Sen. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called for full funding of IDEA. She also cosponsored the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which would significantly improve access to instructional materials for students who are blind or have other print disabilities by creating an efficient system for acquiring and distributing these materials in special formats, including Braille, large print, synthesized speech, digital text, and digital audio. Sen. Clinton also cosponsored the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act, which strengthened IDEA by expanding monitoring and enforcement mechanisms and enabling parents and schools to resolve disputes adequately while also improving access to professional development for all teachers.

Sen. Chris Dodd believes that the time has come to fully fund IDEA and his action will reflect his commitment on this issue. He will take a more aggressive approach to enforcement by instructing the Department of Education to establish clear, objective, and publicly available criteria for applying sanctions, funding and directing an immediate review of compliance across the states, and ensuring that sanctions are then fully applied.

Sen. John Edwards intends to strengthen federal enforcement of IDEA by the Department of Education so children with disabilities receive the free, appropriate education they deserve and to which they are legally entitled. He will appoint strong enforcement officials, nominate fair judges, provide adequate resources, and exercise leadership to make enforcement of IDEA a priority.

Sen. Barack Obama is a strong supporter of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and has supported increases in funding to truly ensure that no child is left behind.

Gov. Bill Richardson would withhold federal funding for school districts that are out of compliance with IDEA.

Transportation

Sen. Joseph Biden would expand access to affordable, accessible transportation for people with disabilities; he has consistently supported expansion of accessible public transportation options.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is very aware that providing meaningful transportation opportunities to people with disabilities is an invaluable first step in empowering individuals to fulfill their potential and live self-sufficiently. She has consistently supported the Community Service Block Grant Program, which traditionally helps fund and support transportation projects (among other projects). She has also tried to secure funding for agencies that provide transportation services to those individuals who have disabilities.

Sen. Chris Dodd includes as part of his energy plan to increase access to affordable and convenient mass transit systems that are fully accessible to people with disabilities across all regions of the country.

Sen. John Edwards understands that accessible transportation is a critical component of increased work opportunities for people with disabilities because for most jobs, you cannot work if you cannot get from your house to the job site. He supports increasing federal funding for nonprofit groups to meet the transportation need of people with disabilities when public mass transit is not available and he intends to increase funding and enforcement of transportation access requirements under federal law. Sen. Edwards believes that, since the federal government has the power through Section 504, it must enforce the law to ensure that efforts like clearing snow and removing standing water are done because these can be very important in ensuring accessibility.

Sen. Barack Obama believes Congress must enact pending transportation reauthorization legislation without further delay and make provisions for accessible options for individuals with disabilities, including highways, mass transit, commuter rail, and air transportation improvements.

Gov. Bill Richardson will work with the disability community and the National Council of Disability to address the transportation shortages and problems throughout the U.S.

Voting

Sen. Joseph Biden supported the Help America Vote Act and will work to ensure its enforcement, including the requirements that enable people to case their ballot privately and that every polling location be accessible for people with disabilities.

Sen. Hillary Clinton authored legislation, the Count Every Vote Act, which requires that at least one voting machine per precinct allows voters who have disabilities and language minority voters to cast a vote in a private and independent manner.

Sen. Chris Dodd, as the primary author of the Help America Vote Act, worked to ensure that new voting protections for persons with disabilities were included in the final legislation. He is cosponsoring new legislation to provide for a voter-verified paper ballot record while preserving full access for persons with disabilities.

Sen. John Edwards will ensure that voters with disabilities are able to vote privately and independently, consistent with the requirements of HAVA. He will help every precinct provide enough trained poll workers and secure voting machines that are physically accessible to all. He believes that voting rights is an example of an area where the disability community provides the best information about which ballot systems work best and his administration will have an ongoing dialogue with the community to ensure meaningful disability voting rights protections.

Sen. Barack Obama believes that Americans with disabilities would be among the most disenfranchised by recent efforts to require mandatory photo identification at polling places because more than three million Americans with disabilities lack a government-issue form of identification. Therefore, he opposed unreasonable voter identification requirements and believes that the constitutional rights of individuals with disabilities should be safeguarded.

Gov. Bill Richardson made each of New Mexico's 1,200 polling sites HAVA compliant.

International Civil Rights

Sen. Joseph Biden supported the United States signing, and then ratifying, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Sen. Hillary Clinton believes the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was undertaken with the same goals that the U.S. had in enacting the ADA, namely, the goals of empowering individuals with disabilities and integrating these individuals into all aspects of society. She will champion these principles as president.

Sen. Chris Dodd supports U.S. ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities because people with disabilities around the world deserve these rights and protections.

Sen. John Edwards supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Sen. Barack Obama supports the United States' ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the first human rights treaty to be approved by the UN in the 21st Century.

Gov. Bill Richardson supports ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6869

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Hi everyone,

For those who don't know, I am publicly supporting Barack Obama.

It was not an easy decision for me to publicly support a candidate so early, or to appear partisan in my professional life, and I have to acknowledge that there are several wonderful candidates running for president who could easily win my support.

My decision to support Barack Obama was first and foremost because I share his optimism for our future and his commitment to the needs of people who are disenfranchised.

I also chose to support Barack Obama for a second key reason. I have been outspoken in insuring that my efforts to support a candidate are taken seriously. I can't afford to publicly support a candidate who isn't committed to real change in the lives of 54 million Americans and I won't ask others to support a candidate who doesn't demonstrate true commitment to walk the talk. Too much is at stake and people with disabilities have more to gain or lose than just about anyone else in the next administration, so I am working as hard as I can to make sure our next president makes our issues a priority.

I can tell you that I have been encouraged to provide substantive and meaningful input into the issues that are Barack Obama's priorities in his campaign and as president. Not just disability issues. I am being taken seriously when I bring ideas about integrating the needs of people with disabilities into all of his issues.

I am confident that you will begin to see this more clearly on his website and more importantly in his words and actions as he speaks to people across the country. I want to respond to recent discussion on this list with some clarification and updates on the Obama website and Barack Obama's leadership on disability issues.

The Obama campaign wanted to be sure they could say that they were 508 compliant for their disability fact sheet, so they asked a 508 compliance expert to verify this. This expert is used by other key websites for disability access and this indicates to me that access is important to the campaign and to Barack Obama. There are pages on MyBO (My Barack Obama) that are created by groups of supporters like:

an Americans with disabilities MyBO group
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/
AmericanswDisabilitiesforObama;
 
a People with Disabilities of MA page
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/
PeoplewithDisabilitiesofMassachusettsfor;
 
a Deaf Americans for Obama group
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/DeafAmericans;
 
an Autism group
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/Autism;
 
a Mentally Ill for Obama group;
 
a mental health workers group;
 
and so on (these were all found just doing a few quick searches on MyBO - I bet there are others.

The disability issues page will be up and running soon, as feedback from Senator Obama's recent disability issues roll out is integrated into the documents. As for the recent wish list posted on this listserve:

1. The Obama campaign has a great disability policy working group and we are all working on outreach. As a person with a disability and as the parent of two kids with disabilities, I am committed to insuring that the campaign practices our mantra, "nothing about us, without us". The Obama campaign doesn't utilize an outreach coordinator structure, but, better yet, at least two very senior members of the campaign are parents of kids with disabilities and I am confident that the campaign is entirely committed to hiring qualified candidates for vacancies, including people with disabilities.

   
   

2. See # 1 and let me know if you want to serve on the disability policy committee and I'll put you in touch with the co-chairs. You will recognize many of the members of this committee as strong community leaders and issue experts.

   
   

3. I am confident that disability issues will be prominently included both topically and integrated throughout the website so people will see them when they look at other issues and other communities.

   
   

4. Ensuring access to events is something I am providing input on and since I am being consistently taken seriously, I am confident that the campaign is committed to making sure all events are accessible. I will suggest a policy statement. This might make it easier to clearly articulate to event planners not only the importance but providing technical guidance in getting it done!

   
   

5. I will find out more about delegates with disabilities.

   
   

6. I am confident that the disability vote is important to the Obama campaign and that this will become clearer and clearer as the campaign moves forward. I am proud to be able to support Barack Obama and excited that our community is finally beginning to have a strong impact on several of the campaigns! As Justin Dart always said, "get into politics as if your life depends on it, BECAUSE IT DOES."

   
   

Happy Holidays,
Marcie

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
New York Times
October 14, 2007

LORIS, South Carolina - In the beauty parlors that are among the social hubs for black women in the Carolinas, loyalties are being tested as voters here contemplate the first Democratic primary in the South.

Clara Vereen, who has been working here in rural eastern South Carolina as a hairstylist for more than 40 of her 61 years, reflects the ambivalence of many black women as she considers both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

"I've got enough black in me to want somebody black to be our president," she said in her tiny beauty shop, an extension of her home, after a visit from an Obama organizer. "I would love that, but I want to be real, too."

Part of being real, said Ms. Vereen, whom everyone calls Miss Clara, is worrying that a black president would not be safe.

"I fear that they just would kill him, that he wouldn't even have a chance," she said as she styled a customer's hair with a curling iron. One way to protect him, she suggested, would be not to vote for him.

And Mrs. Clinton?

"We always love Hillary because we love her husband," Ms. Vereen said. Then she paused. Much of the chitchat in her shop is about whether a woman could or should be president.

"A man is supposed to be the head," she said. "I feel like the Lord has put man first, and I believe in the Bible."

Black women are a crucial constituency in South Carolina, which may hold its voting as early as January 19. In 2004, about half of the state's Democratic primary voters were black (in Iowa and New Hampshire, black voters made up about 1 percent or less of Democrats). And 29 percent of all Democratic primary voters here were black women, according to exit polls, giving them a pivotal role.

"It's a key voting segment," said Carey Crantford, a Democratic pollster based in Columbia. "They hold the balance of power, all other things being equal."

Most polls here show Mrs. Clinton leading and Mr. Obama second, while John Edwards, who won the state's primary in 2004, has been a distant third. Pollsters caution that polling in a contest like this can be unreliable because whites might not be telling the truth when they say they will vote for a black man, and blacks might not be telling the truth when they say they are undecided.

Still, Mr.Obama appears to have a big lead over Mrs. Clinton among black men, said Adolphus G. Belk Jr., a political scientist at Winthrop University who co-directed a recent study of black voters. Black women, Dr. Belk said, are divided equally between Mr.Obama and Mrs. Clinton, and significantly, perhaps a third are undecided.

"They stand at the intersection of race, class and gender," he said. "Black men say to them, 'Sister, are you with us?' and at the same time white women say, 'Sister, are you with us?'"

In interviews with more than three dozen black women both here and in Columbia, the state capital, most said they were still puzzling over which way to go. Some said that specific issues like health care and education were important to them, but most thought their votes would be based on intangibles and determined in the end by prayer.

Vanessa Gerald, 38, a stylist at Carrie's Magic Touch, a salon around the corner from Miss Clara's, said she was torn because Mr. Obama was "trying to help his people, which Hillary is too." Ms. Gerald said she would "have to go with my faith" in making her final decision but was thrilled to have such a choice.

"This is history here," she said, puckering up a client's hair. "On both sides. Either way, it's history. So let's see what history going to bring in."

In trying to reach these voters, the Obama campaign has organized a network around beauty salons, a central gathering spot for black women, particularly in rural areas like this one.

Ashley Baia, 23, the Obama organizer here in Horry County, is like a modern-day circuit rider, traveling from salon to salon on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays, the busiest days for getting a hairdo. Ms. Baia makes repeated visits, hoping to develop relationships with the owners and customers and giving spiels in which she notes that after law school, Mr. Obama skipped going to a big firm and went to work instead on the South Side of Chicago as a community organizer.

Betty McClain, 51, a bus driver who was waiting to have her hair done at Miss Clara's, said after Ms. Baia left that she liked what she heard about Mr. Obama. But she likes Mrs. Clinton, too. "She's already been president before," Ms. McClain said approvingly, dismissing Bill Clinton's role in his own administration. "He was just there," Ms. McClain said of Mr. Clinton. "He was just the husband, that's all. She really ran the country."

This shows what the Obama campaign is up against. Voters tend to know more about the Clintons than they do about Mr. Obama.

Another striking theme that emerged in the interviews was how often these women described an almost maternal concern for Mr. Obama's safety, which they take seriously by noting that he was given Secret Service protection in May, earlier than any presidential candidate ever except Mrs. Clinton, who already had protection as a former first lady. The assertion this year by Mr. Obama's wife, Michelle, that as a black man he could be shot "going to the gas station" has done little to quell their fear.

This was a topic in Carrie's Magic Touch. One customer, Maria Hewett, 63, a retired factory worker, told the others she would probably vote for Mr. Obama despite her fear that he could be a target.

"Things happened with presidents in the past, and they weren't African-Americans," Ms. Hewett said, sitting in one of two big barber chairs, her hair in curlers. "President Kennedy was a good person, and somebody took him down," she said, prompting a chorus of "that's true, that's true."

Still, she added, "Hillary's husband has a lot of wisdom and knowledge, and that will help her." This elicited another round of "that's right, that's true."

"Whoever it is," she concluded, "we just ask the Lord to bless them and take care of them."

Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democratic state representative from Orangeburg, South Carolina, who has not endorsed anyone in the primary, said she had heard black women say they were afraid for Mr. Obama. "This really troubled me," Ms. Cobb-Hunter said. "Maybe it's a Southern thing. They want to protect him from the bad people, and in order to protect him, they won't support him. They want to see him around, making a difference."

She was virtually the only black woman interviewed who brought up Mr. Edwards, who was born in South Carolina. "He can be elected because this is still America, and white men still rule," Ms. Cobb-Hunter said. She is under pressure from both the Edwards and Obama campaigns for an endorsement.

Mr. Obama's campaign is focused on his message of hope and, increasingly, religious faith. Mr. Edwards spotlights poverty and rural areas. Mrs. Clinton's campaign is emphasizing her experience and highlighting her commitment to after-school programs, teacher-retention programs and health insurance for children. The campaign, which has an extensive list of endorsements from local officials, is organizing supporters thematically, like "Health Care Workers for Hillary" and, of course, "Women for Hillary." Mrs. Clinton's first commercial, a radio spot, is aimed squarely at black women.

The battle for their votes is heating up. Mr. Obama visited the state on October 6 and 7, Mr. Edwards visited on October 11 and Mrs. Clinton came on October 12 and 13, toting the prized endorsement of Representative John Lewis, the Georgia Democrat and a major figure of the civil rights movement. As the race intensifies, Mr. Obama is expected to showcase one of his chief supporters, Oprah Winfrey, and Mrs. Clinton to showcase former President Bill Clinton, who remains enormously popular with black voters. Both campaigns here are headed by black women.

For many women, Mr. Obama's safety and Mrs. Clinton's husband were only part of the equation. They said they were also trying to calculate whether a black man or a white woman had a better chance of being elected. Which would encounter more resistance from the white male power structure? Would a black man stir up racial tensions that would boomerang and set African-Americans back?

"I think it will be difficult either one of them to hold that position because there are still so many inequalities that exist, especially here in the South," said Angel Clark, 42, a health career counselor who had just finished a walk in Columbia, South Carolina, with thousands of others, mostly women, to raise awareness of breast cancer. She is still undecided.

Depending on how Mr. Obama does in the earlier states, South Carolina, with its huge black population, could become do-or-die for him. Some of his supporters say that S.C. stands for "Stop Clinton." Campaign aides said that many here would be looking to Iowa to see the degree to which white voters will vote for a black man.

Tonya Thomas, 46, and Tina Thompson, 45, both involved in early childhood education, discussed their internal struggle over whom to support as they talked with a reporter after the breast cancer walk. Ms. Thomas said she liked Mrs. Clinton but was not "totally sure."

"Men have been running the country for a while, and I'd like to see a woman in office," she said. "Personally, I don't feel the country is ready for an African-American," she said, adding matter-of-factly, "He would be killed."

Ms. Thompson said she was leaning toward Mr. Obama. "I don't think they'd let a woman run the country," she said.

But, Ms. Thomas pointed out, "She does have Bill," whereupon she and her friend burst into laughter. "I hate to bring him up," Ms. Thomas said sheepishly, "but I do like Bill, and it's a way to get him back."

Ms. Thompson considered this. "Yes, he would be there for her," she said. Asked if she was now leaning toward Mrs. Clinton, she said she might be. But, she added, "You never know."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY & JEFF ZELENY
September 23, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/us/politics/23dems.html?
em&ex=1190779200&en=30b28e4edafe56a2&ei=5087%0A

WASHINGTON, September 22 - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her early lead in the Democratic presidential contest, showing steady strength as the candidates head toward the first voting early next year.

She has been challenged for fund-raising supremacy and news media attention by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina beat her to the punch in introducing big policy proposals. But nothing that her main rivals have done has so far has derailed Mrs. Clinton, leading them to begin rolling out aggressive new strategies aimed primarily at her, including courting black voters in South Carolina and stepping up attacks.

She has maintained solid leads in most national polls. And while polls in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire are of limited value in predicting the outcome, they too show her more than holding her own entering the period in which primary voters begin to make up their minds.

"I think they've run a great campaign," David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's senior adviser, said of Mrs. Clinton, of New York. "She's been a very disciplined candidate. They?ve been deft in trying to get ahead of this tidal wave of people out there who really want change. They are doing the best they can with it."

But Mr. Axelrod, pointing to what he saw as Mrs. Clinton's foremost vulnerability, said: "The question is ultimately, Is she credible - whether people buy her as an agent of change in Washington. If they do, she'll do well."

A senior adviser to Mr. Edwards, Joe Trippi, said: "You used to be able to say the front-runners - her and Obama - but I don?t think that's the case anymore. It's pretty clear that she has sort of pulled away."

Mr. Obama is moving to deal directly with what his advisers said continued to be his weaker flank - concerns about his experience - with a burst of television advertisements that began this week in Iowa and will continue next week in New Hampshire. Mr. Edwards, trying to shake things up in a race where most of the attention has been focused on Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, has started what aides say will be an escalating series of attacks on Mrs. Clinton.

Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards face tough decisions in the weeks ahead.

They see the same path to victory - which includes turning the contest into a two-person race with Mrs. Clinton - but are concerned that attacks on one another would only end up helping her.

Mr. Obama's decision to address the experience issue so directly came despite the concern of some associates about inviting new attention to a weakness. And Mr. Edwards's decision to tackle Mrs. Clinton could have the unintended effect of helping Mr. Obama in states like Iowa, where caucus voters often recoil at the sight of two-candidate spats.

There is almost daily evidence that the Democratic presidential campaign has moved into a lively new phase in which campaigns are not passing up any opportunities to win over voters.

Mr. Obama's aides are organizing black hair salon owners in South Carolina, a deep-seated social network that advisers said would be critical to pushing a historic black turnout that Mr. Obama hopes can deliver him victory there. In Iowa, the Obama campaign is signing up high school students who will be old enough to vote in the general election and can participate in caucuses.

Mrs. Clinton, after winning a burst of attention by rolling out a detailed health care plan this week, is planning similar speeches in the weeks ahead on education and energy. Mr. Edwards, who campaigned in all 99 Iowa counties in 2004, hit his 76th county on Friday as he made his way across the state to see if the people who supported him in 2004 were still with him.

The three leading contenders have also adopted decidedly different views of how the race will play out. Mrs. Clinton's advisers argued that it would probably end on February 5 when about 20 states vote. Though only 50 percent of the delegates will be selected by that day, the Clinton advisers suggested that one candidate would be so far ahead that there would be huge pressure on the other Democrats to rally around the leader.

Mr. Obama has begun preparing for a much more protracted campaign, arguing that it will be in effect a hunt for delegates that could last well into the spring. To that end, he is competing in some unlikely places - New York, for example, where he is holding a rally in Washington Square Park on Thursday - because under Democratic rules, delegates are allocated to candidates based on the percentage of votes they win.

And Mr. Edwards is looking for a victory in Iowa to bounce him to victory in New Hampshire, drawing a shot of attention and contributions that his aides argued would allow him to sweep through the February 5 states.

But if there is one dominant sentiment in the Obama and Edwards camps these days, it is concern that Mrs. Clinton continues to do so well. On Friday, Mr. Obama released a television advertisement in which he talked about the lessons he learned about health care from the death of his mother, the kind of emotional personal anecdote that candidates normally hold back until the end.

Though these three candidates have dominated the race, there are signs that Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico has made inroads. Other candidates - in particular, Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut - are seen as far less likely to win any primaries. But they could affect the tone of the race based on the issues they press and if they choose to try to take on one of the leading candidates.

Although polls at this point in a campaign are notoriously unpredictable, the fact that Mrs. Clinton is leading in many of them is clearly influencing the way candidates, and the news media, view the race. And Mrs. Clinton is trying to use her standing to overcome a perceived obstacle: that she is tarnished by her White House years and cannot win a general election.

These same polls stirred some concern among Mr. Obama's supporters that he has not yet capitalized on the early excitement that surrounded his campaign.

"It would have been nice if he had taken the lead during the summer and increased the lead going into the fall, but in realistic terms, this is as good as it can get," said Tom Miller, the Iowa attorney general, who is a supporter of Mr. Obama. He added, "The key was to get the burst, stabilize it and make a run in the end."

Mr. Axelrod said that Mr. Obama's campaign had made a deliberate decision to hold off the bulk of its advertising money until now, when more people are paying attention, and that he was not concerned about polls or perceptions. Mr. Obama spent $1.5 million on television advertisements in Iowa, a substantial amount that Iowa Democrats said has not appeared to improve his standing significantly.

And some of Mr. Obama's advisers said Mrs. Clinton had done a far better job in dealing with one of her biggest tasks - trying to present herself as a candidate of change, notwithstanding her 15 years in Washington - than Mr. Obama had with the experience question. In the final week of August, Mr. Obama expressed frustration to some of his close associates at the course of his campaign, saying he felt his message was adrift, and personally took to rewriting some of the basic themes.

"I was confused initially on this whole experience argument," he told supporters here recently, "because I've been in public service for 20 years as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as a law professor, as a state senator, as a United States senator. And so I was a little puzzled, but I came to realize what they really mean by this argument is that I haven't gotten enough seasoning in Washington."

Reflecting his successful fund-raising, Mr. Obama has spent millions to build a field operation in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, and has enough money to build organizations in other states.

"We wouldn?t be putting staff in Colorado and California if we weren't comfortable with our financial picture," said David Plouffe, the Obama campaign manager. In Iowa alone, the Obama campaign is preparing to open its 31st field office, which is more than Mr. Edwards or Mrs. Clinton have.

"They are doing the fundamental organizational building that Dean overlooked," said John Norris, an Obama supporter in Iowa, who managed John Kerry's winning caucus campaign over Howard Dean four years ago. But the Democrats have all shied away from sustained attacks on one another. Mr. Axelrod, who was a senior adviser to Mr. Edwards in 2004, said he had learned the pitfalls of attacks in a field of multiple candidates.

"This history of these things is you can?t treat the process, to borrow Obama?s phrase, like a game of bumper cars," he said. "You bump someone, you never know who else might drive past you."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

August 26, 2007

Glynnis MacNicol
Posted August 23, 2007 | 09:05 AM EST


Despite being slightly underwhelmed by my last encounter with Barack Obama, upon receiving an August 13th email inviting me to "Join Barack Obama in Brooklyn" on August 22, I was more than happy to shell out 25 dollars for a second chance to see and hear the Senator in person. Twenty-five dollars is pocket-change, after all, when it comes to getting in the same room as a presidential candidate — particularly one who has recently graced the cover of GQ and inspired the kind of YouTube coverage that Hillary Clinton (or anyone else, for that matter) can only dream of. So it wasn't all that surprising when I received another email this past Monday reminding me of my rendezvous with the Senator and alerting me to the fact that this event had sold out.

Did it ever.

The event ran from 5:30 - 7 p.m., said the email, and doors would open at five. Assuming from the last time that the Senator wouldn't go on till at least 6:30-ish, I arrived just before six to discover that the line-up to get in stretched back two long blocks. To the naked eye it looked as though upwards of five hundred people were lined up on the sidewalk and I assumed from this that the event had been delayed and the doors were yet to open.

Alas, this was not the case, as I soon discovered when a young volunteer began making her way down the long line to inform the waiting masses that the event had been overbooked. She was Jenny Yeager, the New York Finance Director for Obama'08, and she informed us that the hotel had closed the room because it had reached fire-code capacity.

Certainly if this had been a general admission event one might expect to be shut out, but we had all bought tickets in advance!

When I asked how an event that had pre-sold tickets could be so over-booked I was given a variety of possible reasons: People had brought their aunts and uncles with them unannounced, local politicians may have invited their friends along, event locales sometimes used larger stages than planned, resulting in limited space. Certainly all reasonable excuses, though it was clear that most of the mainly volunteer staff had also been taken aback and didn't actually know. It must be said, however, that considering the crowd waiting outside was at least a quarter of the capacity of the main room, it was fairly clear that the root of the problem went beyond hangers-on and plus-ones.

Later, campaign spokesman Bill Burton did respond to my request for clarification, emailing to say that: "Due to the overwhelming grassroots support for Senator Obama, we simply couldn't accommodate everyone interested in attending," and that the campaign was "going to contact everyone affected and make sure they can make it into an upcoming event at no charge." What he did not speak to, however, was how a pre-ticketed event could so wildly exceed expectations.

At any rate, the campaign was as accommodating as they could be given the situation; clip boards were handed out and people were asked to sign their names and email addresses and informed that they could either choose to receive a refund or be put on the list for the next (yet to be confirmed) New York Barack event. Strangely, despite the large crowd and the long-ish wait, no one seemed terribly upset. I did overhear one woman lament that she could have been doing her laundry, but that was about it.

(Perhaps this patient nature was the result of the unusually cool weather in New York - one wonders if tempers might have been shorter if that same crowd had been required to wait outside in the usual August heat. A small upshot of global warming, perhaps? Who knows. However, as a point of environmental interest, the Obama campaign business cards are printed with soy ink on recycled paper.)

So: Are their any conclusions to be drawn from my second night with Obama? If this were a second date, I'd be hard-pressed to commit to a third (not without a bit of song and dance that is, or at least some good chocolate). However, GQ and Men's Vogue covers aside, Obama is not dating material. He's a presidential candidate, and an admittedly once-in-a-generation one at that. There's no question that many, many people want very badly for him to be the person they hope he is — dangerous position to be in perhaps. Much of the post-debate(s) talk thus far has been how Hillary is performing above her low expectations and high negatives. Obama, on the other hand has of late been chipped away at by many who have their eye trained on him: a slow and steady taking down, most recently by Ryan Lizza in GQ, who strips away some of Obama's dignified veneer, and then again at the beginning of Sunday's Debate when George "Let's Start A Catfight" Stephanopoulos led with the question, "Is Barack Obama ready to be president, experienced enough to be president?" and then let all the other candidates have a go at the junior Senator from Illinois.

What does this have to do with a badly organized fundraiser in New York? Maybe nothing, but my main complaint about the last Obama event I attended in June (that one cost $100 and wasn't near full to capacity) was how widely the Senator missed the mark in terms of his audience (such an easy target, I said at the time, "that a blind man would have had trouble missing it"). Just this week Chuck Todd at MSNBC noted how, during an exchange with Hillary, Obama showed his colors as an inexperienced campaigner at last Sunday's debate.

Getting a candidate (any candidate, mind you, not just relatively inexperienced ones) through a presidential campaign is, as everyone knows, no easy feat -- made immeasurably more difficult by a season(s) that has started as obnoxiously early as this one. Tonight's rather large misstep in terms of crowd expectation and basic organization may just be an example of growing pains in a campaign that is still learning the ropes — or, it may be a sign of stress fractures in structure not fully prepared to go the distance. Enough of those in the foundation can knock a candidate off his pedestal just as thoroughly as more spectacular swipes and missteps.

All that said, when I filled out my name and email on the clipboard handed me tonight by a resolutely chipper volunteer, I specified that I was interested in attending the next event in lieu of a refund. It remains to be seen whether my third attempt with Obama will prove to be a trend, or a charm.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
August 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, August 25 - The Democratic National Committee, threatening to take the toughest line possible, voted Saturday to refuse to seat any Florida Democrat at the Democratic presidential convention in 2008 if the state party did not delay the date of its 2008 primary to conform to the party's nominating calendar.

The committee gave Florida Democrats 30 days to propose a primary date that conformed with Democratic rules prohibiting all but four states from holding their primaries or caucuses before February 5. But Florida leaders, who seemed stunned by a near-unanimous vote and the severity of the punishment, said they were doubtful they could come up with an alternative.

They said they were bound by the vote of the Republican-controlled State Legislature, which set the primary for January 29.

Beyond what is emerging as a clear embarrassment for the party, the practical results of this dispute were unclear. To a considerable extent, it could prove to be little more than a reminder of how little authority the party appears to have over its nominating process this year.

Florida Democratic leaders said they were resistant to bowing to the party's demands, having already refused twice. And assuming the party has a presumptive nominee by the time the convention is seated in Denver next year, it will be the nominee - not party officials - who would have the power to resolve a dispute over who is seated.

Aides to several candidates said it was inconceivable that in the end, a Democratic presidential candidate a year from now would penalize a state like Florida, going into a general election, by refusing to seat the state's delegates.

But the aides, who requested anonymity to discuss tactical concerns, suggested that candidates might be wary to invest money and energy in Florida for a delegate-less primary if, at the time, the race is tight and candidates are in a contest to build up the biggest delegate counts.

"There are 30 days for this to get worked out, and our hope is it gets settled in a way that Florida is contributing delegates to the nominating process," said David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois. "If they don't come into compliance, that means they won't be contributing any delegates to the contest and this will be nothing more than a straw poll."

The vote by the national committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee laid bare a sharp division between one of the most politically important states in the country and a party that has been struggling to change its nominating calendar to accommodate party leaders, who object to the dominance Iowa and New Hampshire have enjoyed because they are first in the nominating process.

The party voted to allow two states, South Carolina and Nevada, to move their contests to the start of the year to provide regional and ethnic balance, and barred all other states from holding contests before February 5.

The debate, coming at a time when other states are also threatening to move up their primaries, was the latest evidence of the extent to which the party's nominating calendar is in turmoil.

"This process is still a mess," said Alice Travis Germond, the longtime secretary of the Democratic National Committee. "Eight years ago we said it was broken and getting broker. It's now broker and getting more broker."

Ms. Germond warned of embarrassing floor fights at the convention if Florida Democrats failed to come up with a date that met the party's requirements.

Karen L. Thurman, the chairwoman of the Florida Democratic Committee, said she would go back to Florida and discuss what the party should do. The options include creating a state-party-financed primary that would take place after February 5 - something that Ms. Thurman said would be expensive and potentially unfeasible ? and challenging the party?s ruling in court.

"We have seen the strong feelings that have been relayed over this," she said, referring to the committee's vote.

"We do represent, standing here, a lot of Democrats in the state of Florida - over four million," she said, adding: "This is emotional for Florida. And it should be."

Under the rules passed by the Democratic National Committee, if Florida is not in compliance with the calendar it will automatically lose all 25 of its so-called super delegates - basically, elected officials and state party members - and at least half of its regular 185 delegates. But the committee voted, with one dissent, to impose the maximum penalty by refusing to seat any delegates should Florida not return with an acceptable plan.

The result was praised by Scott Brennan, the Iowa Democratic chairman, who, along with Ray Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chairman, flew to Washington for what in other years would have been the most routine of summer meetings by the Rules and Bylaws Committee. "It's a harsh sanction, but you have to enforce the rules," Mr. Brennan said.

In arguing for the Democrats to allow Florida to go early, Ms. Thurman and other party officials said that the party had unsuccessfully fought the effort by Florida Republicans to move up the date. Again and again, party officials presented themselves as victims rather than protagonists, and asked the party to grant them relief because of that.

"We're asking you for mercy, not judgment," Jon Ausman, a Democratic leader, told the committee.

But James Roosevelt Jr., the rules committee's co-chairman, said he was not convinced that Florida Democrats had done all they could do. He said it was "clear that the Republicans were the moving force behind the selection of a date that violated both the Republican and the Democratic rules, but that the efforts to oppose that were form over substance."

Committee members made it clear that they wanted to send a message to any state that might be looking to change its primary; the vote came as Michigan leaders are looking to move that state's primary to January 15. Committee members noted that there had been a long process in setting the calendar.

"We have voted on these rules," said Donna Brazile, a member of the committee. "The process was very fair, very democratic in every step that we've taken."

Ms. Brazile suggested that Democrats in Florida, given what happened there in 2000, should be particularly sensitive to what the party was doing. "I'm going to send a message to everybody in Florida - that we are going to follow the rules," she said.

Michael Falcone contributed reporting.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

You've got to see this exchange from last night's AFL-CIO debate. It's about how the Iraq war has made us less safe, how Barack would get us on the right battlefield, and how we need to challenge the insiders' conventional thinking about our foreign policy:

Responding to an attack on his common-sense approach to fighting terrorism, Barack said:

"I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism."

Watch the full exchange, share the video, and ask someone you know to join our movement:

http://my.barackobama.com/AFLCIOforum

Barack said it was the biggest strategic mistake in a generation for the Bush administration and its enablers to let Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda slip away while they rushed to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11.

You know it, I know it, and the rest of the world knows it -- everyone, it seems, except the inside-the-beltway establishment who helped George Bush create this mess in the first place.

In response to his honest assessment, Barack was told that presidents aren't supposed to tell the American people what they think.

That's exactly the kind of don't-ask-questions politics that led to the disaster in Iraq. The American people deserve a president who respects them enough to tell them what he thinks and how he'll keep them safe from the most urgent threats to our national security.

The conventional thinking of Washington insiders is part of a pattern of denial -- it's the same kind of alternate reality we saw just this weekend at the YearlyKos debate during a discussion of the role of Washington lobbyists in our political process.

Watch the video:

http://my.barackobama.com/YearlyKosDebate

On Saturday, Barack challenged the ridiculous assertion that Washington lobbyists and the millions of dollars they use to distort the political process represent real people. Barack said:

"I disagree with the notion that lobbyists don't have disproportionate influence. The insurance and drug companies spent one billion dollars in lobbying over the past ten years... You cannot tell me that that money did not make a difference. They are not spending that just because they are contributing to the public interest.

Watch the exchange and ask someone you know to join our campaign to change the way Washington does business:

http://my.barackobama.com/YearlyKosDebate

Barack will continue to speak the truth, but it's up to us to build this movement.

Send one of these videos to your friends and show them why Barack Obama is the candidate who will bring the kind of change we need.

Thank you,
David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

America must stop fighting
the wrong war and start
fighting the war we need to win:



barackobama.com/newleadership

After September 11th, we had a calling to write a new chapter in American history.

Americans were united. Our friends around the world stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us. We had the opportunity to devise new strategies, build new alliances, safeguard our values, and serve a just cause.

If only we had seized that opportunity.

Unfortunately, we did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not capture or kill Osama bin Ladin. And this administration drove us into war on the wrong battlefield with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create and no plan for how to get out.

Now, six years later, we are overdue for a major change of course in our foreign policy. America must stop fighting the wrong war and start fighting the war we need to win.

The next president must end the war in Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence, and pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all.

Most importantly, the next president must make sure that Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda's core leadership are captured or killed. If Pakistan or any other nation won't act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will.

Sign on to my plan and spread the word:
http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

The time has come to turn the page on a failed approach.

The next President of the United States must commit to getting our troops out of Iraq and taking the fight to the terrorists.

We must reinforce our mission in Afghanistan with additional troops. We must press Pakistan and President Musharraf to close down terrorist training camps and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a safe-haven.

If Musharraf acts, we will stand with him. But if Pakistan will not act against Osama bin Ladin and the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans, we will.

These are achievable goals, and when I am president we will wage the war we need to win with a comprehensive strategy.

Read the plan, declare your support, and spread the word that it's time to change direction:
http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

The first step to making America safer is getting our troops out of Iraq and onto the right battlefields in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that's not enough.

We must develop the military and intelligence capabilities to neutralize terrorist networks and secure the world's most deadly weapons.

Recruiting, training, and equipping our forces to fight more targeted and agile counter-terrorism missions are central to our success.

President Bush's refusal to engage our enemies diplomatically has been a complete failure.

We must immediately reverse this strategy and begin the hard and sustained work of rebuilding peace and stability through the power of diplomacy. We must revive our international relationships and rebuild our moral stature in the world. And we must counter the extremists' message of hate with a program to advance hope in the most desperate corners of our interconnected world.

And we must remember that how we achieve these goals is as important as the goals themselves.

In the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we compromised our most precious values. The illegal wire-tapping of American citizens and the arbitrary suspension of habeas corpus undermined the foundation of our Constitution. The days of a stubborn executive branch changing the law to fit its whims must come to an end.

Read more about my commitment to protecting America without compromising our values:

http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

If you're ready to write a new chapter in American history and redefine our role in the world, join our movement.

We're ready to turn the page.


Barack Obama

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

July 31, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Edwards, Obama and the Poor
By DAVID BROOKS

Suppose you were going to decide your vote for president entirely on the issue of who could best reduce poverty. Who would you vote for?

You'd start by focusing your attention on the candidates who have invested the most time in the issue, John Edwards and Barack Obama.

You'd find that both have a multilayered view of poverty. We used to have debates in which liberals emphasized the lack of jobs and conservatives emphasized personal behavior. But in the post-welfare-reform world, it's pretty obvious that everything feeds into everything else. For Edwards and Obama, poverty flows from a lack of jobs and broken families, bad schools and bad role models, no training and no self-control.

For both candidates, you have to attack everything at once. You have to holistically change the environment that structures behavior. The question is how to do it.

Obama and Edwards agree on a lot, but in this matter they emphasize different things. As Alec MacGillis of The Washington Post observed, Edwards emphasizes programs that help people escape from concentrated poverty. Obama emphasizes programs that fix inner-city neighborhoods. One helps people find better environments, the other seeks to strengthen the environment they are already in.

Edwards would create a million housing vouchers for working families. These would, he argues, "enable people to vote with their feet to demand safe communities with good schools." They'd help people move to where the jobs are and foster economic integration.

The problem with his approach is that past efforts at dispersal produced disappointing results. Families who were given the means to move from poor neighborhoods to middle-class areas did not see incomes rise. Girls in those families did a little better, but boys did worse. They quickly formed subcultures in the new communities that replicated patterns of the old ones. Male criminality rose, but test scores did not.

Obama, by contrast, builds his approach around the Harlem Children's Zone, what he calls "an all-encompassing, all-hands-on-deck anti-poverty effort." The zone takes an area in Harlem and saturates it with childcare, marriage counseling, charter schools and job counselors and everything else you can think of. Obama says he'll start by replicating the program in 20 cities around the country.

The problem here is that there are few historical examples of neighborhoods being lifted up at once. There are 4,000 community development corporations around the country and they have not lifted residents out of poverty. The positive influences in the center get overwhelmed by the negative peer influences all around.

The organizations that do appear to work, like the Harlem Children's Zone (there's no firm data yet), tend to have charismatic leaders like Geoffrey Canada who are willing to fight teachers' unions and take on bureaucracies. It's not clear whether their success is replicable, let alone by the federal government.

What we have, then, is two divergent approaches, both of which have problems and low odds of producing tremendous success. If you find that discouraging, welcome to the world of poverty policy.

If I had to choose between the two, I guess I'd go with the Obama plan. I'd lean that way because Obama seems to have a more developed view of social capital. Edwards offers vouchers, job training and vows to create a million temporary public-sector jobs. Obama agrees, but takes fuller advantage of home visits, parental counseling, mentoring programs and other relationship-building efforts.

The Obama policy provides more face-to-face contact with people who can offer praise or disapproval. Rising out of poverty is difficult — even when there are jobs and good schools. It's hard to focus on a distant degree or home purchase. But human beings have a strong desire for approval and can accomplish a lot with daily doses of praise and censure. Standards of behavior are contagious that way.

A neighborhood is a moral ecosystem, and Obama, the former community organizer, seems to have a better feel for that. It's not only policies we're looking for in selecting a leader, it's a sense of how the world works. Obama's plan isn't a sure-fire cure for poverty, but it does reveal an awareness of the supple forces that can't be measured and seen.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

July 30, 2007
The Long Run
By JANNY SCOTT

There was something improbable about the new guy from Chicago via Honolulu and Jakarta, Indonesia, the one with the Harvard law degree and the job teaching constitutional law, turning up in Springfield, Ill., in January 1997 among the housewives, ex-mayors and occasional soybean farmer serving in the State Senate.

The new senator, Barack Obama, was a progressive Democrat in a time of tight Republican control. He was a former community organizer in a place where power is famously held by a few. He was a neophyte promising reform in a culture that a University of Illinois political studies professor describes as "really tough and, frankly, still quite corrupt."

"One of my first comments to Barack was, 'What the hell are you doing here?'" said Denny Jacobs, a former senator and self-described "backroom politician, not one of those do-gooders that stands up front and says we got to make changes."

Senator Obama's answer? "He looked at me sort of strange."

Mr. Obama did not bring revolution to Springfield in his eight years in the Senate, the longest chapter in his short public life. But he turned out to be practical and shrewd, a politician capable of playing hardball to win election (he squeezed every opponent out of his first race), a legislator with a sharp eye for an opportunity, a strategist willing to compromise to accomplish things.

He positioned himself early on as a protege of the powerful Democratic leader, Senator Emil Jones, a beneficiary of the Chicago political machine. He courted collaboration with Republicans. He endured hazing from a few black colleagues, played poker with lobbyists, studiously took up golf. ("An awful lot happens on the golf course," a friend, Jean Rudd, says he told her.)

By the time he left Springfield in 2004, he had built not only the connections necessary to win election to the United States Senate but a record not inconsistent with his lofty rhetoric of consensus building and bipartisanship.

"He came with a huge dose of practicality," said Paul L. Williams, a lobbyist in Springfield and former state representative who is a supporter of Mr. Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Mr. Williams characterized Mr. Obama's attitude as, "OK, that makes sense and sounds great, as I'd like to go to the moon, but right now I've only got enough gas to go this far."

With the assistance of Senator Jones, Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state's first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies.

"I learned that if you're willing to listen to people, it's possible to bridge a lot of the differences that dominate the national political debate," Mr. Obama said in an interview on Friday. "I pretty quickly got to form relationships with Republicans, with individuals from rural parts of the state, and we had a lot in common."

Not everyone was impressed, at least initially. His "pedigree," as Mr. Jones calls it with a chuckle, evoked some skepticism. Two black, Democratic state senators from Chicago, Donne E. Trotter and Rickey R. Hendon, who both now say they are Obama supporters, caricatured him as a privileged, know-it-all greenhorn. At times, they seemed to call into question his black credentials, foreshadowing complaints from some African-Americans today that Mr. Obama is "not black enough" because of his biracial heritage and his class.

"We could barely have meetings in caucus because Donne and Rickey would give him hell," said State Senator Kimberly A. Lightford, a Democrat and former chairwoman of the Senate's black caucus. "Donne would be, 'Just because you're from Harvard, you think you know everything.' Barack was like the new kid on the block. He was handsome and he was mild mannered and he was well liked. Sometimes there was a little 'Who's this? He coming here, he don't know anything.' "

In a Hurry?

His critics say Mr. Obama could have accomplished much more if he had been in less of a hurry to leave the Statehouse behind. Steven J. Rauschenberger, a longtime Republican senator who stepped down this year, said: "He is a very bright but very ambitious person who has always had his eyes on the prize, and it wasn't Springfield. If he deserves to be president, it is not because he was a great legislator."

Within three years of his arrival, Mr. Obama ran for Congress, a race he lost. When the Democrats took control of the State Senate in 2003 - and Mr. Jones replaced James Philip, known as Pate, a retired Pepperidge Farm district manager who served as president of the Senate - Mr. Obama made his next move.

"He said to me, 'You're now the Senate president,'" Mr. Jones recalled. "'You have a lot of power.' I said, 'I do?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Tell me what kind of power I have.' He said, 'You have the power to make a U.S. senator.' I said, 'I do?' He said, 'You do.' I said, 'If I've got that kind of power, do you know of anyone that I can make?' He said, 'Yeah. Me.' "

The route that had brought Mr. Obama to Springfield was far from typical. Born in Hawaii and raised for a while in Indonesia, he had worked as a community organizer in Chicago after graduating from Columbia College in 1983. Returning from Harvard to practice law and later teach at the University of Chicago, he had run a voter registration drive in the 1992 election.

Three years later, a congressman from the South Side of Chicago was convicted of having sex with a minor. A Democratic state senator from his district, Alice L. Palmer, decided to run for the seat. Carol Anne Harwell, Mr. Obama's first campaign manager, said Ms. Palmer invited Mr. Obama, then 35, to run for her seat.

But after losing in the primary, Ms. Palmer had second thoughts. A delegation of her supporters asked Mr. Obama to step aside. He not only declined, but his campaign staff challenged the signatures on Ms. Palmer's campaign petitions and kept her off the ballot. It was nothing personal: They did the same thing to every other Democrat in the race.

"He knocked off the incumbent, so that right there gave him some notoriety," said Ron Davis, who served as Mr. Obama's precinct coordinator. "And he ran unopposed - which for a rookie is unheard of."

He added, "Barack is a quick learner."

At the time, Mr. Obama said he was running to mobilize people to work for change. He wanted to apply techniques of community organizing to elected office. In a 1995 profile in The Chicago Reader, he said, "What if a politician were to see his job as an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?"

But Springfield was not ideally suited for such an approach. Republicans outnumbered Democrats by 37 to 32 in the Senate when Mr.Obama arrived. Power resided almost exclusively with the "Four Tops" - the Senate president, the House speaker and the minority leaders in each chamber. They controlled committee assignments, the legislative agenda, the staff. They even disbursed campaign money.

"It's power politics, and it's politics as a business, and it's winning and control," said Kent Redfield, the political studies professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield. "The mind-set is, it is not the public's business. That's part of the culture: It's about the politicians, and the politicians own the company."

Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called "mushrooms" (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: "Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."

Forming Relationships

From his days as an organizer, Mr. Obama already knew the Democratic leader, Mr. Jones, who had come up through the Democratic organization in Chicago. He had helped Mr. Obama's group acquire state money for a dropout prevention program that still operates today.

"Well, when he came here, first got elected, he came to me," Mr. Jones said, ensconced in his corner office in the Statehouse, his head wreathed in a swirl of cigarette smoke. "And he said to me, 'You know me, you know me quite well.' He said: 'You know I like to work hard. So feel free in giving me any tough assignments and everything.' I said, 'Good.' "

One of the first was campaign finance reform. Illinois had one of the least regulated campaign finance systems in the country and a history of corruption. Paul Simon, the former United States senator, was running a public policy institute at Southern Illinois University and asked each of the four legislative leaders to name a trusted lawmaker to work on a bipartisan ethics bill.

Mr. Jones recalls receiving a call from Abner J. Mikva, a former Chicago congressman, federal judge and friend of Mr. Simon. Judge Mikva, who had once tried to hire Mr. Obama as a law clerk, suggested him for the job. Mr. Jones says he knew that the new senator was hard-working and bright and that few others would want the assignment.

"He caught pure hell," Mr. Jones said of Mr. Obama. "I actually felt sorry for him at times."

The job required negotiating across party lines to come up with reform proposals, then presenting them to the Democratic caucus. Senator Kirk Dillard, the Republican Senate president's appointee, said, "Barack was literally hooted and catcalled in his caucus." On the Senate floor, Mr. Dillard said, "They would bark their displeasure at me, and then they'd unload on Obama."

Mr. Obama entered the discussions favoring contribution limits, said Mike Lawrence, now director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute at Southern Illinois University. But he realized they had no chance of passing. So the legislation, passed in 1998, banned most gifts by lobbyists, prohibited spending campaign money for legislators' personal use and required electronic filing of campaign disclosure reports.

"I know he wanted to limit contributions by corporations or labor unions, and he certainly wanted to stop the transfers of huge amounts of money from the four legislative caucus leaders into rank-and-file members' campaigns," Mr. Dillard said. "But he knew that would never happen. So he got off that kick and thought disclosure was a more practical way to shine sunlight on what sometimes are unsavory practices."

The disclosure requirement "revolutionized Illinois's system," said Cindi Canary, executive director of the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform. By giving journalists immediate access to a database of expenditures and contributions, it transformed political reporting. It also, she said, "put Senator Obama on a launching pad and put the mantle of ethics legislator on his crown."

His role, though, did not endear Mr. Obama to everyone.

Racial Friction Early On

By many accounts, there was already friction between him and Mr. Hendon, whose West Side Chicago district is among the poorest in the state, and Mr. Trotter. When Mr. Trotter and Mr. Obama both ran for Congress two years later - unsuccessfully, it turned out - Mr. Trotter told a reporter that Mr. Obama was viewed in part as "the white man in blackface in our community."

Mr. Dillard said, "I remember Rickey chiding Obama that, 'What do you know, Barack? You grew up in Hawaii and you live in Hyde Park. What do you know about the street?' To which Obama shot back: 'I know a lot. I didn't exactly have a rosy childhood. I'm a street organizer by profession and a lot of my area, once you get outside the University of Chicago neighborhoods, is just as tough as your West Side, Rickey.' "

In an interview, Mr. Trotter said Mr. Obama had arrived "wanting to change things immediately," as though he intended "to straighten out all these folks because they're crooks." But Mr. Trotter credited Mr. Obama with later "trying to make himself more regular" and "taking himself out of his cocoon, his comfort zone" and "not just pontificating through the press."

Mr. Hendon, who says he is writing a book on electoral politics called "Backstabbers," said ethics reform would have passed with or without Mr. Obama because of scandals that preceded it. He said the sponsors of ethics bills tended to be "wealthy kind of people, the same kind of people who vote against pay raises, who don't need $5,000 a year. Whereas senators like me from poorer communities, we could use that $5,000."

Mr. Hendon praised Mr. Obama, however, for later winning passage of what some in Springfield called "the driving-while-black bill," which required the police to collect data on the race of drivers they stopped as a way to monitor racial profiling. Law enforcement groups had repeatedly blocked earlier versions while the Republicans were in control; when the Democrats took over, Mr. Obama brokered a compromise between the police groups and the A.C.L.U.

Mr. Hendon, sponsor of a previous bill, said Mr. Obama had "made some compromises that other members of the black caucus just weren't willing to bend on" - perhaps, he said, because Senator Obama had never been abused by the police. But he added, "I'm not saying he gave up too much. In hindsight, it was best to go ahead with the weaker version because a lot of police attitudes changed when we passed it."

Mr. Obama worked hard at building connections. Aside from taking up golf he joined a weekly poker game. One lobbyist said Mr. Obama played poker well, but "with more skill than luck," adding, "It's certainly not instinctive with him; it's cerebral."

In Springfield, Mr. Obama said, he learned early "that forming relationships a lot of times was more important than having all the policy talking points in your arsenal. That most of the time people at the state level - and in the U.S. Senate - are moved as much by whether or not they trust you and whether or not they think your values are sound as they are by graphs and charts and numbers on a page."

Many of those relationships have proved helpful since. As Mr. Jones tells it, when Mr. Obama asked him to support his run for the United States Senate, the younger man had already figured out that the Senate president's early backing could "checkmate" the mayor, the governor and organized labor.

Senator Terry Link, a forklift business owner who golfed and played poker with Mr. Obama, also provided assistance. Chairman of the Lake County Democratic organization, he informed the group that it would be backing the long shot, Mr. Obama, in the Senate primary.

"They all thought I'd lost my marbles," said Mr. Link. "'You're nuts! We can't support him.' I said, 'When you know him like I know him, you'll all support him.' The largest percentage in the primary came from my county. He carried every precinct."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Barack Obama's performance stood above the competition in last night's debate as he continued to show the qualities that will make him a strong Commander in Chief.

He displayed the judgment that led him to oppose the war in Iraq before it began and reminded the other candidates that the time to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

Watch the video and share it with your friends:

http://my.BarackObama.com/DebateSC

Televised debates are notorious for rehearsed sound bites and canned answers. Barack demonstrated his leadership by speaking with passion and personal conviction about education, Social Security, and changing the way Washington works.

This morning's news coverage declared Barack the clear winner of the debate. Here's a sample of what they had to say:

Time and time again Obama sought to take specific questions and broaden them into a conversation over who represented real change in the field. He castigated lobbyists and special interests in Washington, offering a sweeping condemnation of business as usual (by both parties) in the nation's capital. "We don't need just a change in political parties," said Obama. "We need a change in attitudes of the people representing Americans."

-- Chris Cillizza, Washington Post

We're here with 24 Democrats, independents, who thought that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the best performer here tonight, but the results that we just got in, this is a focus group; show that Barack Obama got the most favorable in terms of the best performance from the 24 people who are here tonight.

-- Mary Snow, CNN

Watch Barack's performance and help build our movement for change:

http://my.BarackObama.com/DebateSC

We also heard from hundreds of supporters who shared their reactions via Obama mobile:

I loved Obama's comment that we're not going to fix anything until 'we change how business is done in Washington.' As usual, he was spot-on. I have faith that Barack is THE candidate to facilitate these changes. He has shown commitment time and again that he will work across lines of party, race, & religion to make progress in America. United, we can make a difference!

-- Lisa in Ann Arbor, Michigan

Once again Barack applied a common sense approach in his response tonight. I was also pleased he continued to reinforce his message of unity. O8AMA!!

-- Russ in Cary, Illinois

Barack, you were the best one there and should be the obvious choice for those of us who want true, real, and honest change. Keep it up!

-- Tessa in Rochester, New York

Barack's victory in last night's debate was decisive, but he cannot win the Democratic nomination alone. It's up to all of us to spread the word and build this movement for change.

Thanks for your support,
David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

A week ago, four supporters from all over the country were flown to our nation's capital to share a meal -- and their stories -- with Barack Obama.

The conversation covered topics ranging from the war in Iraq to student loans to poverty.

But they also talked about cartoons, YouTube, and teaching kids to ride bikes.

You've got to watch this video:

http://my.barackobama.com/dinner

These dinner guests were not Washington lobbyists or representatives of special interests.

They were small-dollar donors who participated in our Dinner with Barack campaign -- Christina, Haile, Michael, and Margaret each gave between $5 and $25 and got the kind of personal time with Barack that other politicians reserve for the wealthy and powerful.

In addition to the video from the dinner, we have four more short video profiles of each of the participants. Watch the videos, and let us know what you would have asked Barack if you'd been there:

http://my.barackobama.com/dinner

Thank you so much for your support.


David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

P.S. -- One of the dinner guests, Haile Rivera, works with New York City food pantries and spoke to Barack about the challenges of the urban poor. Today, Barack gave a speech outlining his agenda to combat urban poverty. For more on Barack's vision and plan to revitalize our urban centers, click here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fightingpoverty/

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

The war in Iraq should never have been authorized, never have been waged, and it must end now.

Take action:
BarackObama.com/BushInDenial

Al-Qaeda has recovered to its pre-September 11th strength, according to an intelligence community estimate revealed today.

Think about that.

Almost six years after 9/11, Osama bin Laden is still alive. His organization is still training terrorists. And he and his associates still have a safe haven in the mountains on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Meanwhile, George W. Bush released his administration's report on the "progress" in Iraq. It's another example of how deep in denial he is about what's really happening. The past three months have been some of the deadliest since the war began, and things are getting worse -- not better.

The war in Iraq should never have been authorized, never have been waged, and it must end now.

Al Qaeda's resurgence proves that the Iraq war has been a deadly distraction from the real threats we face -- which is why I opposed the war from the beginning.

George Bush just finished a press conference where he tried to tell people that progress is being made in Iraq and against al Qaeda. The press will report his spin and obfuscation -- but you can have an impact on their coverage.

Write a letter to the editor of your local paper right now -- if you act quickly, your letter could be printed alongside tomorrow's coverage.

Our online letters-to-editors tool makes it simple:

http://www.BarackObama.com/BushInDenial

Over 250,000 of us have invested in this campaign because we're willing to do everything we can to change this country.

Now is the time to act.

Millions of Americans are hungry for a president who will end the war in Iraq and confront the threats we face with honesty and sound judgment.

They're waiting to hear from you.

Thank you,

Barack Obama

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

ELECTION 2008

Democratic Presidential Candidates Propose Pragmatic Approaches to Universal Health Care To Avoid Pitfalls of 1990s Health Reform Effort

A number of Democratic presidential candidates -- including Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) -- support health care reform approaches "that borrow from the Massachusetts model," a law enacted last year in that state that "took key elements of the 1993 Clinton plan and made them practical politically," the Washington Post reports. Obama and Edwards have released plans to achieve expanded coverage using elements of the Massachusetts plan. Clinton has outlined an agenda to address health care costs, and is expected to focus on quality and "insuring everyone" later this year, according to the Post.

The Post reports that Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who helped with the Massachusetts law, has consulted with the three leading Democratic candidates and is "possibly the [Democratic] party's most influential health care expert and voice of realism in its internal debates." Gruber said, "Plans which minimize the disruption to the existing system are more likely to succeed than plans that rip up the existing system and start over." He added, "It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's not to say that plans ripping it up wouldn't be better -- I just think they're political non-starters."

However, Ezekiel Emanuel -- a physician and bioethics expert who has consulted with some candidates and who is Rep. Rahm Emanuel's (D-Ill.) brother -- advocates replacing the current health care system with a plan that would allow people to buy health coverage with vouchers. Emanuel said that the proposals of the leading Democratic candidates are not "bold," adding, "I don't think they solve the problem."

Meanwhile, Republican presidential candidates -- including former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who signed the 2006 health reform bill into law -- have depicted the Democratic candidates' proposals as "socialized medicine," the Post reports.

John Sheils, a health care expert at the Lewin Group, said that the Democratic candidates' proposals might not be entirely realistic. "There is an idea you can somehow do all these things controlling costs without anybody doing anything they don't want to do," Sheils said (Bacon, Washington Post, July 10, 2007).

Opinion Piece
"We believe that health insurance providers can promote health, improve quality and reduce costs, thereby creating the means to provide universal access," Aetna Chair and CEO Ronald Williams and Aetna Chief Medical Officer Troyen Brennan write in a Post opinion piece. "We are glad to see presidential candidates support these same goals," they write, concluding, "We hope that politicians and the public recognize that providing access to care that is proven effective and efficient is going to be critical to meaningful reform and that health plans have real expertise to bring to the table" (Williams/Brennan, Washington Post, July 10, 2007)

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Voters Excited Over '08 Campaign; Tired of It, Too

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
New York Times
July 9, 2007

NARBERTH, Pa., July 6 - Kathy Hubbard likes politics, is delighted with the field of Democratic presidential candidates and considers the 2008 presidential race the most exciting - and important - in years.

But she raised an arm in frustration as she cringed at the barrage of images and information that the contest throws at her every day.

"It's too soon," Ms. Hubbard, a creative writing teacher, said as she walked up the street of this trim Philadelphia suburb, her two young daughters and a dog in tow. "I don't ever remember it starting this early. It's bizarre. It's a shame that I have to begin paying attention to the presidential race now."

Ms. Hubbard is hardly alone in her sentiments. In dozens of interviews across the country, voters said the presidential campaign had become much too intense, much too soon.

It is not unusual for Americans to profess irritation at campaigns that they say start too soon. But the sentiment this year appears notably different - and in some ways more complex - than in the past, reflecting the early start to the race, its intensity and, perhaps most of all, a sense in both parties that the country is ready to move beyond the Bush administration.

In interview after interview, voters said they felt overwhelmed by the battle for their attention: the speeches, the attacks, the unceasing news coverage of celebrity candidates, and a fund-raising free-for-all that many described as unseemly.

They worry that the public will lose interest in this contest before a single voter steps into the polls and that the bustle of this supercharged environment is crowding out lesser-known contenders. They are concerned that a race careering along at this pace does not give candidates time to listen and learn from voters, explore new issues and evolve.

But while voters from both parties in many places across the country said they were flinching at the onslaught of this early politicking, they certainly were not disengaged. Many suggested they were eager for the arrival of Election Day and, with it, a change in the White House and in policy at home and abroad.

Colleen Gallagher, a high school teacher in Narberth, said: "People are going to have burnout, they are going to be just sick of hearing about it. It's like, enough already."

Ms. Gallagher then proceeded to slip eagerly into an lively and informed 20-minute conversation about the race.

Those crosscurrents highlight a challenge for the large field of candidates: how to harness the energy coming from an electorate ready for a change without overloading it too soon.

In the Studio City section of Los Angeles, Ed Wood, 34, an independent voter, said that "we're being forced, dragged to pay attention." Mr. Wood added: "It's a really important election. It's going to be a reaction against the current president."

The sense that voters were ready to turn the page on Mr. Bush was reflected even in interviews with some Republicans.

"I did vote for him twice, but I'm very disappointed in him," said Kathy Shaffer, an elementary school teacher from Clear Lake, Iowa. "I have switched completely from pro-Iraq to 'I want them home.' I'm afraid Bush is not going to be able to do anything because of this Iraqi war."

David Labowitz, an insurance salesman here, said he voted for Mr. Bush in 2004 and was eager for the next election to come along so he could rectify what he called his mistake. "I am a registered Republican," Mr. Labowitz said, "but I am so embarrassed to be a registered Republican."

The candidates are drawing full-house crowds, from small Iowa living rooms to rallies in big parks. Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, reported last week that 258,000 people had contributed to his campaign; the leading presidential candidates have raised about $245 million, much of that in small donations.

Almost without exception, in interviews and in public polls, Americans say they consider this race vitally important and are paying attention to what is going on.

"You've got to," Mr. Labowitz said. "American has got some real issues, and we're wasting a lot of time."

Even Ms. Hubbard, as overwhelmed as she said she was by the race, said there might be some benefits. "You do have some time to process information, because there is a lot of information out there," she said, adding, "Maybe I'll be able to make a better and more informed choice."

The responses suggest the challenges candidates face in trying to break from the pack and appeal to voters. In interviews, voters were usually able to volunteer certain candidates' names (think Clinton and Obama), but from there, lapsed into hazy guesses about who the candidates were and what they stood for.

"You just keeping hearing about the big names," Ms. Gallagher said. "When Fred Thompson and those other names come up, I couldn't tell you the first thing about them."

Barri Iskin, a social worker in Philadelphia, said: "It kind of actually sounds all the same after a while. It's hard to really focus on anything specifically."

These sentiments were evident not only in places like Pennsylvania - a vital swing state in the general election, but one that has not yet seen much of the candidates or their commercials - but also in Iowa, where for the last week it was hard to turn a corner, pick up a newspaper or turn on the television without encountering a presidential candidate.

"I'm afraid we are going to get tired of all this hoop-de-la," Ms. Shaffer said as she settled into a lawn chair along the route of an Independence Day Parade in Clear Lake, jostling for ground in a crowd drawn by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (and husband), Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts Republican, and other candidates. "It is too much for too long. You get tired of it. You put mute on the commercials. I've heard them already. We're not ready to vote yet."

"And there's so much money involved," she continued.

Bernice Jennings, standing at the edge of a rally for Mr. Obama in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, said, "If I was making the rules, I'd say you've got six months to campaign."

It is a measure of just how overwhelming things are that even in Iowa voters say they are having trouble figuring out, well, who's on first. Iowans could see in person (or on television) Mrs. Clinton; Mr. Obama; Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Delaware Democrat; Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat; Senator Sam Brownback, the Kansas Republican; and Mr. Romney.

"They are just jumbled up all over the place," said Terry Lentz, a retired insurance company executive watching the Clear Lake parade. "You can't keep track: whether it's a Republican or a Democrat, you don't know who is on one side or the other. You have Republicans that are sounding like Democrats and Democrats way on the conservative side. I want to wait another six months until this thing is washed out."

Candidates are typically working hard at this point in a presidential campaign cycle. But they are normally flying at a much lower altitude, little noticed outside places like Iowa and New Hampshire. The wide-open field on both sides, the presence of candidates with star power and a nominating calendar with the holding of votes early in the year by a lot more states has accounted for this shift that voters are noting.

And the focus on money has elevated this race even more, even as it adds to the unease among voters. "You hear more about how much they raise each month than you do about their policies," said Drew Johnson, who owns a tavern here in Narberth. "So it's coming down to special-interest money that is supporting these candidates."

In Philadelphia, Donna Braff, 42, who said she was unemployed, said: "When I think about all the millions that are going to be spent - if only we had that kind of money to fix the school system."

Some voters said they would take their time and pay attention when they were ready to pay attention.

"I want to wait until we get closer to the election," said Tekeytha Fulwood, 28, a nurse in Philadelphia. "I want to make sure there is consistency. The main thing I want to do is observe."

Ben Werschkul contributed reporting from Iowa and Pennsylvania, Ana Facio Contreras from California and Lynn Waddell from Florida.

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

The Way We Live Now: The Right to Spend

By JEFFREY ROSEN
New York Times Magazine
July 8, 2007

American democracy has always been haunted by the specter of concentrated wealth. How can the principle of one man, one vote be honored when the accumulation of dollars translates so readily into the accumulation of political influence? If all citizens enjoy the equal right to participate in politics with their wallets, is it possible to hold a fair election? In today's proudly money-mad, winner-take-all economy, these questions are as urgent as ever. The spending patterns of the very rich help form our consumer habits and fill the pages of our magazines; it's little wonder that they shape our politics as well. The ongoing presidential campaign often seems to be a (somewhat) glorified competition for cash, and when a billionaire contemplates a candidacy, the entire process comes to a halt.

The McCain-Feingold act, passed in 2002, was meant to do something about this; it was meant to even the balance between democracy and money. By limiting the donation of unregulated "soft" money to political parties and banning "issue ads" in the buildup to an election, it made it harder for a small number of wealthy donors to dominate the political process. Now, however, the Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to throw out one part of the law and threatened to discard the rest. In this new gilded age, are we doomed to return to gilded-age politics?

Certainly, the end of McCain-Feingold would have consequences. The ban on soft money addressed a serious political problem about wealth and political access: more than half of the $500 million in soft money raised in 2000 came from only 800 donors, each contributing a minimum of $120,000. Fully 435 of them were corporations or unions, and the rest were among the wealthiest 1 percent of individual citizens. Under McCain-Feingold, the influence of those donors has been reduced. Despite the rise of so-called 527 organizations to exploit loopholes in the law, the ban on corporate soft-money contributions to political parties has had some success. Candidates are relieved that they do not have to help solicit corporate soft money, as they did during the fund-raising scandals of the go-go '90s, and corporations are relieved at not being shaken down to contribute to both parties to hedge their bets. More important, banning soft money has forced the parties and candidates to learn to raise money from individuals who are not among the super-rich, and the Internet has allowed them to do so in cost-effective ways. In the first half of 2007, Barack Obama received contributions from more than 250,000 individuals while raising millions over the Internet.

But the Roberts Court may not allow the ban on soft money to stand for long. Although four liberal justices, following the thinking of Stephen Breyer, have concluded that campaign-finance laws serve the purposes of the First Amendment by enhancing public confidence in democracy and equalizing political participation, four conservative justices have reached the opposite conclusion on the grounds that giving money is a form of speech. And Chief Justice Roberts may well join them in a future case. So let's imagine that the court votes before long to strike down the ban on soft money, gutting what remains of McCain-Feingold. What would American politics look like then?

In some ways, it would look a lot like American politics before the 1970s. Corporations would give freely to state and national parties. The effects of wealth would once more be magnified as the size of donations ballooned. But not all of the effects of radical deregulation would be negative. Mega-rich candidates would face better-financed rivals and thus inspire less fear. And, having discovered the virtues of Internet fund-raising, candidates are unlikely to ignore small donors, as they did in the '90s.

The most significant result of a decision to strike down virtually all campaign-finance regulations would be to dash reformers' hopes for more comprehensive reform - hope, that is, for the sort of policies that proponents of equal access in politics believe would actually work. In Belgium, for example, parties receive 85 percent of their revenue from the government, and spending is strictly restricted during the three months before an election. Such an approach, however, would be hard to reconcile with Americans' dislike of subsidizing politicians - or with our First Amendment tradition, whether interpreted by the Warren Court or the Roberts Court.

The larger question, of course, is whether it's useful for the country to have yet another polarized debate about whether giving money is free speech. The truth is that few people are absolutists on the question. No less an egalitarian than the political theorist Michael Walzer, who supports a "radical ban on private fund-raising," has suggested that candidates should at least be allowed to hold bake sales. And free-speech conservatives, who care more about liberty than equality in the political process, haven't yet questioned the ban on direct corporate contributions to candidates, which dates back to the Progressive era. Since 1976, the Supreme Court has tried to finesse this debate. It has insisted that Congress can regulate contributions to candidates more extensively than expenditures by candidates, because contributions are more likely to lead to quid pro quo corruption and are less central to free expression. But now the court seems on the verge of throwing out this nuanced position and announcing that because money is almost always speech, it can almost never be regulated. That's a plausible vision of the First Amendment, but whether it will produce a political system that inspires confidence among the American people remains to be seen.

Jeffrey Rosen, a frequent contributor, is the author most recently of "The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America."

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By Mary Anne Ostrom, Mercury News
San Jose Mercury News Article
Launched: July 6, 2007 01:34:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time

It may not be as big a campaign issue as the war in Iraq or universal health insurance, but outsourcing of U.S. jobs is becoming one of the hottest topics of the 2008 presidential race, with Silicon Valley leaders playing key roles.

The subject will almost certainly come up today when Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., speaks to a powerful group of alumni of India's most prestigious technology school, the India Institute of Technology, including many whose businesses use or supply outsourcing services.

Clinton was scheduled to give the speech in person. However, her campaign announced Thursday that she will deliver her remarks via satellite to as many as 4,000 alumni at the Santa Clara Convention Center.

Outsourcing is a dicey subject that has both Republican and Democratic candidates scrambling for coherent policies that don't anger voters who worry for their jobs, or influential campaign back ers - including tech leaders who rely on outsourcing and hiring of foreign workers.

Underscoring the sensitivity, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., last month had to rush to quell a controversy over a memo released by one of his campaign staffers. The memo, which Obama said he knew nothing about, painted Clinton as too cozy with Indian-American leaders and others, including Cisco Systems, that have large operations in India. Translation: Her backers seek to export U.S. jobs.

The memo boomeranged, sending Obama to smooth over the feelings of Indian-American leaders, even some of his own backers. They feared the campaign appeared to be scapegoating the Indian-American community, a growing source of votes and campaign dollars.

Also, just before last month's death of immigration legislation that would have increased the number of highly sought after H-1B visas - designated for educated and skilled workers - came an embarrassing video. Made by a Pittsburgh law firm for would-be visa users and posted on YouTube, it instructed how to skirt the law that requires Americans be given preference in hiring.

Now, business and labor interests are set to square off over the issue in the presidential arena.

Differing arguments

Business leaders argue there is a severe shortage of skilled worker visas required to keep U.S. businesses competitive. On the contrary, labor and U.S. engineer groups claim the system is poised to cost Americans millions of jobs.

Not surprisingly, the leading Democratic and Republican candidates are treading softly, mostly offering similar prescriptions focusing on helping displaced U.S. workers, ending tax incentives for companies that export work and calling for cleaning up the visa system.

"It's an especially tough issue for Democrats who have to wear a labor hat and a technology hat," said Bill Whalen, a GOP political analyst at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Adding fuel, a prominent former Clinton administration official warned during a congressional hearing last month of a "politically potent brew." Alan Blinder, a member of President Clinton's original Council of Economic Advisers, told a congressional committee of "many actual and potential job losers clamoring for protection."

Despite two months of heavy advertising by IIT touting Hillary Clinton's role as keynote speaker today, the senator's office said delivering the remarks in person was "not logistically possible."

Her Senate spokesman, Philippe Reines, said the decision was not influenced by growing scrutiny of outsourcing and her ties to Indian-Americans, who do aggressive fundraising for her campaign. IIT officials said they understood the "last-minute change" in Clinton's hectic schedule. Among the hosts of the IIT event are leaders of McKinsey and Headstrong, which provides outsourcing consultancy services.

Outsourcing is "a global trend, and businesses in the U.S. and India benefit from it immensely," said Ashu Garg, a Microsoft vice president of marketing and IIT alum.

"We believe it needs to continue but at the same time recognize there are social costs in the U.S. and it's worth the debate on how the transition is managed."

Democratic and Republican presidential contenders have been meeting quietly with people on the other side of the issue, too, including Blinder and boosters of U.S.-based engineers.

"When push comes to shove, the candidates don't know what to do about it. They don't want to anger the business community in any way," said Ron Hira, author of the 2005 book, "Outsourcing America," and an assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology. "There's not a silver bullet. But part of it is lack of political courage to say what's good for these companies isn't always good for the country. It isn't business bashing."

But the lesson delivered by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., still smarts among Democrats. During his 2004 presidential bid, Kerry surprised even his own supporters and angered U.S.corporate leaders by labeling those who seek offshore tax benefits as "Benedict Arnolds."

Today, Democratic candidate John Edwards, who often makes speeches about the threats of globalization to the "have-nots," uses more tempered language.

Yet, the issue is only poised to get bigger as business and labor interests begin their effort to shape the candidates' agendas. Silicon Valley tech leaders intend to push their case for hiring skilled foreign workers and against protectionist-sounding measures.

California primary

"What makes this issue of even more interest to us is you have a California primary that matters and candidates can't just come to raise money," said Robert Hoffman, an Oracle vice president who co-chairs Compete America, an alliance of tech employers seeking pro-business immigration reforms. "One of the questions that our employees and the companies will want to know is what are these candidates going to do to represent our innovative leadership" and preserve competitiveness.

And labor leaders, often key allies of Democrats at election time, also intend to put on the pressure as the issue grows in voters' minds.

"You see a much broader swath of jobs going offshore compared to the last presidential election," said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. He said so far he is not satisfied with any of the candidates' discussion of the issue.

The Republicans are more aligned with business, saying weaker U.S. companies will lead to even more job eliminations.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney hired as a campaign adviser a former key George W. Bush White House economist who in 2004 declared outsourcing is "probably a plus" over time.

"The problem is that there hasn't been any serious discussion by either party's candidates," said the Hoover Institution's Whalen. "The Democrats angrily claim that Republicans don't care about working men and women. The Republicans say the Democrats are just loony protectionists. It makes for good sound bites and doesn't solve the problem."

Contact Mary Anne Ostrom at mostrom@mercurynews.com or (415) 477-3794.



Edith M. Prentiss

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

By ROBIN TONER New York Times July 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 5 - There is no better measure of the power of the health care issue than this: Sixteen months before Election Day, presidential candidates in both parties are promising to overhaul the system and cover more -- if not all -- of the 44.8 million people without insurance.

Their approaches are very different, reflecting longstanding divisions between the parties on the role of government versus the private market in addressing the affordability and availability of health insurance. Republicans, by and large, promise to expand coverage by using a variety of tax incentives to empower consumers to buy it themselves, from private insurers. Conservatives warn, repeatedly, of Democrats edging toward the slippery slope of "government-controlled health insurance," as former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York puts it, and promote the innovation and choice offered by private insurers.

The major Democratic candidates propose strengthening the private-employer-based system, through which most working families get their coverage. But many Democrats also see a strong role for government, including, in some plans, new requirements that individuals obtain insurance and that employers provide it, along with substantial new government spending to subsidize coverage for people who cannot afford it.

Still, while they argue over solutions, both parties acknowledge the problems and their political urgency. Republicans, whose primaries usually turn on other issues, often wait until the general election to roll out detailed health plans; this time they are plunging into the debate far earlier. Democrats are competing furiously among themselves over who has the bigger, better plan to control costs and to approach universal coverage, a striking change from the party's wariness on the issue a decade ago after the collapse of the Clintons' health care initiative.

And both parties are closely watching the action in the states as potential blueprints for a centrist compromise, especially in Massachusetts, which just began a major plan intended to require that every individual have insurance.

In short, says Jonathan Gruber, an economist, health expert and Clinton administration veteran, the times are "radically different."

In fact, when Senator Barack Obama of Illinois unveiled a plan intended to cover tens of millions of uninsured Americans, but not requiring coverage for all, some Democrats in rival campaigns argued that he had not gone far enough. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, once vilified as overreaching on health care, is now more often faulted in her party as moving too slowly. Mrs. Clinton's 1994 plan, attacked at the time from the left, right and center, is presented in the new Michael Moore documentary, "Sicko," as a tragic missed opportunity.

This amount of attention, this early, comes in response to the growing anxiety among voters — and much of American business - about the cost of health care. Premiums for family coverage have risen by 87 percent since 2000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The number of Americans without insurance has grown steadily, to what the Census Bureau estimates as nearly 45 million, from 37 million when the Clintons first confronted the issue.

Businesses say that health costs are a huge liability in their struggles to compete in a global economy, most vividly in the auto industry. And health care is now rated the top domestic issue in some recent polls among Democrats, independents and voters over all. Among Republicans, it was surpassed only by immigration in June, according to the latest Kaiser survey. A Democratic pollster, Geoffrey Garin, says: "There are a bunch of issues that candidates can take a pass on. This is not one of them."

On the Republican side, few candidates have been better prepared to deal with the issue than former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who helped push through that state's health plan with bipartisan support. But Republican primary voters tend to be leery of new government requirements, and, arguably, of Massachusetts as a role model. Mr. Romney, on the campaign trail, talks generally about getting "everybody inside the health care system," through "market reforms" state by state to make private insurance cheaper and more available. But not, he says, "with a government takeover."

Sally Canfield, policy director for the Romney campaign, says that Mr. Romney is proud of his record, but "the Massachusetts plan was crafted for Massachusetts," and that a national plan would be different. For example, aides said he did not support a federal version of the Massachusetts requirement that individuals obtain insurance.

Mr. Romney's rivals are casting themselves as equally committed to improving the health care system, but even more determined to use free-market principles to do so, which they hope will prove them more attuned to the Republican base. Mr. Giuliani plans to produce a major proposal in the next month, aides say, that will elaborate on his commitment to "affordable and portable free-market solutions."

Mr. Giuliani says he wants to give individuals more control over, and responsibility for, health insurance, encouraging them to buy their own coverage on the private market and giving them "a very big tax deduction" to do it. Right now, most Americans under 65 get their coverage through their employers, who have the benefit of significant tax advantages, pooled risk and group rates.

Mr. Giuliani's approach echoes President Bush's call for an "ownership society," which was popular with economic conservatives but widely criticized as putting too much risk on individuals. "Every one of the Democrats wants government-mandated health insurance," Mr. Giuliani said recently. "We have to go in exactly the opposite direction."

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, will also outline a health care plan this summer, aides said. They said it would be intended to make coverage "affordable and available," using tax credits and the expansion of programs like the State Children's Health Insurance Program, but would include no new mandates on individuals.

Analysts say the Democrats are clearly drawing lessons from the health care battles of 1993-4, when a similar public groundswell for change collapsed in a matter of months. The 1,342-page Clinton plan at that time was bewilderingly bureaucratic and easy for opponents to characterize as something that would actually worsen the status quo for many insured Americans.

This year, the major Democratic proposals - including Mr. Obama's, one from former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina and a plan expected from Mrs. Clinton - are arguably ambitious and costly, but do not try the wholesale reinvention of the system, or move explicitly toward the government takeover Republicans so often predict.

"There's not a lot of untested political ideas out there," said Robert Blendon, a professor in health policy at Harvard.

The major Democratic plans announced so far try to cover nearly everyone by shoring up the employer-based system, creating new public insurance options and establishing new health insurance purchasing pools that offer a variety of private and public plans to people who cannot get coverage through work. People who could not afford coverage would get subsidies. Given those supports, some Democrats (including Mr. Edwards and -- it is widely expected but not yet announced -- Mrs. Clinton) back the idea of requiring every individual to obtain insurance.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama call for financing their plans with revenue from ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; those cuts are set to expire in 2010.

Diane Rowland, executive vice president of Kaiser, said candidates were responding not only to recent failures, but also to recent successes, notably in Massachusetts and potentially California.

"To get something enacted, you need a lot of people who think they will gain from it," Ms. Rowland said. "It's a new way of talking about health reform, because it shows people with health insurance what they could gain. These proposals are not just about the haves versus the have-nots."

Few have taken that advice more to heart than Mrs. Clinton, who is rolling out her proposals to control costs and improve quality before her ideas for covering the uninsured, which are expected in the next few months. She recently, for example, proposed a "Best Practices Institute" to assess the most effective treatments and procedures.

Another hallmark of this year's plans, in both parties, is a reliance on better health information technology and disease management to hold down costs -- not the more rigorous regulatory structures proposed in 1994, which critics asserted would soon lead to rationing.

By the time Election Day rolls around, polls indicate that the issue will be front and center, setting the stage for another great battle to overhaul the system under the next president. Veterans of the Clinton administration say it all feels familiar.

"If the Democrats win, it will be very hard not to take this issue on," said Mr. Gruber, who is helping to carry out the Massachusetts plan. "It will be as promising as it was in the early 1990s."

Edith. M. Prentiss

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

A lot of people are talking about money today.

It's true -- together we raised a significant amount over the past few months. And your generosity is what will make it possible to mount a winning campaign. For that, I cannot thank you enough.

But the money isn't the whole story.

The most extraordinary and deeply humbling result is the people -- more than 258,0000 of you -- who have taken ownership of this campaign.

A number that big is a thunderclap over the political process. It means our campaign has more supporters than any campaign in history at this point in an election, and it's a wake-up call to our current politics.

It means ordinary people are coming together in unprecedented numbers to take back their government.

It means you are defying the pundits and Washington insiders, rejecting their cynicism and negativity, and embracing the hope that we can change things for the better.

It means we are building a movement so big, so deep, and so personal that our collective voice is undeniable.

If you visited our website over the past week, you saw the thousands of personal stories our donors have chosen to share -- stories that ring true with passion and a hunger for something new.

But even though so many of us share a common goal, our success is not inevitable.

While everyone is marveling at our numbers and patting us on the back, we need to focus on the next question, "Where do we go from here?"

The answer is as simple as it is challenging: We organize.

As a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago, I witnessed how change works from the grassroots up. I saw how people working together with a common purpose can transform their communities and give them new life. The same is true for our country.

We need to start in our own communities, by reaching out to our friends, family, colleagues, and neighbors. We need to identify our common ground and work together for the common good.

And we have one tremendous advantage that no other campaign has -- the solidarity of more than 258,000 people working with us.

We've put together a brief overview of what we've accomplished over these past three months:

http://my.barackobama.com/wherewestand

Thank you for your generosity and support. It's impressive and inspiring, but we have a long way to go.

We've demonstrated that we can defy expectations and turn the political process on its head. Now it's time to combine our personal stories, build on our milestones of success, and take the next step.

Thank you for being part of this movement for change -- this is just the beginning.


Barack Obama

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Dear Marvin,

Our movement for change is on the go in all fifty states, and you can help it grow offline. The goal of our online efforts is to connect you with other supporters in the real world. Today there are two ways you can move that effort forward.

To start, sign up to receive text messages on your phone and stay in touch with the campaign wherever you go. If you sign up before the end of the month, we'll send you a free bumper sticker to help spread the word:

http://www.barackobama.com/go

But don't stop there. Let your friends and neighbors know they don't need a computer to be a part of the movement. Anyone with a cellphone can text GO to OBAMA (62262) and join our campaign.

Print a Go Mobile for Obama flyer and put it up in your neighborhood:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/gomobileflyer.pdf

Text messages will keep you and your friends connected to the movement. Be the first to know about local campaign events. Get reminders about debates and important public appearances. And connect to our organizing staff to build the movement in your community.

But don't worry. We respect your phone and your privacy, so updates will be periodic and we'll never share your personal information.

Sign up to receive text messages and get a free Obama for America bumper sticker:
http://www.barackobama.com/go

Our movement is ready to move with you, online and offline.

Thanks for your support,
David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

PS -- Personalize your phone with Obama for America wallpapers and ring tones created by supporters like you: http://www.barackobama.com/go

Paid for by Obama for America

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post  
 
 

Saturday's Walk for Change was a beautiful thing.

When I first started as a community organizer, I was lucky if I got five people to show up in a basement with some folding chairs.

On one day, you managed to:

• organize more than 1,000 events in all fifty states
  
• get more than 10,000 volunteers to go door to door in their neighborhoods; and
• introduce more than 500,000 people to our movement for change
  

All of these personal stories and conversations add up to more than a political campaign. Together we're building a movement to make politics mean something again and change this country.

Thank you for being a part of it.

Barack Obama

P.S. If you participated in a Walk for Change and took photos or recorded video, or if you'd like to share your feedback, please take a few minutes to contact us: http://my.barackobama.com/wfcupload

Read more of this post |  0 comments  | links to this post