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  
 
 

You used to have to go back door through the press releases to get to it, I don't know if there is a front door link to it. But here it is, it is mostly workplace initiatives.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/ada/

From Mary L. McGeeChair, Disability Caucus, State Central Committee, Iowa Democratic Party

Hillary does have a plan for PWDs. Pester your campaign manager for your state and make the campaign produce it. I did in Iowa. I have some info. If anyone wants it, let me know on this list and I'll see what I can do. As far as past achievements are concerned, note that, as a young attorney, Hillary went door to door and found numerous children with disabilities who were missing out on an education because schools wouldn't accommodate them and this experience led to the ultimate passage of IDEA. No other candidate can claim to have accomplished anything remotely close to that regarding PWDs. I'm a precinct captain for her in Iowa and we're down to three days now till our caucuses! Tonight I'm attending the Bill and Hillary New Year's celebration for change. So, those of you in the rest of the U.S., get out there and campaign for Hillary!

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6907

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

by State Committeewoman Trudy L. Mason

Lexington Club members can be proud of our part in the petitioning process that got Hillary Clinton and her pledged 14th Congressional District delegates on the ballot for the February 5 New York Presidential Primary. Now, before we focus on that all important contest, the campaign needs us all to make a difference and help make history by ensuring her success in the first two all important contests: the January 3 Iowa Caucus and the January 8 New Hampshire Primary.

You can do this by participating in grassroots outreach to Iowa and New Hampshire -- one-on-one direct contact with voters telling them why you, as a New Yorker knowing Hillary as your Senator, are supporting her campaign and vision for change. And you can do this by traveling to those states (see below for more information) or right here at the Manhattan headquarters or even from your own home.

Phone banking and mailings, as well as other important volunteer activities, are taking place at campaign headquarters, 420 Lexington Avenue (at 43rd Street, the Graybar Building) Suite 3030. You first need to participate in a brief volunteer orientation (Monday-Friday 10am, 2pm & 6pm, Saturday 11am & 2pm, Sunday 12pm & 4pm.) and then you can begin helping Hillary. And if your cell-phone or land-line has unlimited long-distance, you don't even have to go to headquarters to call early states' voters. Just go to www.HillaryClinton.com/MakeCalls or http://HillaryClinton.com/calling/ on your computer for instructions & calling lists.

If you would like to travel, a New Hampshire GOTV bus trip will be leaving Manhattan Friday Jan 4 & returning Sunday Jan 6 or (for those who can stay thru the Primary) Wednesday Jan 9. Travel, food, accommodations (likely in a supporter's home or at the local Y) and other necessities, as well as as canvassing training, will be provided by the campaign. [If enough people are interested, there may also be a similar weekend bus trip December 28th-30th.] For more information or to sign up, contact Dan Benjoya (212-213-3717 or dbenjoya @ hillaryclinton.com.) If you would like information about going to Iowa--you'll have to make your own arrangements and fund travel and accommodations--contact Mary deBree (212-213-3717 or mdebree @ hillaryclinton.com.)

Finally, if you are volunteering--or need more information--please let me know (TLMpr @ aol.com or 212-744-8841 or 917-443-3315) so we can give you a Lexington Democratic Club tee shirt to proudly wear while you volunteer for Hillary.

You can comment on this entry by posting a response at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/504Dems/message/6892

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  
 
 

Here's my wish list for the Presidential candidates (will we find them under our tree?)

1. Each campaign will have a PWD as a disability outreach coordinator (such as Richardson has this year, Dean and Gore have had in prior years).

   
   

2. Each campaign will have a panel of disability activists in contact with each other on a regular basis to formulate policy which is posted on the campaign website, such as Dean, Kerry and Clark had four years ago.

   
   

3. All campaign websites will be compliant with Section 508, to assure access to visually impaired individuals, such as Clinton has this year.

   
   

4. All campaigns will have designated PWD "communities" which are posted on the Home Page of their websites, such as several had during the last cycle, and not unofficial "grass roots" organizations which are difficult to find.

   
   

5. All campaigns will have a policy to assure access to campaign events for all types of disabilities, such as Dean and Clark had four years ago, and post it on its web site.

   
   

6. All campaigns will agree to assure that a minimum of 5 to 10% of their delegates to the national convention, 5 to 10% of their represenatives on the Convention's be persons with disabilities, and assure that persons with disabilities will be part of their staff at the Convention.

   
   

7. All campaigns (including the winning Democratic campaign) agree to target the 15-16% of voters with disabilities.

   
   

8. Governor Richardson will resolve his problems with the disability community in his home state of New Mexico regarding funding for Money Follows the Person, kiss and make up with them, and have them say that they're satisfied with the result.

   
   

Four years ago, Governor Dean set the bar for disability access and involvement in campaigns, with several, including Kerry and Clark following suit. Also, former Congressman Tony Coelho, a prominent party leader, issued a challenge to all of the candidates to adopt his employment program, including enforcement of President Clinton's Executive Order to hire 100,000 PWDs on the federal payroll. While the appointment of a disability outreach coordinator for Governor Richardson (who certainly needs one, considering the problems he has experienced with his own constitutents), is a step forward, we seem to still be far behind where we were four years ago at this point.

I am encouraged by the level of involvement of our community in the Iowa caucuses, and I hope this will be duplicated throughout the country this year.

I encourage all of you to become involved in the disability outreach of the candidate of your choice. And, while we're at it, we need to challenge our favored candidate to meet and exceed the goals on this "wish list."

Can you add to this?

Will Santa be coming down our chimneys this year?

Marvin

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  
 
 

We just finished this video and we wanted you to see it immediately. And we want you to share it with at least ten other Democrats.

It illustrates Bill Richardson's Iraq policy and why he is different than every other Democrat running for president. He is the only candidate to insist on a total and immediate withdrawal -- one that leaves no troops behind.

The other candidates would leave tens of thousands of American troops in Iraq for years to come to pay the ultimate price for George Bush's irresponsible leadership.

For instance, Senator Clinton has said that the differences between the candidates are minor. But she would leave American troops in Iraq until the end of her second term -- in 2017!

Every Democrat needs to know that critical difference before he or she votes in the primaries.

Spend the next four minutes watching this video. Then forward it to at least ten Democrats. Ask them to spend four minutes watching it, too. And tell them, "If you truly support ending the war and bringing home all our troops, Bill Richardson is your only choice."

If every supporter of Bill Richardson does that, we can win New Hampshire. We can win Iowa. And we can win the White House.

But most importantly, America will win. Because we will finally be able to move beyond George Bush's disaster in Iraq in a way that strengthens our nation, stabilizes the region, and restores our moral leadership in the world.

Thank you for your continued support -- and for doing your part to spread Bill Richardson's message of hope far and wide.

Sincerely,
Amanda Cooper
Deputy Campaign Manager

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  
 
 

More than 150,000 of our brave men and women are in a war zone, and Dick Cheney doesn't think Congress should know about how we are planning to bring them home.

Well I do, and I won't stop putting pressure on this administration until I know they have a plan to bring our troops home safely.

But it's not just that Cheney doesn't think Congress should have oversight -- he thinks those of us who do are "reinforcing enemy propaganda."

It is time to find out exactly where the Bush administration stands on this issue. I'm going to send a letter to President Bush, and I want your name to be on it. Join me in calling on him to plan for the safe withdrawal of our troops.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/iraq

Here's the whole story. Back in May, concerned about the administration's failure to plan in Iraq, I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him to provide Congress with briefings of contingency plans for withdrawal -- or an explanation of why no such plans exist.

Two weeks ago, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded in a letter that said discussing plans for withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda." It was an outrageous response -- and a dangerous one. Planning for withdrawal isn't just common sense. It is vital to ensuring our troops return home safe.

Secretary Gates quickly disavowed Edelman's letter, saying he encouraged Congressional oversight and promising to respond to my original inquiry.

But in an interview with Larry King that aired last night on CNN, Vice President Cheney said he agreed with Edelman's assertion that Congress asking the Pentagon to plan for our troops' safe return "reinforces enemy propaganda."

So which is it, President Bush? Do you support the safe return of troops from Iraq, or are you going to continue to play politics with their lives?

Let's ask him together:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/iraq

I couldn't care less what Dick Cheney says about me. But when he plays politics with the lives of our troops, you had better be sure I'm going to respond. And I know that you want to respond too.

Thank you for joining me in calling on President Bush to plan for the safe return of our troops from Iraq, and for the support you show me every day.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

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

[Congressman Jim Langevin - R.I.] Well, good afternoon everyone. Senator, it is great to be on the conference call with you today. It is a privilege to participate with you. I also want to thank you all for joining the call today. I know that Hilary is so pleased to have you here, and again it is an honor for me to participate.

I am here today to introduce my friend, Hillary Clinton. I have had the privilege of knowing her for many years now and for those of you who don't know her, I want to say with a strong champion that she is for her family and people with disabilities.

I would like to take [ indiscernible ] to tell you one thing that you may not know about her which is her first job of was work on a project of the Children's Defense Fund in Massachusetts. She works door-to-door to try to understand why the school enrollment figures were so much lower than the [ indiscernible ] figures buried secretly realize the difference was children with disabilities who were sent the message that they could not be educated but to desperately wanted to go to school.

Hillary helped write a report about the issues and took it to Congress which helps create the political momentum to pass the ADA Act back in 1975. She is still advocating on behalf of the children with special needs. She helped write that Act in 2004 and ensured that current resources were dedicated to training and aggressively look for the link between environmental toxins and disabilities and supports the ADA Restoration Act, something that is particularly timely today which will finally eliminate the institutional bias in our Medicaid and Medicare system.

She never stopped fighting for affordable and accessible quality health care for all. So I endorsed Hillary for President for so many reasons, but one of the most personal is my strong belief in her commitment for disability. And I know that as president she will be energetic and trusted advocate for the disability community.

So without any hesitation I am happy to turn things over so that you can get with Hillary personally to expand on the opportunity of people with disabilities. I wanted think all of you for being on the call. I want to thank you for your commitment on behalf of Americans with disabilities. Is a privilege to be working with you and your campaign and an honor for me to support you.

[Senator Clinton] Well, Jim, I appreciate that kind introduction. Your endorsement and support and good counsel means so much to me because the hard work you have done in Rhode Island is a real testament to your phenomenal commitments to your job and how you just have made it very clear that you are a man of great ability, and I am just delighted to have you want this call and by my side in this campaign and I want to thank everyone for joining me. I am looking forward to working with you and wish we had more time to talk today. I hope this is the beginning of a long ongoing dialogue.

Today I am honoring the eve of the 17th anniversary of the ADA Act and unveiling in economic opportunity for people with disabilities.

As the ADA was a landmark piece of legislation that resulted in almost two decades of significant progress, but we all know there is much more work to be done. I am certainly very strongly in favor of renewing my commitment to the ADA. I have been proud to work with Tom Arkin who has been an incredibly strong champion for his entire career as well as others on the ADA Restoration Act. If it is not signed in the next 18 months I look forward to inviting all of you to the White House when I signed that bill into law and I am President is because the ADA is the baseline on which is economic [ indiscernible ]. I want to level the playing field, but I think we have to go even further. It is not only a moral but an economic imperative. Our country will not reach its full potential unless we ensure that people with disabilities have the ability to reach their full potential.

Americans with disabilities have half the employment rate in double the poverty rate of those without disabilities, even if people with disabilities graduated from college to work at only two-thirds the rate of other college graduates. I want a nation where we offer people with disabilities with the investment an opportunity to survive. So at the heart of the proposal I am highlighting today is a simple idea. We should help ensure that people with disabilities should do what price meaning to many of us, namely our work.

At the federal level I have a two-part strategy. Provide assistance and federal benefits. Specifically as President one of my first actions will be to reinstate the Executive Order that my husband signed to hire 1,000 people with disabilities into Federal appointment. President Bush unfortunately abandoned this commitment and I look forward to getting it back on track. I will also double our investment and work enabling technologies by providing more low-interest loans to enable people to purchase them and provide real-time support for employers to help them get the tools that they need to make it possible to bring about the accommodations necessary to enable successful work. I also intend to introduce incentive to work in the program. One of the greatest accomplishments of the administration with respect to people with disabilities was to sign the Ticket to Work and Work Incentive Improvement Act into law. As a result 31 states have enacted policies to reduce that.

That represents significant progress, but let's be honest. It is only a start. State policies are uneven. In my presidency I want every person in every state to have the same opportunity to work without penalty. As president of the work to reduce premiums under Medicaid plans for individuals with disabilities and eliminate the Medicare eligibility time limit an individual can work and conduct a review of Medicare and Medicaid to determine where disincentives to work still exists and where we can do better.

Finally I want to enact a $1,000 worker disability tax credit to offset and further lower the expense that are keeping people from work. I obviously strongly believe that by working together we can break down the barriers to employment and empower people with disabilities to find fulfilling jobs and careers. And I look forward to working with each and every one of you toward that end.

I am posting a full description of my policies on my website and I hope he will check it out and I hope you will let me know. I wish I had more time with you. I am sorry my schedule is jam packed but I am planning to do this again on another aspect of my disability agenda because this is a part of my conversation with America. And I wanted to be just that, a conversation. I want to hear from you, and I want you to interact with my staff. I want you to be part of my campaign.

One person I would like to recognize for a few words is my friend, Tony Coelho. Tony, would you say a few words for us?

[Tony Coelho] Thank you, Hillary. I appreciate your statement and your announcement, the initiatives that you will put into effect once you are President. But I want to applaud you for all the things that you have done over the years as First Lady and as a Senator, the respect that you have shown and the recognition that you have shown and the inclusion that you have shown has been outstanding and we appreciated very much. Your willingness to include us in your campaign I think this is a signal that something that our community -- not only those who are running for president, but people who will become president. So we appreciate some of your statement today. And I am looking forward soon that first month you are in the White House when you take out your handy-dandy little pen and sign the executive order to start the process of hiring 100,000 people with disabilities in the Federal government. I think that is a signal that employers and everybody would get and it is significant. And we appreciate it very much. The ADA will be -- the ADA Restoration will be introduced in the House tomorrow by Jim Sensenbrenner and hopefully in the Senate soon. Hopefully be will end up with over 100 co-sponsors in the House side and the process will begin and we appreciate very much your support and your willingness to help us move that bill in the Senate and hopefully get it signed in this Congress, but if not then signed when you are President of the United States. So we appreciate your enthusiasm and support for our cause. And I know that another good friend of yours, Andy Imparato, the President of the American Association of People with Disabilities [ indiscernible ] he but like to ask. Andy?

[Andrew Imparato] Thank you and I want to join you in thinking Center client for your leadership both as First Lady . The American Association of People with disabilities has been working hard to have this kind of dialogue around where the country is headed, particularly during this around the ADA anniversary as very appropriate. He said at the beginning you want this to be beginning of a lot of ongoing dialogue. We have over 100 people on the call from the grass roots of the disability community in that want to thank you and your campaign for making it possible for people who are deaf and have hearing loss to be able to follow the call with real-time captioning. And I am wondering if you can tell us what the best way for people who want to be part

[Senator Clinton] Well, Andy, thank you so much for your leadership and I'm delighted that you're on this call and I'm Looking forward to working with you and everyone who has participated today. [Disability Coordinator is Emily Hawkins, ehawkins@hillaryclinton.com; telephone (703) 875-1285]

Katherine Brown is also very happy to speak with any of you about specific policy matters. We are getting geared up and staffed up, so the contact person may change as we go forward but for now, Emily and Katherine are the two people that I hope you will contact and be in touch with. Of course, Congressman, Langevan, Tony, Andy, any of the people on the call, we're all in this together to try and move this agenda forward, so I hope to hear from you. I hope to meet with you, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. I'm Sorry, I'm going to have to sign off right now but I look forward to being in touch with you and again, thank you so much for taking your time, and I hope we're going to be successful in moving these important priorities forward. Thanks so much. Bye-bye.

Thank you.

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

There's only one way to change America: together. There's only one way to make history: together.

And I'm so proud to have you by my side as we take our country back after six and a half years of cronyism and corruption, incompetence and deception.

Every "You go girl!" and "Give em Hill!", every letter of support you've sent, every dollar you've contributed, every friend you've recruited, every blog you've written, every house party you've attended, every petition you've signed, every time you've shown your support, every one of these things is the heart and soul of my campaign.

To put it simply: I owe the success of my campaign to each and every one of you. And to the skeptics who doubt the strength of our grassroots community, I say you've proven them wrong.

Now I want to share an astonishing -- and humbling -- number: 981,440. That's how many of you have supported my campaign for change.

Let's get to a million supporters.

Sign up your family and friends and coworkers. Have them sign up theirs. Tell them we're about to reach a million strong. Tell them we're making history together. And the person who is our one millionth supporter -- along with one of our current supporters, like you -- will travel with me and my team on the campaign trail to roll up our sleeves for a whirlwind day.

Click here to send a message to your friends urging them to sign up, or to sign up if you haven't yet joined the campaign.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/onemillion

Here's why reaching one million supporters is so crucial: because working together, there's nothing we can't achieve. It takes strength and experience to bring about change -- and it also takes cooperation. With your help, my campaign has come so far and now with your help we'll have the resources we need to win. I've told my campaign to come up with the strongest field program ever created, and I know you are a key part of that effort.

That's why we need you to ask everyone you know to join the campaign today: friends, family, coworkers -- everyone in your email address book! Visit our "One Million" page today:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/onemillion

I know you're with me every step of the way -- I see you on the campaign trail, at rallies and diners, house parties and town halls. It makes such a difference knowing I have such incredible support. Thank you for everything you do, and let's hit that one million goal!

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

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

By CHRISTINA NUCKOLS, The Virginian-Pilot
© July 18, 2007
Last updated: 10:27 PM

RICHMOND

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday the United States should focus its resources on domestic programs such as health care for children in low-income families and scale back its military presence in Iraq.

The U.S. senator from New York held her first public appearance in Virginia's capital since 1992, speaking to a bipartisan audience of about 2,500 county government officials attending the National Association of Counties convention.

County leaders invited all presidential contenders to speak at the event but only Clinton agreed to attend.

In her 30-minute speech, Clinton promised to work closely with local governments on health care, homeland security and economic development. She did not mention other Democratic or Republican contenders for the White House, but repeatedly rebuked President Bush for his handling of foreign and domestic policies.

In particular, Clinton criticized Bush for threatening to veto a proposed expansion of a popular health insurance program for indigent children.

"We have a president who vetoed bringing our troops home, threatens to veto more health care for our children," she said. "How about reversing our priorities? Let's stop sending troops to Iraq and let's start insuring every single child."

A proposal now before the Senate would increase spending on the health insurance program by $35 billion over five years in an effort to cover 4.1 million of the 9 million uninsured U.S. children. The expense would be covered by a 61-cents-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes.

Bush has proposed spending an extra $4.8 billion on the program. He wants to cap eligibility at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $34,340 for a family of three, instead of the 300 percent level allowed under the Senate measure.

Clinton promised to use the children's insurance program as a step toward universal health care if elected president. The senator said she will announce details of her larger health care plan in a few weeks.

Clinton was scheduled to return to Capitol Hill after her Richmond appearance for a planned all-night debate in the Senate on the Iraq war.

Clinton said she wants to improve security at U.S. ports, increase federal funding for local police departments, strengthen regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and end tax incentives for companies moving jobs overseas.

Clinton holds a commanding lead among Democratic presidential contenders in recent polls. Her Richmond speech drew good reviews from Republicans as well as Democrats attending the convention.

"She's done her homework and she knows what's important to us," said Teresa Altemus, a Republican supervisor from Gloucester County who is president of the Virginia Association of Counties. "These are bipartisan issues. We can't leave children out on the streets without health care."

Christina Nuckols, (804) 697-1562, christina.nuckols@pilotonline.com

EM Prentiss

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  
 
 

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  
 
 

AAPD, ADAPT, NCIL, SABE Questionnaire – Senator Hillary Clinton Response

July 3, 2007

1. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
   
   
   
   1. Do you support the creation and appointment of a permanent Assistant to the President for Disability Policy at the White House?
      Ever since I walked door-to-door for a project for the Children's Defense Fund where I sought to account for the number of disabled children not attending public school, I have recognized the need to expand opportunities for individuals with disabilities. From that experience in 1973 to now, I have been passionate about working on behalf of individuals with special needs. As President, I vow to remain committed to this issue, and I look forward to working with disability groups. Part of this outreach will include the appointment of liaisons and officials who are committed to enriching the lives of all Americans who live with disabilities. I have not made any commitments about how I would organize the White House at this level, but I can assure you that the needs and interests of persons with disabilities will be well represented in my Administration and, most importantly, integrated into every relevant domestic and international policy discussion.
      
   2. How will you make sure qualified people with disabilities will be a part of your political team and, if elected, as part of your administration?
      I was proud of the contributions of the numerous professionals with disabilities who made significant contributions to policy development and implementation during the Clinton Administration. I plan to repeat, if not enhance, that record. As President, I pledge that I will appoint the most qualified, dedicated, and public-minded people to serve in government, and I believe those people will be diverse in physical ability, race, ethnicity and other characteristics. I feel there is a compelling need to appoint people who understand the challenges facing Americans with disabilities, as well as appointing those qualified individuals that have a physical disability. Throughout my career I have hired a diverse staff because I believe that is how to obtain the best advice – through a range of perspectives. I am eagerly looking forward to working with a broad segment of the population, regardless of physical ability.
      
   
   

EMPLOYMENT

1. What steps would you take to reduce employment barriers and improve employment outcomes for Americans with disabilities?
   I strongly believe that we have an obligation to help those with disabilities achieve meaningful employment opportunities. As a testament to this commitment, I rigorously fought the Bush Administration's "WIA-Plus" proposal, which would have undermined the Vocational Rehabilitation program by allowing states to spend the money on a wide range of activities, including those that would not help individuals with disabilities address barriers to employment. As President, I pledge to financially support the Vocational Rehabilitation Program, while also proposing additional legislation that would empower Americans with disabilities. In addition, my husband was proud to sign into law the Work Incentives Improvement Act, which created the Ticket to Work legislation. This bill made it possible for individuals with disabilities to maintain their Medicaid coverage while working full-time. I believe people shouldn't lose their health insurance if they chose to go back to work, and that we should work aggressively to remove barriers to work for individuals with disabilities.
   
2. How would you reform the federal income support programs (Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance) so that beneficiaries enjoy a greater standard of living and participate more fully in the labor market?
   I firmly believe that programs like and Social Security Income and Social Security Disability Insurance provide an invaluable safety net for those individuals that might need governmental assistance. And I am committed to helping beneficiaries of SSI and SSDI not just make ends meet, but also improve their life and meaningfully participate in society. As President, I will examine these programs to see how they should be improved, including by increasing the benefit level, in order to ensure that Americans living with disabilities can enjoy a greater standard of living and participate in the labor market to the degree they are able. For example, I cosponsored the Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2005, a bill that sought to phase out the waiting period for disabled individuals to become eligible for Medicare benefits.
   
3. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, between 1993 and 2004, federal workers with significant disabilities left the federal workforce at rate more than seven times the general reduction in the federal workforce during that period. What actions would you take to ensure that qualified workers with disabilities are given meaningful opportunities to participate in the federal workforce at all levels?
   I strongly feel that the federal government should spearhead the effort to provide meaningful employment opportunities to all individuals – especially individuals with disabilities. As President, I will encourage all executive agencies to aggressively recruit and retain qualified individuals with disabilities for federal service. Our country loses out when individuals with disabilities exit the federal workforce at higher rates than other workers. Individuals with disabilities bring a unique and important perspective to all aspects of governance. As President, I will ensure that the federal government carefully tracks data on the hiring and length of employment of individuals with disabilities and that we take corrective action if we continue to fall short of equity between disabled and abled workers. I will also ensure that we rely on best practices to increase the number of individuals with disabilities who are hired, increase their job satisfaction levels, and increase their duration of service so that it is at least on par with all workers.
   
4. HEALTH CARE FOR ALL
   1. What steps would you take to ensure that people with disabilities have access to affordable, quality health care that is responsive to their needs?

      As President, I will enact legislation to provide high quality affordable health care coverage for all Americans, including those with disabilities. I will ensure that disability advocates are included in the process of developing the legislation to provide health care coverage for all Americans, and that the system that I ultimately sign into law addresses the particular needs of individuals with special needs. Today, even those individuals who have health insurance are often under-insured – that is, when they need treatment, their health insurer denies the claim. These practices can have a particularly damaging impact on individuals with disabilities who often need care urgently. I have been working to address the major problems in our health care system for fifteen years. I have taken on the health insurance companies and other special interests that too often work against the interests of those in need of care. In addition to addressing discriminatory insurance practices, we have to make sure that there's affordable health coverage for all. To that end, we need to develop the best approaches to delivering quality cost effective care that meets the needs of individuals instead of continuing with the antiquated policy approach of today that applies a one size fits all model

      Beyond co-sponsoring the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2005, I've also supported the numerous and inadequate state-based medically needy programs that have a bias towards nursing home rather than home and community based coverage. I believe it's time to focus on patients needs rather than on bureaucratic constraints imposed long ago. As President, I will continue to champion these policies.

   2. How or will you use managed care principles to deliver healthcare services?

      Poorly run fee for service as well as managed care is the wrong prescription for everyone, particularly people with disabilities. Rather than applying old line thinking of managed care or fee for service, I believe we should move towards patient-centered care. When my husband was President, I lead the fight for the Patient's Bill of Rights in order to protect patients' access to specialty care. I have also proposed establishing an independent public-private Best Practices Institute. This Institute would be a partnership among the public and the private sector that would let doctors, nurses and other health professionals know what drugs, devices, surgeries and treatments work best. These programs will be able to allow us to deliver the most affordable, and the highest quality, healthcare services to all Americans.

   3. How would you improve the quality of health and rehabilitation services provided to veterans with disabilities?
      

      Our country owes a duty to our veterans for their service and as President, I will honor that duty. The current administration has done an inadequate job in providing quality healthcare and rehabilitation services to our veterans, especially those returning from recent combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. And I've been working to address these problems. I have previously proposed an independent review of denied claims to help veterans get the benefits they deserve. I have also passed legislation, called the Heroes at Home, to provide specialized treatment for veterans suffering from traumatic brain injuries and help them and their families reintegrate into society; and introduced the Restoring Disability Benefits for Injured and Wounded Warriors Act of 2007 and the Protecting Military Family Financial Benefits Act of 2007, which would ensure that wounded soldiers receive the disability benefits they need and deserve and to further protect military family financial benefits. As President, I would continue to fulfill our promise to those veterans that have so selflessly fought for our country.

   4. How would you improve the quality of health and rehabilitation services provided to Native Americans with disabilities? Do you support the reauthorization of the Indian Healthcare Act?
      

      I am a strong supporter of developing innovative ways to ensure that health and rehabilitation services are provided to minority groups, particularly Native Americans. In this regard, I am a cosponsor of current Senate Bill 1200, a bill that would expand and reauthorize the Indian Healthcare Act. As President, I will continue to outreach to those groups like Native Americans that have historically been denied high-quality healthcare.

   5. How will you assure people with disabilities have fair access to Medicare Part D prescriptions?
      

      As a Senator, I have been actively involved with ensuring fair and equal access to Medicare Part D prescription drugs. I previously introduced legislation in the Senate to help the most vulnerable seniors and disabled Americans transition to new Medicare plans. I have also urged the administration to aid local pharmacists and beneficiaries, helping these individuals better administer the new Medicare program. As President, I 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. For example, patients who have been relying on particular pharmaceutical treatments that are most appropriate for their needs should not be suddenly forced to switch medications by indiscriminate cost cutting practices by pharmacy benefit managers. Having said this, we do need to have a better understanding of the best pharmaceutical treatment options for all patients, which is why I have proposedestablishing an independent public-private Best Practices Institute. This Institute would be a partnership among the public and the private sector that would let doctors, nurses and other health professionals know what drugs, devices, surgeries and treatments work best.

   6. How will you address the inequities caused by the Medicare "homebound" rule?

      I believe that the Medicare "homebound" rule has been enforced in a far too restrictive manner. As President, I will embrace a fair modification of Medicare rules so that disabled Americans are able to live their lives fully, without fear of losing their Medicare benefits. I look forward to addressing this inequality when I am President.

   7. Do you support ongoing Congressional efforts to ensure mental health parity in health insurance (S.558, H.R. 1367)?

      I think that our government ought to ensure parity in health insurance coverage of mental health benefits. That is why I have cosponsored the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007. This bill would prohibit 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. I believe this bill is one step in our effort to provide meaningful mental health care coverage.

5. LONG TERM SERVICES AND SUPPORTS
   1. How would you address America's increasing need for home and community-based long-term services and supports (such as personal assistance services, respite care, and other supports)?

      We need to have a new national long term care policy that recognizes a realistic division of responsibility between public and private payers. Today, all we have is an institutionally-based pseudo-long-term health care system called Medicaid, which is supplemented all too poorly by expensive, inadequate private long term care insurance. I believe all Americans should be able live in their homes and communities for as long as they are able, and that home and community-based long term services are essential to achieving that goal. I have been a strong champion for these services and support in the Senate. Recently, I joined with my colleagues to introduce the Home and Community-Based Services Copayment Equity Act, which would eliminate Medicare Part D co-payments for more than one million low-income Americans, including dual eligible residents of AL/RC facilities and other licensed facilities such as group homes for people with developmental disabilities, psychiatric health facilities, and mental health rehabilitation centers. I was also proud that my bill, the Lifespan Respite Care Act, which authorized almost $300 million over five years for grants to increase the availability of respite care services for family caregivers of individuals with special needs regardless of age, was enacted into law. As President, I will continue to champion access to long term home and community based services, and once again work to bring together all stakeholders to develop a far more rational American long term care policy.

      1. Do you support the Community Choice Act of 2007 (S.799, H.R. 1621) and/or the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act of 2007 (CLASS Act of 2007)?
         
         I strongly support the Community Choice Act of 2007, a bill that would amend Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide individuals with disabilities and older Americans with equal access to community-based attendant services and supports. In fact, I am one of the thirteen cosponsors of the bill. As President, I will continue to champion causes like the Community Choice Act.
         
         
      2. What other steps would you take to help states implement the Olmstead v. L.C. Supreme Court decision and help address the institutional bias in the current Medicaid system?

         I believe that the Olmstead opinion was a tremendously important moment in the disability movement. The Court affirmed that states have an obligation to move individuals with disabilities from institutional settings into more integrated settings in the community if moving them would not fundamentally alter the states' service systems. As President, I would support efforts to help states comply with this and other Supreme Court decisions, and I would continue to abide by Executive Order 13217, which directed agencies to identify federal laws, regulations, policies and practices that impede community participation by people with disabilities, and I would also make certain that the office of Civil Rights is enforcing current law, for a law without enforcement is nothing more than an empty promise

   2. Will you propose integrating acute and long-term services by using integrated managed care principles?
      
      

      I have proposed to transform care of today's chronically ill population to improve outcomes by using state-of-the-art chronic care coordination models within federally-funded programs, such as Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to provide care for Americans afflicted with these costly, multi-faceted and difficult to manage illnesses. I have also proposed to allow multispecialty clinics, private plans and provider-sponsored organizations to bid on and provide coordinated care services. I also believe we need stronger incentives for participation in chronic care management programs, and have proposed establishing an independent public-private Best Practices Institute, which would be a partnership among the public and the private sector, to finance comparative effectiveness research.

   3. How will you address the shortage of community direct care attendants?

      I think we ought to be particularly concerned about the dire shortage of community direct care attendants. I have tried to address this problem directly by proposing programs that would train family caregivers as direct care attendants so that these family caregivers can receive compensation for their payment. I would continue to champion this and other solutions to the shortage issue as well as providing added incentives, such as tax credits, to encourage more individuals to practice the selfless profession of caring for others. I also believe that we can and must work with labor representatives to serve as hubs for training and placement for all long term care settings, particularly those within the community.

   4. How will you address the lack of coordination between Medicare and Medicaid policies?

      To often Medicaid is the poor step child of Medicare and is treated as such within the federal government. But lack of coordination leads to wasteful, poorly coordinated care that produces little more than a cost shifting game between two programs. We need to make certain that federal and state administers of these programs work in close consultation with all stakeholders, including consumers and providers, to do a much better job in resolving enrollment, operations, benefits, payment, and appeals issues.

6. HOUSING
   1. What would you do to increase the availability of affordable, accessible, integrated housing opportunities in the community for low and moderate income people with disabilities and their families?

      I think providing affordable, accessible housing opportunities is one of the most important keys to empowering citizens to be productive contributors to the broader community. While not unique to the disability community, it is even more important to people with disabilities. That is why I proposed the 21st Century Housing Act last year. The Act would reform and modernize the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and allow for a long needed investment in personnel and technology infrastructure to remain competitive and useful to consumers. The 21st Century Housing Act provides the FHA with the flexibility to offer loan terms up to 50 years to decrease monthly mortgage payments and reduced or zero down payment plans to families that lack the upfront cash for a down payment. These types of program would extend housing opportunities to all individuals, especially those families that depend on governmental assistance.
      

   2. How will you assure the vigorous implementation of all Fair Housing Laws?

      While I believe that we ought to ensure that all Fair Housing laws are enforced, I think we ought to have the government lead by example. To ensure that the government housing authorities act fairly, I have introduced the Federal Housing Fairness Act. This legislation would increase the FHA loan limits so that working families in high-cost areas can use the program. This Act would also ensure that working families in high cost of living states are not denied the benefit of this program. Likewise, I would champion rigorous enforcement of laws that govern fairness in private housing.

   3. How will you assure that HUD implements programs that will assist states in complying with the Olmstead decision?
      

      I am committed to ensuring that HUD can implement its objectives and also assist states in complying with federal law and federal court precedent. Towards this end, I proposed the Suburban Core Opportunity, Restoration, and Enhancement (SCORE) Act in 2005, which established a $250 million Reinvestment Fund authorization within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This fund was specifically designed to allow local community leaders and elected authorities to develop initiatives in cooperation with private-sector partners. As President, I will continue to fund HUD, and oversee the agency to ensure that HUD is fulfilling its objectives.

7. TRANSPORTATION
   1. What would you do to expand access to affordable, accessible transportation for people with disabilities, especially in rural areas?

      I am 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. Given the need for accessible and affordable transportation, I have consistently supported the Community Service Block Grant Program, a program that traditionally helps fund and support transportation projects (among other projects). Additionally, as a Senator, I have tried to secure funding for agencies that provide transportation services to those individuals with disabilities. As President, I will continue to proudly champion programs that ensure people with disabilities can have access to transportation resources.

8. EDUCATION
   1. How would you ensure that students with disabilities are included within and accommodated as part of the accountability measures of No Child Left Behind?

      While I have many concerns about the No Child Left Behind Act, one aspect of the law that I am pleased about is that it shines a spotlight on the education of students with special needs and ensures that schools focus greater attention and resources on getting all children achieving at a proficient level. At the same I think it is important that the assessment provisions allow children with special needs to receive the accommodations they need to demonstrate their true abilities on the assessments, and that we invest in programs to increase the number of qualified special education teachers. In addition, I have co-sponsored the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which would have significantly improved 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 specialized formats, which include braille, synthesized speech, digital text, digital audio, and large print.

   2. Do you support full federal funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?

      I am a strong proponent of full federal funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and have consistently advocated for this policy throughout my tenure in the Senate. In 2005, I sponsored an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill to increase funding of IDEA by $4 billion. I think it is disgraceful that the federal government has promised to provide 40 percent of the cost of educating a student with special needs yet has never appropriated more than 20 percent. In addition, I have long embraced provisions that would increase the pool of qualified special education teachers, provide those teachers with additional professional development opportunities, and provide targeted support for the growing number of children with behavioral and emotional disorders.

   3. What ideas do you have for strengthening federal enforcement of IDEA?

      While I am a very strong proponent of IDEA, I also believe that the federal government can do more to champion the values underlying the IDEA program through enforcement. I co-sponsored the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act, which was signed into law on December 3, 2004. This bill strengthened IDEA by expanding monitoring and enforcement mechanisms and enabling parents and schools to resolve disputes equitably while also improving access to professional development for all teachers, improving students' transitions from high school to adulthood, and involving parents more thoroughly in the education of their children. As President, I will continue to seek out ways to ensure that IDEA is enforced in order to ensure that it is truly effective in achieving the goal of having every child with special needs receive a free, appropriate public education.

   4. What ideas do you have for increasing the high school graduation rate of students served by IDEA?

      I believe that we ought to commit ourselves to improving high school graduation rates for all students, especially students with disabilities. Improving graduation rates often starts with improving the quality of all teachers and staff who are responsible for educating students. Towards this end, I was a proud co-sponsor of the Personnel Excellence for Children with Disabilities Act, which promised to help schools recruit and retain new special education teachers, and better prepare general education teachers and staff to work with children with special needs. This bill also pledged to make research-based, comprehensive professional development available to teachers. Much of the language in this bill was included in S. 1248, which was signed into law on December 3, 2004. I am also a strong supporter of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, which helps students with disabilities make a smooth transition from high school to employment. I think we can do much more to help students with special needs envision an exciting future for themselves in which they live self sufficiently and fulfill their potential.

   5. How would you improve services for students transitioning from school to employment? From high school to higher education?

      I think we ought to focus our attention not only on providing educational opportunities, but also on ensuring students transition from primary school to other endeavors. That is why I support the Vocational Rehabilitation program, which helps ensure that every student with a disability has a plan for transitioning out of high school and into college or full time employment. I think this program needs additional funding so that it can reach more students. Too many states have been forced to enter an order of selection where they have to choose between students with varying levels of need. I believe this program should serve every young person with a disability and start reaching out to them when they are even younger. As President, I will increase funding for Vocational Rehabilitation and work with states to improve their programs so that they are sharing best practices and more effectively reaching all of the students who could benefit from these services.

9. TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
   1. Do you support legislative measures to require that Internet technologies be made accessible to and usable by people with disabilities?

      I am a strong proponent of ensuring that all individuals have access to internet technologies. For example, I recently proposed a bill in the Senate that would evaluate best practices and foster access to technology in underserved areas. With respect to individuals with disabilities, I would strongly support initiatives that make internet technology more accessible. In so doing, I would welcome comments from interested groups, and my administration would continue to seek innovative ways of promoting meaningful access to internet technologies.

   2. What measures would you propose to ensure that consumer electronic and telecommunications devices are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities?

      I think the key method to ensuring that consumer electronic and telecommunications devices are accessible is to vigilantly enforce the Americans with Disability Act. Vigilant enforcement of the ADA requires that a President appoint executive and judicial officials who are committed to the needs of the disabled population. In addition to enforcing the ADA, I would listen and work with the Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC), a federal advisory committee comprising representatives from more than 40 companies, organizations and federal agencies. I believe that organizations like TEITAC can offer fresh ideas and present innovative strategies to meet the needs of disabled individuals. Lastly, I would continue to help educate government agencies, private corporations, and the public about the law's requirements.

   3. How would you ensure enforcement of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act?
      

      I have strongly embraced Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (requiring federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities) and Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act (requiring telecommunications products and services to be accessible to people with disabilities). As President, I would ensure enforcement of both sections by appointing responsible and qualified leaders to the US Access Board and the Federal Communication Commission (the agency charged with overseeing Section 255). Additionally, I would champion efforts by the US Access Board to thoroughly investigate complaints from the public concerning insufficient compliance with Section 508 and Section 255. Lastly, I would expand government outreach programs so the public would be aware of their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and Telecommunications Act.

   4. Would you support restoration of full funding for the Technology-related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act programs?
      
      

      I am a strong proponent of the Individuals with Disabilities Act programs, including the programs that allow for access to technology for students, and I believe that the government ought to fund the Act's programs. In 2005, I offered an amendment to increase funding for IDEA by $4 billion. My amendment failed narrowly but my commitment to this issue has not waned. I am excited by the rapid development of techniques that can assist students with disabilities in their cognitive development. I will do everything in my power to ensure that those technologies get into the hands of children who need them in order to enable them to learn, grow, and fulfill their potential. As President, I would continue to proudly fund the Individuals with Disabilities Act programs.

10. VOTING
    1. What steps would you take as President to ensure that voters with disabilities are able to vote privately and independently, consistent with the requirements of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)?

       I am strongly committed to protecting voting rights for voters with disabilities. As a Senator, I introduced legislation the Count Every Vote Act, which requires that at least one voting machine per precinct provided voters with disabilities and language minority voters to cast a vote in a private and independent manner. As President, I will continue to proudly protect the voting rights of all Americans by empowering all members of our community to be able to vote.

    2. Would you require the Census Bureau, in its surveys of people with disabilities, to ask questions regarding whether the respondents are registered to vote and whether they voted in the last election?

       I think that it is important for our government to be aware of the needs of all people, especially those with disabilities. I learned this lesson in 1973, when I went door-to-door and realized that so many children with special needs were not attending school. Given the value of this data collection, I would support measures that would require the Census Bureau to collect data on disabled populations, so that the government may fully respond to challenges facing these individuals.

11. CIVIL RIGHTS
    1. Of the existing members of the U.S. Supreme Court, which justices do you consider models for the kinds of federal judges you would appoint if elected president?

       I strongly feel that the nomination of Supreme Court justices is one of the most important roles of the next President. As a Senator, I strongly opposed and voted against the recent nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, because I felt that that they did not respect the sanctity of constitutional rights. As President, I pledge to nominate justices with the highest standards of integrity, intelligence, and respect for judicial precedent.

    2. Do you support an ADA Restoration Act, such as the bill introduced in the last Congress?

       I am a strong believer in the value of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a testament to this commitment, I was a cosponsor of a Senate resolution that recognized and honored the 15th anniversary of the enactment of the ADA. As President, I will continue to recognize and embrace the values of the ADA, and I look forward to working with disability-minded groups to protect and strength civil rights protections for Americans with disabilities.

    3. What steps will you take to protect the diminishment of the civil rights protections under the ADA?
       

       As President, I will pledge to uphold the values intrinsic within the ADA. I will stand proudly with the civil rights community and urge Congress to vigilantly protect the needs of individuals living with disabilities. I will welcome advocacy groups to meet with my administration and voice their concerns. Lastly, I will appoint judges that understand and respect the value of civil rights.

    
    
12. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
    
    
    
    1. 
       

       Do you support U.S. ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocal?

       
       

       I embrace the values that animate the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I believe the Convention was undertaken with the same goals that the United States had in enacting the ADA – namely, the goals of empowering individuals with disabilities and integrating these individuals into all aspects of society. Given the virtuous goals embedded within the Convention, I would champion these principles as President.

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

Today, Representative Thomas Reynolds and I introduced in both chambers of Congress the Screening for Health of Infants and Newborns (SHINE) Act of 2007. The legislation will allow for the expansion of newborn screening programs at the state level. It also will create a clearinghouse of newborn screening information to increase understanding of newborn diseases and screening services and offer research funding to develop new screening tools for additional life-threatening disorders.

Each year in our nation, at least four million newborns are screened and severe disorders are detected in 5,000 of them. These disorders are often life threatening and can cause serious mental and physical disabilities if left untreated. Early detection by newborn screening can lessen these side effects, or completely prevent progression of many of these disorders if medical intervention can be started early enough. Newborn screening experts suggest states should test for a minimum of 29 treatable core conditions. While New York currently screens for 44 conditions, some states screen for as few as seven conditions.

I am proud that New York has been a leader in newborn screening. However, we want to ensure that the great strides made by New York can be a model for all states and that New York can continue to make advancements that will benefit children around the nation. Every child should have access to screening tests that can help identify serious conditions and allow parents to seek treatments as early as possible.

Sincerely,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

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