Isn’t it amazing
The Obama Campaign & Movement
Not A Problem
Posted 9/20/2007 12:01 PM
It is not difficult to understand the sentiment of pox on both of them when it comes to the growing disenchantment with both major political parties. Disgraceful personal behavior, obscene money connections, non-productive between party in-fighting is all too common in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Disgust with both parties has had two profound effects. First, many citizens have just stopped voting. And, second, many citizens, although registered to vote, now choose to not sign on with either party.
The break down now of all potential voters: almost half do not vote. Of the remaining 50% , it is about 40% Republican, 40% Democrat and 20% neither.
In plain numbers, out of 100 eligible, 50 do not vote, 20 vote Republican, 20 vote Democrat and 10 vote without party.
The health and vitality of our country depends on citizen participation in the political process. Is it then any surprise that we have severe problems where ever we turn?
One presidential candidate does not want to represent only one political party but instead wants to represent all Americans. One candidate does not want to only represent one political ideology but instead wants to lead by concensus for all Americans. One candidate wants to work with us, the people of this democracy, to seek out our common ground and to attack our problems with a United States of America. That candidate is Barack Obama. To join the Obama Express, contact me at: [email protected]. Peace be with you.
The newest PPIC poll is out, and it contains data on a wide range of national and state subjects, including showing that 55% of likely voters support the term limits extension proposal, whereas only 39% currently support getting rid of the 2/3 rule (with small majorities in favor among Democrats, this suggests a lot of voters aren’t informed about the matter).
But some of the most important data is on health care, especially as the Legislature enters into its special session. The poll shows 69% of Californians want “major change” in health care, and is now the second most important issue they feel faces the state, behind the overblown immigration issue.
Specifically, the poll claims 72% of Californians and 61% of likely voters support Arnold’s reform plan. 61% of Californians support AB 8, but only 47% of likely voters back it, with 49% opposed.
However, we should be cautious before reading too much into those results. As it turns out, the way the PPIC asked questions on each proposal was…well…interesting.
Here is the question asked about the Democratic (AB 8) approach:
“Would you favor or oppose a plan that requires employers to provide health insurance to their employees or pay a fee to the state to cover all working Californians, and that also guarantees health insurance for all children regardless of immigration status?”…
Note that the question asked on AB 8 references immigration whereas there is no mention of immigration in the Schwarzenegger question, even though the governor’s plan would include all immigrants employed in the state regardless of their status. Neither of these plans include all Californians as one might think from the descriptions of both.
It would make sense that AB 8 polled less well than Arnold’s plan, seeing as immigration paranoia remains commonplace in this state. But that’s not all about the wording of the questions that should give us pause. Consider the language used to ask about Arnold’s plan:
“Would you favor or oppose a plan requiring all Californians to have health insurance, with costs shared by employers, health care providers, and individuals?”
They might have well as asked “Do you favor all Californians having pie?” Of course most Californians want some form of universal health coverage, and when it’s described as having shared costs, shared responsibility, that appeals to folks’ sense of fairness.
Arnold’s plan, though, provides all Californians with health insurance merely by mandating that they purchase it. It’s like ordering people to buy food and saying you’ve cured hunger.
As I explained in a post back in February, individual mandates are a terrible idea. In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s individual mandate plan has resulted in premiums that cost as much as $3000 a year, while at the same time lacking comprehensive coverage. Individual mandates are a recipe for widespread bankruptcy, and what’s worse, they do not come with any firm guarantees that insurers will not be able to continue to deny claims and coverage, as an article in today’s San Francisco Chronicle describes with respect to vaccinations. As SiCKO showed, the problem with health care in America is that insurance is no guarantee you will actually get the treatment you need.
One wonders how Arnold’s plan would have polled if the PPIC had asked “Would you favor or oppose a plan requiring all Californians to purchase health insurance out of their own pocket, without guarantees that the premium will be affordable or guarantees that insurers will actually provide health care?” California Democratic voters don’t like the idea of forcing people onto the mercy of private insurers, and Republicans tend to oppose government mandates on principle.
Combined with the fact that the PPIC did not ask anything about single-payer, it’s hard to use this poll as a reliable guide to Californians’ attitudes about health care reform. And it’s important we realize that as the negotiations begin in Sacramento over the details of reform.
Yesterday, the Feds indicted him, and he’s in federal court today. The Mayor has demanded that he resign his position. And rightly so, the Mayor, and all of the supervisors and most other City/County officials have called on him to resign. He should do so, like yesterday, and let SF move on.
At the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, the most significant exchange to date in the debates occurred. Judy Woodruff asked the candidates how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq one year after taking office if elected.
Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq. Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.” Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out. Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.
Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:
Zero troops! . . . Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out. We need to end this war now.
This is part of the candidate series on MyDD. I am not part of Richardson’s campaign.
Four years ago, Dean was seen as the Democratic nominee and Kerry had run out of money. My point: in presidential politics, three months is a lifetime.
Today, in the Democratic race there are 2 frontrunners – Clinton and Obama. They have tremendous national name recognition and vast sums of money.
And there are 2 challengers – Edwards and Richardson. Both have sufficient funds to compete with Clinton and Obama in the January caucus/primary states. Edwards, as the immediate past Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, has strong name recognition too.
Richardson lacks the national name recognition of the other top candidates. Nevertheless, he has distinguished himself in the early voting states. As noted by Pollster.com, “for other Democratic candidates, we’ve not seen a substantial upturn anywhere. Richardson stands alone in that respect at the moment.”
Today, only these four candidates have double-digit support in polls in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.
Last Sunday, in Indianola, Iowa, Senator Tom Harkin held his “Steak Fry,” one of the key events leading up to the Iowa caucuses. David Yepsen, regarded as the premier political reporter in Iowa, praised Richardson for giving the best speech:
Richardson gave the best overall speech of the day. He was forceful. He was specific. He gave good sound bites. It’s clear the New Mexico governor is getting better on the stump as the campaign wears on. If one of the top three contenders stumbles, Richardson’s in a position to move up.
Yepsen has been noting Richardson has an opening to do well in Iowa’s caucus. In his August 30 column, Yepsen wrote:
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s uptick in the 2008 Democratic presidential campaign was visible here Tuesday night at a town meeting he held at Coe College. About 200 people showed up on a steamy summer evening to spend close to two hours listening to what he said was the “short version” of his stump speech – it still went 35 minutes – and then posing questions to him.
In Iowa, Richardson has moved from 1 percent support in the state to a middle tier all his own. That’s more movement than any other Democratic candidate has seen this year. . .
Richardson has set the ambitious goal of finishing in the top three contenders in Iowa, which means he has to beat Clinton, Edwards or Obama, a feat that would deal an almost mortal blow to one of them and slingshot him into serious contention.
While that objective is the correct one – no one who has ever finished worse than third in a caucus fight has ever gone on to win a nomination – those are formidable contenders. Moving into their top tier will be harder than moving out of the bottom ranks.
Still, it’s possible. Edwards’ populism sounds increasingly angry, and voters don’t elect angry people to the presidency. Edwards has seen a clear lead in Iowa shrink to a statistical tie with Clinton and Obama.
Also, many Iowa Democrats are worried about Clinton’s electability. She has moved up in Iowa surveys as she debates well and addresses the issue, but the question hasn’t gone away and remains her single biggest impediment to the nomination.
Obama is vexed by questions about his lack of experience. He also has upset some Democratic constituency groups by blowing off a number of Iowa events and debates because he doesn’t want to be seen with his rivals. . . .
All of which gives Richardson an opening. A growing number of activists believe he puts together an impressive package. He notes in his stump speech that Clinton talks about experience, and Obama talks about change, “and with me you get both.”
A large part of Richardson’s success in the early states can be attributed to his crystal clear plan on the number one issue in the campaign, the Iraq war.
John Nichols of The Nation, in an article entitled “The Richardson Surge,” observed Richardson is clicking with voters because he emphatically calls for the removal of every single soldier – both combat and support troops – from Iraq:
Against a field of first-tier candidates (Clinton, Obama and John Edwards) who don’t mind savaging the Bush Administration’s management of the Iraq imbroglio but who regularly fall short of proposing clear exit strategies, Richardson offers not just a résumé but specifics–and a sense of urgency. His TV ads in the early caucus and primary states identify him as the candidate with “the only plan that pulls every single soldier out of Iraq.” As the contender with the most international experience–save, perhaps, hapless Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden–Richardson says it is not merely possible but necessary to end the US military presence in Iraq and to replace it with diplomacy and targeted aid initiatives. Rejecting all the dodges of the frontrunners, Richardson argues, “If we are going to get out, we need to do it now.”
Richardson understands that by the U.S. remaining in Iraq, we unwittingly perpetuate the war. Our troops have become the targets in a civil war. The Iraqi government, in turn, is dependent on the U.S. for security that the Iraqis themselves should provide. Richardson notes: “The Iraqis won’t take the necessary steps toward political reconciliation until the U.S. makes it clear that it will leave the country for good.”
all combat and non-combat troops should be removed from Iraq because their presence is only contributing to violence instead of bringing security.
“There’s no question there’s tribal and ethnic hatreds,” Richardson told The Associated Press. “But when those tribal and ethnic hatreds are fueled by American policy of hostility, then you make the situation worse.”
Richardson criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards – his leading rivals for the presidential nomination – for plans to pull out combat troops from Iraq but leave residual forces behind. He said he would keep the Marines that guard the U.S. embassy in Baghdad but would withdraw all other military personnel.
“Who is going to take care of non-combat troops? The Iraqis?” Richardson asked. He said he would move a small contingent mostly of special forces to Kuwait and more troops into Afghanistan, although he would leave the specific number up to military leaders.
Last night at the Democratic debate in Davenport, Iowa, Judy Woodruff asked the candidates if they were elected how many U.S. troops would remain in Iraq after their first year in office.
Biden said it depends on how Bush leaves Iraq. Edwards agreed with Biden, claiming “it’s impossible to say.” Clinton echoed Biden’s view, vaguely offering “a reasonable and prudent plan” to get our troops out. Dodd objected to speaking about 2010 and said Congress should not wait that long to act.
Only Richardson provided a direct and unambiguous answer:
Zero troops! . . . Without getting our troops out you can not have a political settlement. . . . I would take all of our troops out. We need to end this war now.
Here is the video of the most significant exchange to date in the debates among the candidates in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination:
Obama chose not to attend the debate and instead conducted a fund raiser in Atlanta, making two huge mistakes in one day. Earlier, Obama failed to vote against the Republican resolution condemning MoveOn for its newspaper ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus.
(Where are you going to be at 7:30 TONIGHT? – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Today’s the day, come hang out with some cool bloggers!
What: SF Calitics Q3 Quarterly with Special Guest, Assemblyman Mark Leno. When: 9/26, 7:30-9:45ish Where: Nickie’s on Haight Street (map here) How much: Whatever you can afford, Suggested Donation $10-20 at our ActBlue page Why: Why not? It will be tons o’ fun.
OK, here are the details on our LA event, we’re already chock full of special guests, and hopefully there will be more to come:
What: LA Calitics Q3 Quarterly, featuring Congressional candidates Russ Warner and Ron Shepston, LA City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, Tim Goodrich and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and bloggers we like such as Digby and the whole SoCal Calitics gang. When: 9/26, 7:00-? Where: The Cock And Bull, 2902 Lincoln Blvd., Santa Monica (cross street is Ashland) How much: We encourage a donation to the ActBlue page, then stop on by. Why: Because we like you.
(Outreach from presidential campaigns is a good idea for everyone involved. One of these days I might even find myself a candidate to support. (format edit only) – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)
Greetings from the CA. Barack Obama Campaign.
Let me begin by introducing myself. I am the volunteer coordinator for the Obama campaign in this the 45th congressional district. I was chosen for this role in the campaign because I have contributed 1,000 hours of volunteer time since the Senator’s announcement of his candidacy on February 10, 2007 and also because I have lived with my family in Palm Springs for more than 10 years.
The Obama campaign is a grassroots effort with ordinary citizens, like myself, playing key roles in the campaign. Just like the thousands of other volunteers for Obama, I have made this commitment of time and energy to the campaign because I believe that Obama will bring the fundamental changes that are so desperately needed in our country.
Don’t put much heed in the national popularity polls. When the Obama campaign began less than eight months ago, it was “Obama Who?” Then, the first quarter fundraising results were released and Obama Who had raised more money available for the primaries than anyone, including the so-called front runner. The pundits and cynics were not impressed; just wait until the novelty faded they predicted. Three months later the second quarter fundraising numbers were revealed. Obama had an even bigger margin in new contributions than before. Again he raised more than the front runner. But something else started to be noticed. The money raised by Obama had not come from lobbyists. It was mostly in small amounts; $5, $10 and $25. In fact, an unheard of 250,000 individuals had given to the campaign. In a week and a half, the third quarter results will reveal that again the amount contributed and the number of individual contributors to the Obama campaign will open an even wider lead for the Obama campaign.
Two very significant implications flow from these advantages. First, the campaign will be fully funded not only in the earliest contests but also for all of the contests on Super Tuesday; and that includes not only CA but right here in the 45th CD. Never before has a national campaign committed to full funding of a campaign here in the 45th. Second, the Obama campaign is positioned to put more people on the ground in every contest than any of the other candidates and that includes the front runner. And, as you know well, on the ground volunteers will out compete paid workers every time. And, no one, I repeat, no one has as many and as committed volunteers in each state, in each congressional district, in each precinct than does Barack Obama.
The 45th CD Volunteers for Obama will soon be rolling out an interactive web site. I hope you will check it out. Until then, I can be reached at: [email protected]. The Obama Express invites you to come aboard and be part of history in the making. Peace be with you.
I was very surprised to learn that Donna had cast the deciding vote against the measure supporting gay marriage a couple of weeks ago; fortunately the person who delivered that news provided context.
I was at the local DFA meeting on the day she cast that vote, and the speaker was Stephen Whitburn, who is the DFA-endorsed candidate for City Council in the 3rd District. He has not only DFA’s endorsement, but also Donna’s; they are longtime friends. Follow me across the fold for Stephen’s context.
Stephen explained that he wasn’t upset about Donna’s vote, that he knew her to be a strong supporter of gay marriage, and that she had explained her reasoning to him, and that it made sense to him. And it does to me, too.
It was a procedural matter; the measure had not been announced with enough advance time for people who might want to be heard on the issue to get to the meeting. There was, I think, a matter of a holiday weekend that figured into the time calculation. Donna, who is indeed a strong supporter of civil rights, including gay marriage, didn’t feel it was appropriate to trample the civil rights of those who might oppose the measure, by railroading the measure through before they had a chance to speak their piece. She felt, rather, that the matter should be re-scheduled so that everyone could be heard, so that whichever way the issue was decided, it could be seen to have been decided with a full hearing of all voices.
I heard her a couple of days later on the Stacy Taylor show; she pointed out how wrong it would be to promote some civil rights by trampling others. I think she was right on this issue, as I think she is often right, and I think she took a lot of undue heat for doing the right thing.
I suspect, but could never prove, that her spirit of evenhandedness here might even have contributed to Mayor Sanders’ change of heart in the matter; had she participated in the railroading, it would have been easier for him to react in similarly aggressive, competitive fashion.
As I write this, the post-arrest recorded interview of Senator Larry Craig has hit the press, circulated around the blogosphere, and produced heated discussion among the public. The recording includes a confession to a crime that Senator Craig now says he did not commit. No doubt that tape will prove central to the consideration of Senator Craig’s claim, since it will provide incontrovertible evidence of what both he and law enforcement said.
Coincidentally, just last week the California legislature passed a bill, SB 511, which would mandate the recording of custodial interrogations to prevent wrongful convictions based upon false confessions. The bill has now been sent to Governor Schwarzenegger.
To most, falsely confessing to a crime seems counterintuitive. It is hard to understand — barring outright torture – why a sane and intelligent person would admit to a crime that he did not commit, especially if the confession could yield a lifetime prison term or even a death sentence.
As a law enforcement officer with 24 years of experience with the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. (13 of those as a homicide detective), the phenomenon always eluded me too. Until someone provided a false confession to me.
It was a homicide case. I used nothing but standard, approved interrogation techniques and did not act maliciously. There was no yelling, no physical abuse and no cursing. We went into the interrogation room with the belief that we had evidence linking the suspect to the crime and we came out many hours later with a confession. Thankfully, we started the video early on and chose to keep it on for the duration of the interrogation.
On the basis of the confession, the case progressed. Even the defendant’s defense attorney believed that she was guilty because of her confession. We hit a wall when, during our follow-up work, we discovered her alibi. It was ironclad. Even though the case was dismissed, we all still believed that she was guilty. Why else would she confess? How did she know the details that she did?
Years later, during a review of the videotapes, we discovered our mistake. We had fallen into a classic trap. We believed so much in our suspect’s guilt that we ignored all evidence to the contrary. To demonstrate the strength of our case, we showed the suspect our evidence, and unintentionally fed her details that she was able to parrot back to us at a later time. Contrary to our operating procedures at the time, my colleagues and I chose to videotape the interrogation. This is what saved me from making a horrible mistake in the long run. It was a classic false confession case and without the video we would never have known.
Now I teach a class on interrogations and false confessions. In my ongoing discussions with law enforcement nationally, I find that investigators fall into one of two camps – those who do not record and oppose it; and those who do record and endorse the practice.
Those investigators whose departments do not record interrogations say that mandating the practice will be the end of the world. We have found in D.C., though, that many of these issues were overcome by working with lawmakers. California SB 511, for instance, mandates recording only in police facilities for specific – and not all – crimes, just like we have in D.C.
And unlike our D.C. law, the California bill is friendlier to law enforcement, making allowances for situations where videotaping is impractical. In D.C., if a detective fails to record for whatever reason, the prosecutor must overcome the presumption that the confession was coerced. The California bill, on the other hand, still allows the confession to be used. The California bill also allows audio recording, while in D.C., videotaping is mandatory.
Law enforcement officers that record interrogations love it. They have found that they still get confessions, but that those confessions are much easier to defend in court. They also mention unexpected benefits: detectives are made better interviewers; suppression hearings are almost eliminated; large civil settlement payouts to the wrongly convicted are avoided; and public confidence in law enforcement increases.
Recording of interrogations from start to finish as directed by California’s SB 511 is the right thing to do. Failure to use cheap and available technology to build strong cases against the guilty and to protect the innocent is wrong. Recording interrogations needs to be mandatory, with rules and sanctions. If sanctions are not in place then public confidence is undermined by the few unscrupulous among us. When videotaping was first forced upon us by the D.C. City Council, we fought it tooth and nail. Now, in the words of a top commander, we would not do it any other way.
Regardless of whether the public is considering a Senator’s political future or a judge or jury is debating the guilt or innocence of a person facing serious charges, opinions should be shaped by the best available evidence. Recorded interrogations are simply a critical source of truth.
Jim Trainum is a detective with the Metropolitan Police Department in the District of Columbia and currently runs a cold case homicide review project. He also lectures on Interrogation and False Confessions as well as Avoiding Investigative Pitfalls.
(full disclosure: CTA has hired me to do blog outreach on NCLB) cross-posted on DailyKos
Teachers, lawmakers and San Francisco labor leaders came together today to present House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a garage door-sized CTA postcard about the current NCLB re-authorization draft. The 8-foot by 12-foot postcard was signed by nearly 1,000 teachers. Since the big one would not fit in the door, they dropped off a off a poster-sized picture of the big postcard to her 14th floor office. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi was not in her office to receive her visitors and their gift.
(sorry for the size, but wanted people to be able to read the text)
CTA Vice President Dean Vogel:
The Miller-Pelosi NCLB reauthorization plan will make it harder to attract and retain quality teachers in California classrooms. It continues to rely on testing as the measurement of student and school success. It creates a new federal mandate to pay and evaluate teachers based on student test scores. Test scores don’t fairly measure student achievement and cannot be used to accurately evaluate and pay teachers.
Here is Dean at the press conference. He is the sweetest man, the kind of guy I wish I had as a teacher.
A few state politicians joined the teachers in speaking out against this NCLB draft. Sen. Leland Yee, with his unique credentials said:
Tying a student test score to a teacher evaluation or merit pay is an improper use of student assessment. As a child psychologist, I understand that there are many factors that contribute to a student’s performance. I support the efforts of CTA to stop this latest version of NCLB, which only makes a bad law even worse.
There is a letter circulating the state capitol that many Democrats in the legislature have signed on to, calling on Pelosi to oppose the merit pay and other harmful one-size fits all education proposals in the reauthorization plan. Here is an excerpt:
We urge you instead to help reshape this measure into one that would empower districts and local associations,” the letter states, in part. “Together, teachers and district administrators can develop proposals that include workable and productive means for recognizing teachers while improving the professional development of all teachers.
The event today is getting notice in the education community. David Hoff over at the excellent NCLB blog at Education Weekly said:
In San Francisco today, the California Teachers Association will hold a news conference outside the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The NEA affiliate will unveil a postcard opposing the House draft that 1,000 California teachers signed. The news advisory, which is not online, says the postcard is the size of a garage door. The CTA has its own legislative alert.
This is quite a public display of the union’s power, and it’s over a discussion draft. What’s going to be next?
The answer is whatever it takes to get this thing right. It is too important not to be pulling out all the stops. California’s children are counting on us to make sure that NCLB is fixed. The quality of their education is at stake. That is why you see the blog ads, state politicians speaking out, and postcards signed by a thousand teachers.
