Or Plan. Whatever. The language was discussed Thursday at the Assembly Democratic Caucus, and then released at Friday. I know how Donna Gerber of the CNA feels about it. She’s opposed. Now, I’m not so sure about Anthony Wright. He’s got some complimentary words with a bit of a concerned tone here and here, but no real yay or nay that I could see.
So, now the AB 1×1 just passed the Assembly Appropriations Cmte. And there’s a Press Conference Scheduled for 4:30 with a host of big names scheduled to show up. Including the star of WTF is up with SEIU Andy Stern. So, I’m just guessing that they will try to get ‘er done before then so they don’t keep Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, the Governator, and the CEO of Safeway waiting.
On the other hand, there’s the Senate. There are no signs of any stirring on this plan from Senator Perata and the gang. If I hear anything, I’ll report immediately. And if you care to watch, there’s the Cal Channel. The video to the right is from the Speaker’s Office about the Plam.
UPDATE: The healthcare plan has now passed the Assembly. Press release over the flip.
UPDATE II: Don Perata is now asking the LAO to assess the impact on a health care overhaul on the state budget. While some have argued that this plan has its own funding source and will have no impact on the budget, Perata is obviously skeptical, and considering that so much of the budget does involve health and human services, the impact is far less clear than this assumption there’s a wall between health care and all other state spending. Further, there’s this quote:
“Nothing has changed in Sen. Perata’s position to not bring his caucus before the end of the year,” said Trost.
Which of course imperils the ability to bring the funding initiative before the voters in November.
California Assembly Passes Most Significant State
Expansion of Health Care Coverage in Nation’s History
Most Californians, Including All Children, Covered Under the Plan
SACRAMENTO – Historic health care legislation extending coverage to millions of California’s uninsured, including all children, was approved by the state Assembly today by a 45-31 vote.
“We’ve crafted an amazing and historic bill that expands health coverage for those without it and improves health insurance for those already covered,” Speaker Núñez said. “This brings us one step closer to making health care a right afforded to everybody in this state, and not just a privilege afforded to those with deep pockets.”
Assembly Bill 1X1 is the culmination of nearly a year of negotiations between legislative leaders, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the state’s leading labor, business, health care, and consumer groups. Dozens of organizations have embraced the bill, including the Service Employees International Union, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AARP, California Hospital Association, Safeway, March of Dimes, Children Now, Mental Health Association of California, American Nurses Association of California, California Association of Nurse Practitioners, Kaiser Permanente, CIGNA, Blue Shield, and Small Business California.
“No child in this state should be left without adequate health care coverage, and under this proposal, all 800,000 children will be covered,” Speaker Núñez added.
AB 1X1 was amended today on the Assembly floor, incorporating ideas from a number of stakeholders. It relies on a system of shared responsibility between employers, health care providers, consumers, and government agencies. It requires an individual mandate for most Californians, but provides subsidies, rebates, and exemptions for Californians earning up to 450% of the federal poverty line, or for those whose out-of-pocket health expenses would exceed 6.5% of family income. The bill includes significant cost-containment and transparency language, including a requirement that insurance companies spend no more than 15 cents of every dollar on administrative costs. Those with pre-existing conditions are guaranteed coverage under the plan, and all children will be covered.
It is financed through system wide health care cost savings, and through a combination of fees and taxes to be approved by the voters in a November 2008 ballot initiative that will include a tobacco tax, employer fee assessed along a sliding scale based on annual payroll, and a hospital fee.
It now heads to the California State Senate for consideration.
Things are moving on a variety of fronts in the WGA strike. While the AMPTP stalls and makes baseless charges, the Guild is trying some novel approaches. Not only have they filed an unfair labor practices charge against the AMPTP for walking away from a good-faith negotiation, they are challenging the very idea of bargaining with a cartel like the AMPTP itself.
Confronted with a logjam in its contract talks with the studios, the Writers Guild of America is trying a new tack: Divide and conquer.
On Monday, the union representing 10,500 striking writers plans to approach the major companies of the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers about negotiating with them individually, a move aimed at exploiting perceived cracks in the alliance and getting at least some of the studios back to the bargaining table.
“We want to do everything in our power to move negotiations forward and end this devastating strike,” the guild’s negotiating committee said in a letter to be sent to union members today. “The internal dynamics of the [alliance] make it difficult for the conglomerates to reach consensus and negotiate with us on a give-and-take basis.”
This approach is already bearing fruit. David Letterman’s company, Worldwide Pants Inc., has agreed to negotiate their own deal with the writers . Because Letterman owns his program (as well as Late Night with Craig Ferguson), he can break with the AMPTP cartel and make this deal.
(I just want to step in and say that AMPTP.com is maybe the funniest parody site I’ve seen in a long time.)
But all is not well. With the AMPTP furious over these cracks in their united front (some would call it collusion), they’ve leaned on some of their stars to return to work.
Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien will return to late-night TV with fresh episodes on Jan. 2, two months after the writers’ strike sent them into repeats, the network said Monday.
The “Tonight” show and “Late Night” will return without writers supplying jokes. NBC said the decision was similar to what happened in 1988, when Johnny Carson brought back the “Tonight” show two months into a writers’ strike.
A similar return – with writers – appears in the works for David Letterman. The union representing striking writers said over the weekend that it was willing to negotiate deals with individual production companies, including Letterman’s Worldwide Pants.
It’s disappointing that Leno and O’Brien aren’t willing to hold out and see the big picture, but of course they are under contract. It’s telling that this move was made as soon as Letterman signaled his intention to strike a deal with the writers.
However, in contrast to this action, it appears that the writer’s strike is opening up eyes about what it means to work in this country, about what it means to stand together for worker’s rights. The DGA, after flirting with starting negotiations with the AMPTP, has demurred. The writers are promoting separate labor issues like the plight of FedEx workers being called “independent contractors” so management can avoid providing benefits. And they’re aiding in significant victories for the worker’s rights movement.
In a memo issued this afternoon, MTV Networks performed a near-180, relenting to complaints from freelancers who were told last week their benefits would be cut. “We’ve implemented a process for evaluating freelance and temporary employee positions for possible conversion to staff positions,” reads the announcement from JoAnne Griffith, MTVN’s executive vice president for HR. “This process is currently underway.” Freelancers will now have the choice to continue with their current health plan-including dental!-or sign on to MTV’s Aetna plan. Either way, they won’t have to make the decision until February of next year, nearly three months after the original deadline set by the company last week.
The writer’s strike is one of the most high-profile labor actions of the last 30 years. It’s crystallizing a lot of ideas about basic fairness for workers. This is maybe the most positive by-product of this important action.
It’s always the little details that trip up the criminals who think they’re getting over on everyone else; they always forget one tiny detail that unravels the whole mendacious plot. Columbo knew how they think, he knew that some of the most intelligent people think they are way too clever for the rest of us — people like Harry Reid. I told you he was going to do this.
Now, what’s the tiny detail that they hoped no one would notice?
Well, there are two types of people whose skills would come into play here. It’s something that most lawyers would miss, because their first thought is “how can I argue this point as it pertains to the law?” and this detail would be overlooked. And most electronic geeks would miss it, because how many tech geeks would ever read a court document? Not very many.
What’s the detail?
Follow me down the rabbit hole
It has to do with an article in yesterday’s NY Times by By Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane where they mention the Qwest lawsuit (more about the Times articles from Glen Greenwald). I knew there was a nugget in there but I couldn’t read everything (I couldn’t, I have a life) but the Times reporters found this seemingly insignificant detail — I don’t know if they even know the significance of it. Here it is …
While Qwest’s refusal was disclosed two months ago in court papers, the details of the NSA’s request were not. The agency, those knowledgeable about the incident said, wanted to install monitoring equipment on Qwest’s “Class 5” switching facilities, which transmit the most localized calls. Limited international traffic also passes through the switches.
To clarify, the only international traffic that would go through these switches are ones you make to or receive from someone you know overseas. Why would a phone call from someone in say Iraq to someone say in Pakistan be routed through your local phone box
Because the entire premise they’ve given us for having to amend FISA is that they had to intercept phone calls from terrorists that happened to be routed through the switches in the United States.
O.K. here’s where it falls apart.
Those calls would not be routed through class five switches. … Think about it. … Here is a more detailed explanation for the switch hierarchy (PSTN) Public Switched Telephone Network.
OK, most of the links are probably totally confusing, but what this says is that this is a datamining program — not the wiretapping of specific persons referred to in a warrant, which is what the judges on the FISC Court require even if the spying is done prior to getting a warrant — [H/T looseheadprop] which they can obtain retroactively through exigent circumstances — they would only need to place monitors on the switches used for international calls.
Charlie Brown is just an all around decent human being. It is a big reason why I and so many others have been trying so hard to get him into Congress. This email from one of his future constituents, Cody Conway, Sgt. USMC, is the perfect example of why people are so dedicated to Charlie.
The basic ask is to support getting his new awesome radio ad on the air. You can give on the Calitics ActBlue page.
Thanks to you, this past week, production was completed on Charlie Brown’s first radio spot of the 2008 campaign. Entitled “The War at Home,” the ad speaks for itself. And as an Iraq War veteran who is fighting each day to heal my scars and rebuild my life, it speaks for me.
Who Charlie Brown is, and the kind of leadership he represents for veterans like me isn’t about partisan politics. That’s why I want to tell you my story, and why I’m asking you to help keep this ad on the air by pledging your support today.
Growing up in Roseville, I had two dreams—to serve my country in the Marine Corps, and to become a mechanic-a lifelong passion that began from the moment I was old enough to hold a wrench. When I graduated High School in 2000, I got to live both, as a Marine Amphibious Assault Vehicle Repairman.
My unit was part of the initial ground invasion into Iraq in March of 2003. I injured my right shoulder, leg and abdomen while removing an engine during a sandstorm outside Baghdad in April. Still able to hold a rifle with my left arm, I finished my tour of duty. But by the time I came home in July, the severity of my injuries left me unable to continue my career as a Marine or a mechanic. I was devastated.
More below the fold…
Several unsuccessful surgeries later, I was home with my fiancé and two foster children. I couldn’t work, and simply wasn’t the same person who deployed. My once happy and energetic demeanor had been replaced by what counselors call the “thousand yard stare.” And left to fight alone in a VA system that was unprepared for war, I was met not by solutions, but by resistance.
Two years later I was financially broke, physically and emotionally broken, and feeling increasingly abandoned by politicians that spend more money promising “support for our troops” than delivering on that promise. I found myself caught in a downward spiral–and eventually I hit rock bottom.
Ultimately, it was my friends, community based veterans groups, and fellow veterans like Charlie Brown who were willing to listen and really understand that helped get me back on track. In fact, the first few times I met with Charlie, I didn’t even know he was running for Congress. He was much more interested in my health and success than my vote.
Today, I am a college student, working towards a degree in Social Work and a career of helping veterans–because I know from experience that the war will not end when our troops return from Iraq and Afghanistan.
That’s why I believe we need battle tested leaders like Charlie Brown in Congress—not just because he’s a fellow combat vet, or because he stands for the new direction America needs, but because he understands that patriotism—like support for our troops— is measured in action, not words.
I want to thank you again for giving me the chance to tell my story, and for standing for something much bigger than partisan politics in this campaign.
Please have a safe, happy holiday season.
Semper Fidelis,
Cody Conway, Sgt. USMC
Iraq War Veteran
P.S. Please help keep this ad on the air by contributing what you can to Charlie Brown for Congress today. 5% of your donation will support organizations helping veterans and families in need.
As the Bush administration's environmental team returns from reluctantly endorsing a “road map” for future international climate negotiations, and prepares for a critical regulatory decision on concrete action here at home being initiated by California and other states, the expectations remain somewhat dimmed. While the Washington Post editorial board reviews the administration's history of foot-dragging and other negative machinations regarding California's key waiver request, reporter Juliet Eilperin's coverage of Bali includes one critical observation on its continued difficulty with strong emissions-reduction targets:
While the Bush administration made some concessions, it also scored a key victory by eliminating explicit language calling on industrialized countries to cut their emissions 25 to 40 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2020, a high priority for the European Union. Eventually the Europeans relented, settling for a footnote in the document's preamble that refers to a section in the 2007 scientific report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That section suggests that cuts that deep will be required to keep Earth's average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels.
There are several important points to take away from this telling footnote. First and foremost is the reality that for an administration recently caught down-playing science in its climate-related efforts– including the process by which it formulated the position on mandatory carbon limits that was knocked down in Mass v. EPA– deliberately relegating a scientific finding by a group of Nobel laureates isn't exactly a confidence-booster. (Seriously, if you haven't read through Rep. Waxman's report already, do so!)
But even more important is the simple observation, as conveyed at Bali by the likes of Al Gore and by local officials themselves– and described at Gristmill by Professor Andrew Light– that the states have been moved to action in a way that completely contradicts administration naysaying and obstruction:
In his remarks, Gore repeated the promising news that had been at the center of John Kerry's message to the conference earlier in the week: The states are on the move. Regional state compacts have been launched in the Northeast, Midwest, and West on cutting greenhouse gases, which will commit over half the U.S. economy, and just under half the population, to significant cuts, amounting to responsibility for just under 40 percent of total U.S. emissions.
Reports from Bali indicate that this reality was critical in conveying that the U.S. as a whole is prepared to go further than the current executive leadership, and in forcing the limited movement that was ultimately attained. The world is truly watching what goes on at every level here, as we can easily deduce from learning that leading denialist Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is somewhat of an international anaethema, and from the State Department's own attempts to spin state leadership to its diplomatic benefit. And with the EPA set to rule any day now on California's waiver, which is absolutely critical to setting state targets in motion, that spotlight could not come at a better moment.
The official grounds for granting a waiver are plain. The state's application is sound, the precedent of dozens of similar grants of authority is on California's side, and the courts have consistently undermined any rationale that might be used in a denial ruling. Still, if that's not enough, the reality that a failure to follow through on the law will have international reverberations should be an additional source of reflection.
Viewed in this light, a positive decision would be a pleasant surprise, showing that even if the current administration isn't fully sold on rapid and mandatory actions, it's at least evolving toward a position of not actively standing in the way of those who would pick up the slack.
I just listened to Dianne Feinstein’s floor speech on the FISA bill being debated in the Senate today. As you may know, Sen. Reid ignored 230 years of Senate custom and Chris Dodd’s hold to proceed on FISA legislation that included immunity for those telecom companies which illegally acted to help the government spy on Americans without a warrant. Reid pushed through the motion to proceed, which was agreed to on a 76-10 vote (Feinstein voted to proceed; Boxer voted against it). Sen. Dodd has vowed to hold a real-deal filibuster, taking the floor and refusing to yield except for questions. Sens. Feingold and Kennedy have agreed to help him on this, and Sen. Boxer has yielded some of her time to Sen. Dodd so that he can take the floor.
This filibuster has not begun. And so Sen. Feinstein took the floor. She offered two amendments to the bill and said she would have a hard time voting for the bill without the amendments’ passage. The first amendment concerned “exclusivity.” She’s asking that the FISA court be the exclusive authority for gathering intelligence for electronic surveillance. That’s fine. Her claim is that if the President’s program was always under FISA , we wouldn’t have any of the problems we have now, because there would be judicial review.
Next, she said “I voted for telecom immunity in the committee. I am not inclined to vote for it without this amendment.” She’s trying to say that immunity is actually not what it seems, and the companies are prevented from making their own defense, and that as long as they got a written statement from the Attorney General saying everything they did was OK, then we should let them off the hook. She’s claiming that all of this happened after 9/11 when that’s not true (and Sen. Kennedy just pointed that out). “This Administration, not the companies… made a flawed legal determination.” Oh, these poor telecom officials. They apparently don’t have a staff of lawyers. “The amendment I will submit would put before the FISA court whether the telecom companies should receive immunity before the law.” She wants an en banc panel of the FISA court to make the determination. Once again, that would keep the entire case of domestic spying secret. This would preserve judicial review. Feinstein admits “I can’t say whether (the telecoms) met the iummunity provisions or not.” So she voted for immunity when she didn’t know if the law allowed it. Great.
This is the key point. Feinstein’s default position is to trust the President. As long as members of the executive branch write on a piece of paper that what the telecom companies did was legal, apparently all existing statutes should be waived. There is a supercomputer on Folsom Street in San Francisco that is sweeping up practically every communication that goes through AT&T’s switcher. Given all of this, Feinstein’s default is to immunize the telecoms. When she gets pushback, she decides that a secret court should make the determination beyond public view whether or not the telecoms are liable for illegal spying. A determination of this in public view is all that stands between this country and a surveillance state.
Here is some suggested text when asking her to support Chris Dodd’s filibuster:
Amendment IV. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are some things that an elected official is not supposed to keep an “open mind” about, as spelled out in their oath.
Well, the holidays are rapidly approaching, and thus let's start out this week with a BANG! WooHoo, put your Monday morning smile on! Here are a few stories of note, once again bound together with bullets.
A vote is scheduled in the Assembly for the health care package, but as has been discussed here, it seems Senator Perata is reluctant. There have been comments here about other Senators not so sure about this plan. The vote will likely appear on the Cal Channel, but don't expect the vote to occur at 1pm when it the floor session is scheduled. I'm guessing the caucus meetings might take a while.
SF Mayor Gavin Newsom is discussing a tax on sugary sodas. Apparently, he’s blaming obesity in children on sodas. Oh, what’s that you say, there is a link between the two? Oh, well, I guess it’s time to sell that Pepsi stock.
There's a little tussle going on in the other side of the California blogosphere on Prop 93. Jon Fleischman opposes it. Former GOP Sen Jim Brulte has endorsed it. Check out the back and forth here. (Disclosure)
Apparently Orange County isn't content with being the biggest municipal bankruptcy in the history of our country, they invested in a bunch of bad debt in the mortgage crisis. It's coming home to roost now. ( LA Times)
Some writers are bypassing the studios and starting up their own new media production companies. By the by, QuarterLife, an independent web show, which was then given some money by NBC, will be shown by that network in February. (The QuarterLife folks make clear that their goal was not to create strike busting programming, but that NBC had an option to buy that they, legally, couldn't refuse) Perhaps the studios will learn a bit from these new developments. Or they won't and they'll go the way of the dinosaur. Either way, we'll likely get better content.
Over the flip you'll find the weekly Democratic radio address, this time from Assembly member Ted Lieu about the mortgage crisis. Consider this an open thread.
Hello, this is Assemblymember Ted Lieu, chair of the Assembly Banking and Finance
Committee.
As our state faces looming budget shortfalls that threaten vital funds for infrastructure,
public safety, and social services, the emerging sub-prime mortgage crisis is poised to
jeopardize our attempts to salvage our state’s financial commitments.
Because reckless mortgage lenders issued variable interest rate home loans to folks that
simply couldn’t afford to pay their monthly bills, 1 out of every 88 homes in California are
currently undergoing foreclosure.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, nearly 180,000 California homes will
be lost to foreclosure from the 826,900 sub-prime loans made in 2005 and 2006 alone.
California could lose nearly $3 billion in property tax revenue and another $1 billion in
sales and transfer tax revenue.
Remarkably, an estimated 61% of the sub-prime mortgage borrowers would have qualified for loans with more reasonable monthly payments, had their lenders not been so narrowly focused on short-term profits.
But this isn’t just a problem for those about to lose their homes.
Home prices are expected to decline in California by up to 20-percent and that’s
because each foreclosure within an eighth of a mile of a single-family home results in a 1%
decline in the value of that home.
And working- and middle-class neighborhoods are especially in danger of being blighted due to abandoned homes.
While this is not uniquely a California problem, our state is especially hard hit, with five
of the top ten areas with the highest foreclosure rates in the country, including Stockton,
Riverside/San Bernardino, Sacramento, Bakersfield and Oakland.
And the response from the White House has simply been tepid and woefully inadequate.
Clearly, the time for legislative action is now.
Assembly Democrats have compiled a practical and effective package of bills to address
our state’s housing woes, and we have asked the Governor to call for a special session to
bring to the table all interested parties.
Our package includes bills that will identify at-risk borrowers and determine what
lenders have done to assist them and ban prepayment penalties that essentially prevent
borrowers from refinancing.
Other bills add consumer real estate mortgage loans to the list of consumer contracts
subject to California civil code translation requirements, protecting potential homeowners
for whom English is a second language, and we hope to end incentives and kickbacks that
spur lenders to push sub-prime loans onto buyers ill-equipped to afford their monthly
payments.
And our bills will improve counseling services that can protect consumers from bad loans
and help them find potential avenues for keeping their homes, and we will introduce tough
income verification regulations, requiring lenders to consider an applicant’s ability to repay
over the life of a loan.
Assembly Democrats are committed to working in a bipartisan and pragmatic fashion to
protect homeowners and preserve our state’s fiscal solvency, and we hope others in
Sacramento are equally committed.
To allow these necessary reforms to be subject to partisan gridlock is literally not a
luxury our state can afford right now.
Thank you for listening. This has been Assemblymember Ted Lieu, chair of the Assembly
This is a community blog. It is not written by one person, thus the users are likely to disagree on various subjects. Neither the publisher of this blog (Brian Leubitz) nor any members of its Editorial Board expressly agree with any statements made on the front page of this blog or in the general diaries. In fact, perhaps the only thing that should be imputed to all posters of this blog is that they like to talk politics.
Obama embraces U.S. soldier Brian Jesness during a campaign rally stop in Mason City, Iowa
Obama and Oprah’s Last Visit, Manchester, NH
More than 8,500 people attended and they were not disappointed. To recap, over 18K in Des Moines, IA; over 10K in Cedar Rapids, IA; over 30K in Columbia, SC; and over 8K in Manchester, NH. Now if this is not successful, tell me why it was not. If Barack Obama gets the Democratic Nomination, without any doubt, the Oprah Winfrey effect will be one of the reasons. Read the live account blog with photos by jhutson.
Obama Apperances and Campaign Events
December 17, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Spencer, IA
December 17, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Storm Lake, IA
December 17, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, Cherokee, IA
December 17, 2007 – Meet the Candidate, Barack Obama, LeMars, IA
December 17, 2007 – Rally with Barack, Sioux City, IA
South Carolina is Fired Up and Ready to Go!!!by Drewid
Unlike front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama aren’t selling electability or inevitability — they’re selling hope. Will that be enough to get them the nominations?
Friends and foes alike comment on the discipline of the well-oiled machine that is the Clinton campaign. Even Giuliani, well-known for sounding off at critics, has been remarkably disciplined in both his style and message. These strategic attributes may make Beltway pundits and wonks swoon, but they aren’t qualities that have much appeal for voters. It’s like the difference between getting a vacuum cleaner for Christmas versus a nice piece of jewelry. Sure, you really don’t need the jewelry, but it’s much more fun to open on Christmas morning. National Journal
Des Moines Register Iowa Debate(real player required); NPR, Obama and Oprah Make Splash in S.C.; What Oprah Endorsement Meant for Obama; Wish Lists for Santa, Politicians in Milford, N.H.; Democratic Debate in Iowa Good Natured; Democratic Hopefuls Make Last Pitch to Iowans; Countdown to Caucuses, Part One; Countdown to Caucuses, Part Two; Precinct Captains leaves Clinton, Switches to Obama
Going through my reading I ran across this little tidbit “Hillary Can’t Beat Oprah”. I thought, why would she try? One can only speculate that the announcement of Oprah stumping with Barack and Michelle, and then Team Clinton polling the affects of a Barbra Streisand endorsement makes one wonder. Will this really have an effect? I think it will. Since we are in the stretch to start the primary cycle, Obama prior to Oprah stumping, was on the incline in polling. This is across the board. So, one cannot state he has no momentum coming up to the January 3rd caucus. And if there is any consolation prize, it is that Barbra Streisand had the pleasure to be polled by Team Clinton for her possible effectiveness as the blunt to Oprah Winfrey. Notice the silence.
At just 25 years old, Michael Blake may have more to do with Barack Obama’s chances of becoming President than anyone besides the candidate himself. That may sound like a stretch, but Blake has the all-important job of bringing in new Iowa voters to caucus for the Illinois Senator. And while some campaigns may focus most of their efforts on one or two constituencies – the way John Kerry so successfully courted military veterans in 2004 – Obama is spending an unprecedented amount of money and effort to turn out a wide cross section of new caucus-goers.
“This is the most extensive effort to reach out to new constituencies in the Iowa caucuses, I think, ever,” says Blake, who comes from the Bronx and was in the first class of “Yes, We Can!” a program Obama started soon after he was elected to the Senate to train minorities to more effectively use the political system. “Campaigns here have traditionally gotten attention for going after one or two groups. We’re applying that principle and hopefully will enjoy similar success with multiple groups.” Time
Barack Obama has opened the floodgates for Americans to view how the government is spending its money. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama allows anyone to track contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans. This is monumental legislation passed by a Republican Congress and President. More importantly it shows Obama’s ability to broker relationships, across the aisle. This is drastically needed to get anything done in Washington, D.C. For all the information, check out barath’s well sourced diary.
icebergslim’s last word: slime and staying out of the mud
Another one of those, “you got to be kidding me weeks?” Yes, we must remember desperate times call for desperate measures. Enter Team Clinton.
We all know we keep one eye on each other, while smiling, that is politics. We also know that whatever have been done in the past, we either can explain it or moved from it.
What can we expect from an inevitable machine as Team Clinton’s? Remember she brought us kindergate, staffing circulating the Muslim smear emails, oh and got caught again, planting questions throughout Iowa, astroturfing on Blue Hampshire (sigh), and now suggesting that Barack Obama may have sold drugs.
We all know Barack’s past with drugs as a teen, because he wrote about it in his 1995 book, Dreams from my Father. So to attempt to make this an issue in the primary is just ridiculous, when he has been vetted by running and winning the senate seat for the State of Illinois. Like Republicans did not know this?
But to insinuate, and the charge was made by Team Clinton’s now ex-New Hampshire Chairman, Billy Shaheen , that if Obama is the nominee, the GOP will question if he sold drugs, was way out of bounds. And of course, every time Team Clinton does this slime, they apologize, as if that makes it right.
Well, a lot of people were angered, mainly, the Black Community. This was talked up on Tom Joyner, an African-American disc jockey with a syndicated show nationwide, and all black radio, period. Many in the African-American community were taken aback. Why? Because whether you plan on voting for Barack Obama or not, the mere inference that he could have sold drugs, jolted the African-American Community. This is the same stereotypical framing that is expected from the GOP, not Democrats.
Well, Hillary Clinton kissed the ring. She personally apologized to Barack Obama, while waiting for him at the airport to board his plane to the Des Moines Register Debate. She did the right thing. This slime cannot go on, especially when you have no basis to it. And it does make your campaign and candidacy look weak and ill-equipped to handle the real issues, when you have all this crap running around you.
Billy Shaheen, Team Clinton’s former Co-Chair in New Hampshire has resigned. Good, we don’t need the likes of him sniffing around campaign doors. Will Mark Penn be next? He should be, after his awful performance on Hardball.
Anyway, The Obama Campaign has and will continue to run a positive and upbeat campaign. These tactics may be used to pull Barack into the muddy waters, but he refuses to play. There is much at stake for these upcoming primaries and caucuses and the last thing the public need is a bunch of distractions to keep them from voting on the issues.
See what poll numbers will do to one’s campaign?
Finally, I always close out with focus on obama and not the drama. You better believe that this message is resonating hard as we enter January 3rd.
If you appreciate the weekly Obama Roundup, then Tip My Obama Jar!! Minimum five dollars. This contribution goes directly to the Obama Campaign. We are in the last stretch of fundraising, Quarter 4, it ends December 31st. Remember to make your contribution.
mr. snowman is excited and ready for change. he recognizes that no one has excited this country and transcended across the aisle, as barack obama. can you imagine what caucus day will be like in iowa and nevada? what primary day will be like in new hampshire and south carolina? how february 5th and beyond, will be off the chain for change? it will be people marching and voting for change. for barack. as, i always remind everyone, it is heating up on the boards as it should, and colder than “you know what” in iowa, but remember to focus on obama, and not the drama.
