Will Obama and Edwards ever learn? Doesn't look like it

Of interest to the observant voter:

The New York Times, The Detroit Free Press, Reuters...ah hell, everyone, reported that four major democrats have decided not to campaign in Michigan. This does not include Clinton! Obama and Edwards and the rest (but who cares really about the others) better have a good reason other than principles. Principles and honor don't win elections these days, as Clinton has demonstrated repeatedly. It's conceivable that Obama and Edwards feel it's a lost cause and that Hillary has won Michigan or that winning Michigan really won't make a difference over all but if this ethical choice to boycott a state full of dissent and hunger for change is based on Michigan jumping over the February 5 voting day, then it's literally their loss.
Look, it's not really the time to demonstrate moral character, it's the time to win. Of course Hillary is going to take every opportunity she can to win. That's what she's been doing all along. There is no surprise on that end. The surprise is that Obama and Edwards may not have considered this. They may have thought that Hillary was above pettiness and greed. If that's the case, Hillary deserves to campaign in Michigan, rally unemployed workers in Detroit and college students to her side, and go on to win the Midwestern state's vote.
There is no more appropriate situation for the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." We were all fooled into thinking that Hillary had a higher level of decency than she's shown. That was the first time. This is the second time.

I Feel Good

Of interest to the readers of the last post:

The latest Newsweek poll shows that likely Democratic Caucus-goers would support Obama if they had to vote today, although Clinton had stronger support. The heat is on.


Check out this doozy about Hillary from Frank Rich.

Let's not forget Obama, especially when he's in Greenwich Village

Of interest to the young and politically savvy:

Some said 4,000 college students, some said 30,000, some just said a shit load. Whatever the exact number, "a shit load" is as good a description as any for the number of people gathered in Greenwich Village for the Barack Obama rally -which is being called a mini political Woodstock. On top of that, the "shit load" was in Hillary's backyard. Moments like that make it hard to believe that she's so far ahead in the polls. One has to wonder, are the polls accounting for Generation Y?
Today's college student -Generation Y- is no different than any other age group of voters, at least on the Democratic side. There are Obama supporters, Hillary supporters, and Edwards supporters -even a few Kucinich fans. They're also similar in that a large amount of them feel a dead tortoise is better than Hillary (except the Hillary fans). But if that's the case, how is it that she's so far ahead in the polls? All three of the leading candidates have their appealing qualities. Edwards is the handsome populist, Obama the sparkling newcomer, and Hillary the wizened leader -or that's what she wants us to think. Gail Collins pointed out in her latest column that Hillary capitalizes on generalities. She waits to let everyone else declare a side and then just promises that what she has to offer is the best idea, even though her "idea" is commonly yet to be revealed -not always though. Hillary is sneaky like that. She's trying to gain the nomination not by her own opinions or merits -which can be perilous- but by denouncing the other candidates. According to the polls, hers is an effective strategy. Her appeal is experience and a "maturity" above those other flawed politicians who have "platforms" (snicker) and plans for what they'd do in the White House.
Well, Generation Y, at least, is visibly skeptical. That crafty defensive stance of advertising an opponent's failures works, as it did in the last election, but also says something about the candidate.To her credit, Hillary has shared her own policy plans but has spent less time on that compared to the hours she's put in candidate bashing. It's a good way to get to the White House, George will tell you. The polls indicate that a lot of Democrats either don't realize that Hillary's doing this or don't care. That may be true, but a few Greenwich Village goers will tell you that they aren't fooled twice.

Worried about Hillary's Health?

Of Interest to the sickly:


Hillary Clinton recently proposed a health insurance plan based on the "individual mandate" idea, which requires individuals to get health care or face a penalty. Also, employers would be forced to give their employees health insurance. Lower income people would receive federal support to pay for the health premiums, and the most impoverished would pay virtually nothing. Edwards supports an individual mandate plan that is somewhat altered, Obama doesn't support the individual mandate idea, but the only politician with experience in this area is Republican Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts helped pass a bipartisan health insurance "individual mandate" bill in April, 2006. As of July, 2007 all residents of Massachusetts were required to have health insurance by law, a step beyond other universal coverage schemes in Hawaii or Maine. The system is complex and not fully worked out. It doesn't seem as if anyone knows exactly what will happen if this centrist policy were implemented. The attraction of the plan is that it appeals to both banks of the Seine: the left will like it because it uses subsidies to help poorer folk, and the right wingers like it because it relieves the state of the cost of "health care moochers" who make taxpayers foot the bill for their emergency room adventures. Of course the Cato Institute says it's a slippery slope to full government health care, but is that true? States require all residents to have auto insurance, but there is no state-run auto insurance provider. We have to wait for more data from Massachusetts, I think. One other question is whether it would raise health insurance premiums because poorer people don't have to pay the full amount. That might be true.

And it doesn't solve the problem of those who are insured but are denied adequate care.

Article on Massachusetts Health Care

Love and Happiness

From The New York Times:

McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing

By David D. Kirkpatrick

Published: March 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 1 — Senator John McCain joined Senator Barack Obama on Thursday in promising to accept a novel fund-raising truce if each man wins his party’s presidential nomination.
The promises by Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Mr. Obama, Democrat of Illinois, are an effort to resuscitate part of the ailing public financing system for presidential campaigns.
In every election since Watergate, candidates have received limited sums of taxpayer money on the condition that they abstain from raising or spending any more. But this year, the leading candidates are all sidestepping the system in a competition to raise far more in private donations, more than $500 million each, according to most projections, compared with $150 million in potential public financing.
But there is a chance that the obituaries for the public system may be premature. On Thursday, a spokesman for Mr. McCain said that he would take up Mr. Obama on a proposal for an accord between the two major party nominees to rely just on public financing for the general election.
Such a pact would eliminate any financial edge one candidate might have and limit each campaign to $85 million for the general election. The two candidates would have to return any private donations that they had raised for that period.
Mr. Obama laid out his proposal last month to the Federal Election Commission, seeking an opinion on its legality. The commissioners formally approved it on Thursday.
The manager of Mr. McCain’s campaign, Terry Nelson, said he welcomed the decision.
“Should John McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing in the general election, if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same,” Mr. Nelson said.
A spokesman for Mr. Obama, Bill Burton, said, “We hope that each of the Republican candidates pledges to do the same.”
Mr. Burton added that if nominated Mr. Obama would “aggressively pursue an agreement” with whoever was his opponent.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have backed changing campaign finances.

Did Kirkpatrick get that right? Perhaps he didn't check his facts but he seems to have reported that two "major party nominees" are not only acting civilly, but working to make the 2008 election actually about the issues rather than money or whatever dirty, scandalous fact one candidate can uncover about another! As recent elections have demonstrated, U.S. politicians are so desperate to gain nomination that government issues aren't as important to a campaign as slander and rumor is. The Tennessee U.S. Senate race between Harold Ford Jr. and Bob Corker where Corker ran a racist commercial against Ford comes to mind. Most politicians are delighted to engineer gossip so deliciously malicious and effective in crippling an opponent.
Obama has demonstrated his association as a member of a small group of politicians who don't engage in such seventh-grade rhetoric. Illinoisans may recall the Jack Ryan scandal during the 2004 senatorial race where it was revealed that Ryan had taken his wife, Jeri Ryan, to a number of sex clubs around the world hoping that lady Ryan would perform sexual favors in these bizarre establishments. Obama's response: "no comment." Many a politician would have jumped on this as fast as Mrs. Ryan jumped on divorce proceedings but Obama, the political oddball that he is, instead chose a clean campaign. He would rather win for the best platform than for the darkest, most embarrassing facts about his republican-counterpart's personal life. Most politicians would scoff at this; what a freak!
McCain seems to be of the same insane disposition. "It seems likely that Obama will win; if he does, lets have a nice, clean, bipartisan election, not one based on opulence," say McCain's actions. In a perfect (and possible) world where McCain and Obama are presidential nominees the next president will win on political issues rather than "financial edge." Of course their sensible example doesn't mean that all politicians will follow suit. Quite the contrary. Most campaigns will probably go the opposite direction with maniacal, deceitful, politically irrelevant efforts to destroy an opponent through slander and personal fault. Still though, it's good to see that two of the most promising politicians of the era like the ludicrous idea of bipartisanship and election based on issues instead of a sort of tabloidal "who has the most shameful personal history that can be exploited?" strategy.
Some time ago a few Americans thought it might be a good idea if politicians were chosen based on their ideas and platforms and not gossip or rumor. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well that was a long time ago and apparently America has changed a lot since then.