Tonight I listened to "leaders" and "would be" leaders of the Republican Party mock community organizers.
This was profoundly offensive on so many levels, but none more so than going after the very folks who pitched in and engaged in community organization to offer help and aid to New Orleans following Katrina; while this party did nothing.
Mocking the people who work hardest to address the needs of disaster victims, victims of various forms of suffering (like, for example Down's Syndrome children and their families) is just repugnant and obscene.
For a secessionist candidate to go after this profession, which over our long history as U.S,. citizens has resulted in the betterment our nation and the improvement in people's lives, this was obscene. Many community organizers work hard for others and live very modestly. This used to be thought of as praiseworthy by folks who professed faith.
I felt nauseous listening to this invective and profoundly sad for my nation.
The news of Mark Penn's resignation from Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign should come as no surprise. Neither should the continued presence of Mr. Penn in her campaign which this announcement is attempting to minimize in time to persuade voters in Pennsylvania that she doesn't really endorse union busting and doesn't really endorse the disastrous NAFTA legislation that Mr. Penn feeds on.
Senator Clinton assumed that she would sweep Super Tuesday and emerge with the nomination. In the longer primary season than she anticipated, the nature and character of Mark Penn's contacts, role, tactics and business interests has become increasingly clear to voters. What is surprising is that she hired him in the first place, given his contacts and the amoral nature of his business.
His hiring as a campaign strategist in the first place calls into question the judegment of Senator Clinton, and her values as a Democratic candidate, given Mr. Penn's representation of repressive regimes, union busting activities in Columbia, and involvement with Blackwater. Simply put, Mr. Penn's role in any activity is to manipulate public opinion and, as his website at BKSH states, enact government policy. He does this by the exact tactics we have witnessed in this campaign; race bating, fueling ethnic divisions, smear campaigns, and character assassination, as well as well timed false reporting in the media. These tactics are the ones he also uses abroad to foster vioilations of human rights around the globe. He has been using them on Senator Clinton's behalf.
A particularly insidious aspect of this is Mr. Penn's tentacles which can be cross referenced among his client list. He has contacts with a number of industries, most especially telecommunications, so his ability to reach the media by back door arrangements is concerning.
Mark Penn's presence in a Presidential primary is a huge red flag, and a blot on Senator Clinton's judgement and values. It confirms her support and endorsement of NAFTA , lobby cartels ,as well as efforts to dupe voters, rather than campaign in a thoughtful and honest manner.
I for one lost respect for her as a candidate as soon as I learned that this firm was involved and as soon as I learned that both she and Senator McCain have contact with this one firm owned by Mark Penn.
Well, she has finally made a gesture of letting him go while keeping him thoroughly involved in her campaign: she can't fire him; he represents her constituency, even after outcry a year ago by labor unions, and human rights activists begged her not to involve him in her campaign.
Senator Obama is 100% free of lobby entanglements in his campaign. And that is the real meaning of hope: that we can return our nation to a Democracy and not devovle into a corporate fiefdom.
This is further evidence of the power of this people powered campaign, time and again Senator Clinton is being asked to do the right thing, and time after time she makes a meaningless gesture to placate the voting public while following the lobby handlers who are running her campaign for their agenda; not ours. I wish she had thought of this on her own, on principle, when she first considered who should lead her campaign.
Senator Obama is campaigning hard for us. He went bowlling and scored a 37 (!) . . . fortunately we are hiring him for the many other skills he demonstrates (like running a great campaign, leading our nation to a new place, and representing us all with dignity and grace, to name a few). But since he is such a good sport, a bunch of folks are ponying up $37.00, or $3.70, (whatever works for you) to send love and wings to our candidate and our campaign. So, if you can, this would be a great time- before midnight tonight, right before the FEC report.
You may also have seen information in the news today that indicates unpaid bills in the hundred thousands to small vendors as well as a reported two month delay in covering employee health insurance by the other candidate. This says something both about a committment to economic management and the importance of health care. On the heels of Tuzla, it just makes me want to be sure that we have REAL change in Washington next year. Senator Obama is financially savvy and has done an excellent job of squaring with vendors in a timely manner. Actions speak louder than words.
So I'm feeling especially motivated to make a donation this week to reinforce that gallup hike; to support Senator Obama, and to take back our Democracy.
Jennie
sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, basically threatening to withdraw funds of Congressional Democratic candidates if Speaker Pelosi didn't back off her stance that the superdelegates should follow the popular vote and delegate count. You can read all about this most interesting "gang of twenty" on Daily Kos, which I highly recommend to everyone as informative, and full of intelligent background story and details you just won't hear in the mainstream media, (which is owned, not suprisingly, by some of Hillary's bankrollers). It really makes for some very very interesting reading.
Speaker Pelosi and Senator Dodd both stood firm on behalf of voters asserting that the vote would not be decided by "insiders" or an overturn of the popular vote.
I strongly encourage everyone who is supporting Obama to make a donation to the DCCC in support of Speaker Pelosi, Senator Dodd, and congressional Democrats who must finance their campaigns. If you make a donation before MARCH 31st, your contribution will be matched 2 to 1.
This would be an eloquent statement to Congress that Senator Obama has most prodigious coattails!!!! (but we know that ), and it is the most sincere way we can demonstrate our support for our Democratic Leadership fostering a Democratic process.
Please go to the DCCC website and give a donation. Even if its very modest, it will be matched with twice the amount if you donate before March 31st, and as a group we have already proven ourselves to be formidable. Let's show em just how formidable we the people can be. And we can foster the team Senator Obama will work with to promote change for our nation.
there are a lot more of us, and collectively our small donations add up, as Senator Obama is teaching us every day!!!!!
This evening I had the pleasure of sitting at home writing postcards to other citizens whom I will likely never personally meet, in hopes of expressing my sincere belief that Senator Obama is the best candidate for President that we are likely to see in our lifetimes. This is part of a campaign activity organized by Obama supporters.
My companion in this activity is my daughter, who is a junior in college. She grew up during the years of President William Jefferson Clinton, when she was just approaching her teens, and two terms of President Bush. We both cried when that first Bush election occurred. It seemed that it was so careless and violent to democracy. It seemed that any way a vote could be manipulated was an acceptable strategy. The vote is sacred, at least in our beliefs.
Her first official act upon turning eighteen was to register to vote, that day. She has been active in her college Democrat organization since freshman year, and has campaigned for state and local politicians. She is very excited to support Senator Barack Obama for Democratic Presidential candidate, and she's done her homework on candidates' actual legislative records, policies, and supporting arguments. All this amidst a very demanding academic schedule.
Her college Democratic organization has been active in their surrounding community. These young people created a display of hand folded origami cranes- one for each soldier who has given his or her life during these years of war. These are young people who are serious and working very hard. They are people from many different cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds. They are companions and friends across these supposed divides. These young people seem eager to learn about each other, and interested in becoming culturally competent, able to relate comfortably to people different from themselves, and to share their cultures, ideas, and dreams. They take the vote very serioiusly, and follow this election closely.
Most are choosing work that involves service to others. Many are choosing careers in health care or education; nearly no one is choosing to be a hedge fund manager. Most have engaged in some form of extended volunteer work with people who have not had the blessings that these kids enjoy. Yet they see the road before them laden with problems that will fall on them and their generaton, as a result of decisions made over the past very few years. They see the main stream media as increasingly deceptive, boring and uninformative. They've heard all the divide and conquer strategies and manipulations.
I see these young people, and this beloved girl, and have to wonder what sort of illness causes our culture to treat the vote as a frivolity. In the past, only 30% of folks who could vote actually did. We have celebrity and broadcast personalities who are encouraging dishonest and manipulative votes; we have efforts to change rules and primaries in the middle of the game, which to her and to myself, seem like a replay of the sorrow and anxiety we have felt for our democracy in the past, but now as part of even the party we choose. This is the behavior of the generation of public figures that has created many of the problems our children will inherit.
Yet there is Barack Obama, who is representing something important: change, and a more mature understanding of our Democracy as something that should be guarded as sacred. He is attracting the support of people from all over our nation, and from every walk of life. Because we want our votes to mean something, and to have value. We want our Constitution to be a living document, not a set of loopholes and overrides. Barack Obama gives us hope. Hope that we can overcome artificial divides as well. These divides have served the interests of those who exploit our nation very, very well, and serve the interests of ourselves not at all- any of us.
So the generatonal divide is being broached by this campaign;
Mom learned to blog and text message thanks to this campaign. YES SHE CAN!
And a young woman has learned to take part in political process, and that there are public servants who have principles and vision, who are more than mere celebrities. YES SHE CAN!
In the midst of the fight for the nomination, she reminds me of all the important meaning of this campaign. The hope hat she will inherit a real Democracy, not a corporate fiefdom. And that the nation of her birth will behave with honor and accountability within and outside of its borders. That we can lead from strength, not cower from fear, as a nation. And that we can win the admiration and friendship of people all over the world who look to the United States to model what is honorable, right and good in the name of freedom.
These are trying days at times, with the assaults of the lobby-funded attacks. Senator Barack Obama is a threat to the status quo of lobby money, and multiconglomerate shackles. Did we think this would be easy?
The work sustains us with hope and we must work hard to make this happen for us all. The journey is part of the gift!
Thank you Keith Olberman for your editorial comments, prefaced with remarks on your gratitude to the Clinton family and relations, for your strong remarks calling Senator Clinton to "stand for something" in repudiating the racist tone that her campaign choices and spokespersons are strongly suggesting. It is nice to see media editorials finally performing the function they used to, in holding politicians and others accountable to the pubiic well-being.
I hope other persons in the media will demonstrate the same capacity for critical thinking in the future. This issue is not a legitmate strategy in Democratic politics, and Mr. Olberman has done an important service on behalf of all of us in asserting this in the Democratic Party.
Thank you, Mr. Olberman
One giant lobbying firm is running two campaigns in the Primaries. That firm is Burson Marsteller. Charlie Black, Jr. is working "on the bus" with John McCain. Mark Penn is closely directing Hillary Clinton's strategies. Both men work for the same lobbyist firm which represents a great many multiconglomerates AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
It is a lobby firm with many branches, and its track record is pretty insidious. It is a "legitimate" enterprise, aided and abetted by NAFTA legislation to not only manipulate government policies within the United States, but all over the world. It has many subsidieries.
The BKSH & Associates website says:
"BKSH & Associates world wide provides the Burson-Marsteller family with ELITE government consulting, public affairs and strategic lobbying capabilities. The firms professionals design and execute government strategies o the federal and state levels, which affect public policy and enhance business development practices around the world.
The firm uses a BIPARTISAN approach led by Charlie Black . . ." the article goes on to describe how it "quietly works behind the scenes for fortune 500 companies, multinationals, . .. foreign governments.
(mulitnationals include Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and other nations where the firm has been involved in covering up human rights abuses, and breaking up efforts to organize, or unionize on behalf of oppressed workers in other nations)
One lobbying firm involved in the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and John McCain? A candidate who is running a scorched earth campaign against her own party member, despite the fact that her chances of winning without substantial maneuvering behind the scenes are increasingly unlikely.
A candidate who is lying and manipulating around the facts of her record, her accomplishments, and has been the wife of a two term President who enacted NAFTA legislation, who has many powerful connections politically?
A candidate who is using openly racist tactics that will destroy the long-term viability of the party.
A candidate who opening violated the party rules even before the primaries begin by agreeing to have her name on ballots.
A candidate who has Republican state leaders manipulating Democratic primaries and then frustrating efforts for any fair do-overs.
A candidate who is manipulating the media before significant votes with false information.
A candidate who is unwilling to release her tax records and whose husband has been involved in lucrative international trade deals, while continuing to receive briefings as a former president.
Someone who compromised party principles even before the campaign began and appears to be deliberately running a race that is designed to destroy the party or cause the party to capitulate to corporate domination of our government.
Please don't buy the "ism" divisions the Clinton/McCain campaign are trying parlay into a vote against our Democracy.
Please take the trouble to share the simple facts of this Lobbying firms mission, and both Senator Clinton and John McCain's involvement with it, and connect the dots to the racism and division this lobbying firm is trying to sow to divide our nation in order to take over our government.
Burson-Marsteller's CEO Charlie Black is running John McCain's campaign. Burson-Marsteller's employee is running Hillary Clinton's campaign. ONE POWERFUL LOBBYIST FIRM involved with two potential candidates on both sides of a National Primary process.
Hillary Clinton chose to use the same firm as the opposition. WHY?
Senator Clinton is engaging in tactics that may permanently destroy the Democratic Party, including false allegations, blatant racist invective, and efforts to manipulate rules, which, in Florida seem to be helped by the Republican party. Rush Limbaugh is shilling for her. She is endorsing the Republican candidate.
BIG LOBBY MONEY gaming the political process with the help of Senator Clinton?
One firm caucusing behind the scenes to ruin the future of an entire political party with one candidate's willing collusion from the get go?
It was hinky when I first heard it, and it reeks like a dead fish in the subsequent events of this campaign.
Connect the dots; The NYT article about Senator McCain wasn't about the sex; it was about who the lobbyists are who are involved in his campaign.
Mark Penn and Charlie Black are Burson-Marsteller. THIS IS GETTING LITTLE PRESS BUT DAILY KOS has had some articles on it and Wikipedia has some information. Lots of background available.
This should be getting some serious air time in light of the current behavior of the Clinton campaign, which appears to be running against the long term interests of her party, against any hope of an ethical vote, and against the best interests of our nation.
Geraldine Ferraro is asking "If Barack wasn't a black man would he be where he is in this campaign?", and many of Senator Hillary Clinton's remarks during this campaign season, as well as the last eight years of hate speech and racist invective from the Republican Party- endorsed spokespersons and celebrity mouthpieces, serve to highlight a foreign policy problem that has long gone unaddressed which makes us look hypocritical and malignant to the rest of the world. Isn't it somewhat specious for Ms. Ferraro, Senator Clinton, to blame losses in a campaign on gender? or success on race? What about actual performance? What if that is the central issue? And what does your discussion suggest?
Its a smaller planet. Between cable mainstream media, and the internet, words said here in the U.S. go to unforeseen places. Whole nations of persons are listening to our leaders and celebrities. The media have helped to channel this all over the world, and what is highly visible most of the time is hardly the best or most noble traits of our nation. Other countries may look at our freedoms and wonder why we squander and waste them the way we do. What is noble or admirable about hate speech and divisive argument? What is noble about racism? How does that help our foreign policy? How does that square with "one nation"?
This divisive self-serving manner of talk is broadcast all over the world, to some countries that have long had more mature notions of such ridiculous matters, as well as nations where tribal wars, genocide and terrorism are fueled by hate speech and divisive language. We are very good at pointing out other nations' shortcomings, but are we mature enough to take responsibility for our own behavior, and repent of the very evil we deplore in others?
How are we different, if we enact this among ourselves. Will we, in a few years, devolve into the kind of troubles we now witness further along the continuum abroad? The world is watching.
Frankly, if Senator Mr. Barack Obama was a Senator Ms. Barack Obama I would be voting for "her" anyway, because candidate Obama has willingly and forthrightly demonstrated transparency around financial and donor records in advance of the campaign- no parsing, nothing carefully culled; a spontaneous act of respect for voters based on principle. Candidate Obama has demonstrated good faith and respect for voters. THAT is a refreshing change.
Candidate Obama has raised the majority of campaign funds from voters, lots of them, in many small donations. THIS tells me who the real constituency is, in a political and mediascape where "we the people" are increasingly disenfranchised and treated like shills to be duped for votes or marketing scams.
Senator Obama has confined arguments to experience, policy, and matters of record. Candidate Obama's arguments have logic and dignity. Candidate Obama is debating facts, not trading insults and amateurish quips as a campaign strategy. Candidate Obama doesn't waste our time with that stuff.
Candidate Obama has organized a successful campaign, which shows much work, thought, planning and ingenuity. Candidate Obama has attracted a lot of support and talent that add to the excitement of the campaign.
Candidate Obama has not attempted to manipulate rules in the middle of the primary or use special connections to manipulate the outcome of the election. Candidate Obama doesn't whine or invite pity or victimhood when asked to be accountable.
Candidate Obama is consistent in dignified behavior and responses, and appears to act through steady adherence to principle. Candidate Obama is not capricious in mood and tone or in message.
Candidate Obama has troubled to study Constitutional law.
Candidate Obama is forthright on behalf of voters, and is willing to speak up even when it might have negative consequence to personal ambition or gain.
Candidate Obama has not inflated his experience.
Candidate Obama doesn't manipulate voters with fear.
Candidate Obama is inspiring, uplifting, and uniting at a time when we have many difficult tasks as a society, and most need a hopeful leader who is a true public servant, not a celebrity politician.
Candidate Obama is the real deal: whatever gender, race, creed, it is the BEHAVIORS I am voting for.
That is what we should all be voting for, not the smoke and mirrors given us by infotainment polemics, thinly veiled hate speech, and dramatic manipulations.
It has nothing to do with gender or race, Ms. Ferraro. Its about the behaviors. We are looking at the actual behavior of the person who will be sworn in to protect and defend the Constitution that asserts the words: Government of the People, For the People, and by the People. Candidate Obama gets that. Candidate Clinton insults him for it.
Its about treating voters with respect, and demonstrating cultural competence as a criteria for the Presidency of the United States
Like many folks, I am old enough to recall the early campaigns of the Clintons, and my votes for William Jefferson Clinton those many years ago. I regret those votes.
I am also old enough to appreciate the sense of betrayal I felt as most of the supposedly progressive ideas endorsed by the Clintons turned out to be merely cloaked in language acceptable to progressives, but the actual programs and policies resulted in conservative Republican consequences to countless persons who had placed their faith in the Clintons.
George Bush didn't start the Orwellian double speak, he has merely enlarged upon it. While Kenneth Starr became a household name for Puritan prurience, at the same time, the tolerance of what appeared to be a disturbing lack of genuineness, human feeling, and accountability ruined, for many persons, the feeling of pride or even belief in leadership. What a waste of our time and our faith. What a black hole of hope.
Like many other folks, I began to assume that many folks who go into politics meet the criteria for character disorders. These are mental illnesses that are largely untreatable, mostly characterized by a lack of empathy for others, a lack of accountability and mutuality in relationships, a grandiose sense of personal superiority and expectation of favourable treatment, and a sense that rules somehow just don't apply to them. There is often a lack of ethical comprehension, and a wilingness to exploit others and lie easily, even effortlessly, and parse words. There are no fixed principles; they don't suffer from these conditions; others do. Persona management is a full time job for some of these folks. Other human beings have only utilitarian value for personal goals, or not, as their usefulness and convenience decline.
It's an interesting journey for me. I read Dietrich Bonhoeffer's discussion of costly grace, largely because then first Lady Clinton had been quoted as having been moved by it. This was in the interest of a, then, new page in leadership in our nation. I recall that notion of Bonhoeffer's was a powerful notion, one that has stayed with me, but has sadly has lead me away from any feeling that candidate Clinton exhibits that quality.
There was no costly grace on behalf of the thousands upon thousands of African people who died in a genocide with no mercy or even interest from the Clintons. There was no grace for the hundreds of thousands children and women rendered homeless in the U.S. by legislation enacted by the Clinton administration. There was no sincere concern for the consequences of NAFTA to hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. No costly grace in the loss of national health care due to mandates that favor insurance companies. Senator Clinton's unqualified support of the Iraq war sealed it yet again. Where was the costly grace?
I do see, however, that notion of costly grace in the life work of Samantha Power. Her scholarship and moral witness, her willingness to be with suffering and not turn a blind eye, nor does she engage in personality politics around her advocacy. She has a passion for what is true and good and important in human kind. She is a public servant extraordinaire, and a woman of substantive work and insight. Her resignation from the campaign is yet another example of costly grace. It is not the first time she has been brave.
Last week you could practically hear the wingbeats of the flying monkeys being sent to entrap the genuine, lurking about awaiting a reaction to a filthy lie, boldly stated before an election to a media that is little more than a shill for the very corporate interests behind the Clinton campaign, repeated endlessly, only to be soundly refuted much later, after voters were just plain duped by their own idol.
And the good person who states honestly what should be appreciated by the world, is penalized for her genuineness. It is a response many of us feel around these tactics. A monstrous hydra head of enmeshed and corrupt connections that permeat our government, media, and business interests all over the world. Reptilian in its lack of fellow feeling or integrity.
The hydra headed monster is making itself felt through the evil of racism, and the slant of thinking that objectifies whole races of persons around the world. Just today some politician displayed his cultural incompetence and sinister lack of logic, for all the world to see, alleging that because a candidate has the name Hussein, he will fuel terrorism. A specious argument. In all likelihood if there is any consequence to a middle name, it will likely inspire the more innocent, kindly and moderate members of the Islamic world to revise their views of our nation as a tribe of selfish, hypocritical, ignorant bigots. What an repulsive way to grab public attention.
Bigotry like this should be unpatriotic when there are young men and women from every religion, including Muslim men and women, being injured and permanently maimed in the service of our country even as I write. This kind of speech also does devastating damage to all our foreign policy and undermines our integrity among nations. It is shameful and to my thinking, a perversion of so-called Christian values. There is a whole load of loud, boastful and very empty praying in the temple by folks who monger this stuff.
But Halleluia! there are women like Samantha Power, whom the knowing know, are folks who pretty much hold up the roof of the world, and keep principle alive.
It is a sign of the excellence of this campaign that her work, her thinking, and her integrity have influenced and been allied with this campaign. Her leaving the campaign is yet another example of her costly grace. We will meet again. And her writing and ongoing work is accessible to us all.
This campaign is very much about costly grace, and a willingness to devote ourselves and our nation to the ideals of the Constitution, to elect a President who is ,foremost of all a public servantj in the best tradition of leadership, and to hope for a higher level of functioning among those who represent us.
The message is moving around our nation, as people watch the events of this campaign ensue. When one person determines to chart a personal path of accountability, transperency, and faithfulness to principles, it affects and enhances an entire system.
Congratulations to the State of Wyoming and thank you! YES WE CAN! We can be a nation worthy of our Constitution.
There has been an amazing amount of creativity and thought in this campaign, at every level. If you haven't heard it yet, here is another beautiful and moving work of music and film posted on youtube, featuring Andreas Useche, singer/songwirter in a film directed by Eric Byler. It expresses this campaign and our hopes beautifully. Si SE PUEDE! We've been poked fun at for "Kumbayah" by the folks who brought us the sinister film offering that was introduced last week by the Republican party. This is an exquisite contrast.
Jennie Markens
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have a significant policy disagreement over mandates. I have a lot of concerns about the ambiguity of this term and the hidden aspects which have NOT been adequately addressed in any of the debates by Candidate Clinton. Senator Clinton is very angry when these policies are questioned, but rather than addressing voter concerns and enlightening us as to the specifics, she resorts to allegations of "Rovian tactics" and righteous indignation, that leave me, the voter feeling disrespected. That sure seems like an all-to-familiar evasion tactic.
Here are the concerns that Senator Clinton has failed to address:
Mandates mean that if you are unable to purchase this insurance, or are unwilling to, you will be found in violation of policy . . . usually a law, and that means that there will be some form of consequence or penalty for non-compliance.
Here's where it gets tricky for me . . . Let's say that a large factory in my community closes, relocates to China, and I am out of work, or manage to cobble together some minimum wage employment that barely covers my rent and food. Eating and staying warm are usually the first best insurance against medical problems of every stripe, so if I choose to eat, rather than buy insurance, what can happen?
What will the penalty be if I cannot or will not pay?
Can the government garnishee my wages? Will it forclose food and shelter if I cannot or will not pay?
If I don't pay, how will this penalty be formulated, especially if it involves fines? Will this be calculated for days, months, years of non-payment or non-coverage? Will there be compounding interest for non-payment, the way there is for credit cards? Will the rate of interest remain stable or function the way credit card debt does, with rates of up to 20% for compounded debt?
If this compounds, would I even be able to file bankruptcy, and how could I afford legal fees if there are further legal consequences?
Who will monitor this compliance and what sort of checks and balances will be put in place to insure that my payments remain resonable? What advocacy could consumers expect regarding hardship and not being able to pay?
Who will administer violations of this mandate and will this be the same entity that sets the rates for fines, interest, and compounding debt?
What if I have no health problems for the period that I am uninsured? How will the rate of penalty be calculated in that case?
Recall that there are now laws that make it more difficult to file bankruptcy.
What do insurance companies stand to gain from a mandated, versus no mandate program? This is a huge industry, traded on the stock exchange with branches of investment everywhere. While we have been told that without mandates we will be "nibbled to death", government sponsored healthcare, versus government enforced health care may be two entirely different animals.
I believe that most persons will voluntarily participate in a no mandate program, and that the "fifteen million uninsured" is a "worst case scenario" tactic to frighten and moralize us into aligning with a policy that has been ill defined, before we, the public, are fully aware of the ramifications of mandates. This is a policy difference that Hillary Clinton has failed to enlarge upon, and I believe that is telling. In fact, the silence is deafening.
A genuine espousal of this policy for our benefit would have anticipated voter concerns precisely around the issue of mandates and penalties. The recent debate would have been a great time to go more deeply into this central difference, rather than wasting our attention on filler Bush-bashing for cheap meaningless applause. This too is a tactic.
Senator Clinton has claimed authority on this issue for a long time, and in fact,co-opted this from elected representatives as wife of a newly elected President,back in the day, but as with any politician these days, she is a seasoned pol. She has her share of contact with lobbyists, which may include large insurance companies and related industries. Her cloudiness on this issue, her central issue, and her refusal to release any information about finances, donors, and money relationships gives me great pause.
Given widespread concerns that other high profile leaders are vulnerable to lobbyists, we should expect our own Democratic team to be transparent in these matters, especially because this transparency demonstrates integrity and good faith with voters around the central policies they are voting for.
These interwoven concerns, and the holdout for "mandates" have likely prevented many persons from having insurance for quite some time. Why is that?
Large, multi-national corporations are now posting profits bigger than the gross national products of many countries. Contrast this with the disappearance of businesses that were once the mainstays of communities all over the United States.
With increasing consolidation during the leveraged buyouts; with companies gobbling smaller companies to become monoliths: jobs were routinely eliminated. Jobs migrated. "Move or become unemployed" was the experience of many families, and many did. This is one way that families have been isolated and eroded over the years.
Then these bigger companies went after legislation so they could grow even bigger, and ever more powerful. With NAFTA and the lack of effective foresite in protecting jobs for citizens and communities, likely due to poor boundaries with lobbyists, multiconglomerates were free to seek labor all over the globe and United States' workers are now freely pitted against countries where working conditions have never enjoyed the hardwon protections of unions, child labor law, fair wage and safety standards. NAFTA bargained away our worker's rights, because it has no teeth on behalf of United States employment and business; guess who benefits?
Multiconglomerates are manipulating legislation now, through employment deals, providing campaign funds and perks to manipulate loopholes and influence law to their advantage. With teams of attorneys around the globe, deep pockets to support legal loopholes and lobbyists, they can now violate our own laws here and those of other nations, they are increasingly accountable to no one, either at home, or abroad. We the people are targeted for their behavior.
These folks can now hire private armies who are better paid than our own military.
The good honest folks who are working to manage companies with longstanding roots in their communities are increasingly unable to compete, and are forced to sell, or go bankrupt.
The less scrupulous are seeking cheap employment to stay afloat, fueling the influx of illegal immigrants, who make a convenient target, when it is the multinational corponations who fuel this phenomenon.
If you want to look at this for yourself, go to Wikipedia.com and look up "K Street", which details this agenda better than I can.
Ownership of the media is almost completely controlled by these mulitconglomerate corporations. This is why the lobby scandals involving issues around ownership of the media should concern every business person in the U.S.
These companies have a chokehold on the press, and are part of the campaign of ugliness and hate speech that seeks to surgically, strategically, and cynically divide our nation from within, into isolated constituencies. We are then pitted against each other through a range of canards that insure that we are often tricked into voting against our collective best interests as a nation.
Many of our bifurcated issues over these past years, (fueled by monolith media ownership), that have so polarized voters are really "canards" being stirred to get us to vote the will of these corpo-nations.
Conservative courts may support your or my position around the rights of the unborn, but they will also insure that U.S. law favors the will and ambitions of multinational corporations. These monolithic entities are, increasingly, demonstrating only the thinnest of relationships with the well-being of citizens in the United States in maintaining communities, families and quality of life. And these corpo-nations are becoming entities without loyalty to any nation or location.
It has worked very well, for the corporations, but not for the citizens of our country, or for the citizens of other countries.
Capitalism is healthy, but jobs are the foundation of capitalism. Our government has an important role in preserving us as a nation and not reducing us to a country of waring tribes with grudges against one another. This kind of capitalism is unbridled and unprincipled. It is important to note that capitalism and democracy are NOT mutually exclusive terms. This was recognized by the founders of our nation.
We have been surgically divided over principles we may hold dear, but the principle of having a society that functions and sustains all of our lives, is being deliberately eroded with these issues by corporate monoliths in a very deliberate and coldly strategic manner.
