Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President. Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are. ... Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with [Cheney] that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.
And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit. The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
Helping Others Abroad Americans are the most generous people in the world. No nation spends more in combined public and private efforts to combat disease and poverty around the world, and no nation works harder to ensure the continued vitality of the global economy. Our reasons for doing so are both moral and practical, for a world where half of the human race lives on a few dollars a day is neither just nor stable. (p. 8)
Preserving Traditional Marriage . . . Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. (p. 53)
Poverty When Bobby Kennedy saw the shacks and poverty along the Mississippi Delta, he asked, "How can a country like this allow it?" Forty years later, we're still asking that question. The most American answer we can give is: "We won't allow it." One in eight Americans lives in poverty today all across our country, in our cities, in our suburbs, and in our rural communities. Most of these people work but still can't pay the bills. Nearly thirteen million of the poor are children. We can't allow this kind of suffering and hopelessness to exist in our country. It's not who we are. Working together, we can cut poverty in half within ten years. We will provide all our children a world-class education, from early childhood through college. We will develop innovative transitional job programs that place unemployed people into temporary jobs and train them for permanent ones. To help workers share in our country's productivity, we'll expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, and raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation. The majority of adults in poverty are women, and to combat poverty we must work for fair pay, support for mothers, and policies that promote responsible fatherhood. We'll start letting our unions do what they do best again--organize and lift up our workers. We'll make sure that every American has affordable health care that stays with them no matter what happens. We will assist American Indian communities, since 10 of the 20 poorest counties in the United States are on Indian lands. We'll bring businesses back to our inner-cities, increase the supply of affordable housing, and establish "promise neighborhoods" that provide comprehensive services in areas of concentrated poverty. These will be based on proven models, such as the Harlem Children's Zone in New York City, which seeks to engage all residents with tangible goals such as attendance at parenting schools, retention of meaningful employment, college for every participating student, and strong physical and mental health outcomes for children. The Democratic Party believes that the fight against poverty must be national priority. Eradicating poverty will require the sustained commitment of the President of the United States, and we believe that the White House must offer leadership and resources to advance this agenda. (pg. 15-16, my emphasis)
I am here, speaking to you tonight, because I have hope. I have hope because I've heard Barack Obama speak and in his words I have heard a message that resonates with my faith in God, my faith in this nation, and most of all, my faith in the people of the United States. I have heard Senator Obama speak about healing this nation of the ugly wound of racism, and I have found myself saying out loud, "Yes We Can!" I have heard Barack Obama speak about educating all our children and caring for their health and well-being and I have found myself shouting and praying, "Yes We Can!" I have heard Barack Obama call for an end to a foreign policy of bullying with threats and violence, and engaging instead in diplomacy, and I've said again, "Yes. We. Can." In truth, I have often whispered, "Yes, we must." We must do these things--we must build a nation we can be proud of--we must join together for change.
We have a lot of work to do in this country for all people: black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American. We are all one people. ...It starts with a sense of respect. It starts with the belief that all people are worthy of respect. I will never forget you. You will be on my mind every day that I'm in the White House. ...We can make sure that we have a President who's committed to what's right: respecting you, honoring you. And now that I'm a member of the family, you know that I won't break my commitment to our family.
One of the reasons I support Barack Obama is that he is not just about platitudes, as so many politicians are. He knows that it takes more than just the people who agree with him to make a change. Hence, his open letter to LGBT Americans includes these key passages:
But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones - and that's what I've done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign - from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached. Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
But having the right positions on the issues is only half the battle. The other half is to win broad support for those positions. And winning broad support will require stepping outside our comfort zone. If we want to repeal DOMA, repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and implement fully inclusive laws outlawing hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace, we need to bring the message of LGBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones - and that's what I've done throughout my career. I brought this message of inclusiveness to all of America in my keynote address at the 2004 Democratic convention. I talked about the need to fight homophobia when I announced my candidacy for President, and I have been talking about LGBT equality to a number of groups during this campaign - from local LGBT activists to rural farmers to parishioners at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Dr. Martin Luther King once preached.
Just as important, I have been listening to what all Americans have to say. I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans. But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced. That is the work we must do to move forward together. It is difficult. It is challenging. And it is necessary.
Hat tip Sully.
The most substantive, and revealing, moment of last night's Democratic presidential debate for me was not the corny Xerox line, not "the softer side of Hillary" at the end, but the part about diplomacy.
Clinton's view on when and under what circumstances the President should personally meet with foreign leaders is simply outdated. She feels that the President should only agree to meet with someone like Raul Castro once they "demonstrate clearly that they are committed to change the direction" of their governing policies.
I don't think she realizes the full extent of the damage that George W. Bush has done to this country's reputation with his heavy-handed, unilateral approach, and his repeated violations of international law. It's as if she feels that she can step in to the Oval Office, declare, "I'm back!" and the rest of the world will fall all over themselves in relief. I really don't think that is the case.
So here's what Obama said, finally getting at the heart of the matter on this one (emphasis mine):
But I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago. Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.
But I do think it is important precisely because the Bush administration has done so much damage to American foreign relations that the president take a more active role in diplomacy than might have been true 20 or 30 years ago.
Because the problem is, if we think that meeting with the president is a privilege that has to be earned, I think that reinforces the sense that we stand above the rest of the world at this point in time. And I think that it's important for us in undoing the damage that has been done over the last seven years, for the president to be willing to take that extra step.
He can see what it will take to restore this country's standing in the world -- which is, quite honestly, a slice of humble pie. It isn't enough to declare the Bush years at an end. There is actually some rebuilding to do out there, rebuilding that only the President can do personally. The next President is going to have to go out, hat in hand, and make some apologies to the world community. And I don't think that Clinton sees this, or is capable of doing it.
And, just think about how much more powerful it would be for someone like Raul Castro, or Ahmedinejad, to be confronted directly by the President, and not by underlings with a vague promise of a photo opp later if they meet certain conditions. Bush has a reputation of letting others do the heavy lifting for him, of letting others make promises that he then breaks with impunity. The only way to make it clear to the world that our country is really back on the right track is if our next President goes out and has these conversations personally, and then walks the talk.
I was pretty happy with what I wrote in part four of my three part series on "Contrasts," on the issue of transparency between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, until I found out that Hilzoy said the Obama side much better, with more examples, a full five days before me.
Guess I should read her more often.
Why are political maneuvers so fascinating? I think it's because they are this strange microcosm of human behavior and manipulation of that behavior, all amplified by varying degrees of media furor.
Take the Clinton campaign's latest stream of attacks on the Obama campaign, for instance. They have held two conference calls with reporters on two consecutive days, for the sole purposes of putting out a couple of rather ridiculous, in my view, accusations.
First, the Clintons want to take Obama to task for not honoring his "pledge" to take public financing in the general election.
Couple of things wrong with the reasoning here -- one, Obama has not yet won the nomination, two, Obama's statements and actions on the issue have clearly shown that he has left the issue open as an option, not making a definite decision in either direction, and three, the Clintons have never made any kind of move to take public financing in the general at all, and in fact have a rather questionable record on how and from whom they collect contributions.
Second, there's hubbub over some phrases that Obama used in a speech in Wisconsin over the weekend that Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts freely gave him permission to borrow, which the Clinton campaign is characterizing as "plagiarism."
Problem here, as illustrated by Jake Tapper at ABC News:
In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them. I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him. They would not. In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language. "Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said. Hmmmm.
In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else's rhetoric without crediting them.
I asked Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass, if they could assure the public that neither Clinton nor McGovern has ever done what Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, did when he used the rhetoric of Gov. Deval Patrick without footnoting him.
They would not.
In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn't be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had "lifted" such language.
"Sen. Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric," Wolfson said.
Hmmmm.
David Kurtz, at Talking Points Memo, summarizes these tactics aptly:
Sure he gives better speeches than I do, the Hillary line goes, but the words aren't even his own. He may talk a good game about public financing, she asserts, but when push comes to shove his position is the same as mine. The attacks are intended to bring down Obama's positives, to knock him off his pedestal. But it's hard to see how they raise Hillary's. Her argument, boiled down, is: "He's no better than me." (Or perhaps, less charitably, "He's just as bad as me.")
Sure he gives better speeches than I do, the Hillary line goes, but the words aren't even his own. He may talk a good game about public financing, she asserts, but when push comes to shove his position is the same as mine.
The attacks are intended to bring down Obama's positives, to knock him off his pedestal. But it's hard to see how they raise Hillary's. Her argument, boiled down, is: "He's no better than me." (Or perhaps, less charitably, "He's just as bad as me.")
How, exactly, are these kinds of things meant to show that the Clintons are a better choice than Obama? They haven't figured out how to build themselves up, I guess, so they have to find a way to tear him down. Same old, same old, and haven't we had enough?
For those who really want to compare Senators Obama and Clinton on an even playing field, Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has spent a ton of time combing through the Congressional Record for bills and amendments both have sponsored, co-sponsored in such a way as to have worked substantially on, and that have passed into law.
Original bills and amendments are listed here, and co-sponsorships here. There's a ton of information, and ample opportunity to judge both a measure of what each Senator values to the point of fighting for, and how effective they have been in doing so.
Update: an additional post here with co-sponsored amendments.
My own assessment is that Obama spent a lot more time on very practical, not necessarily sexy matters, like overcoming barriers in education and environmental issues, while Clinton's record shows a lot of time spent on supporting the troops in various, not necessarily substantive, ways. But see for yourself.
An underlying theme to the first three parts of this series on contrasting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was their approach to leading government. I don't feel that I really articulated, with sufficient back-up, how stark these approaches really are, so here's part four: transparency, or giving the government back to the people. The first three were health care, immigration, and leadership.
The candidates both have plans for making changes in Washington -- Obama's is articulated in pages 3-5 of his "Blueprint for Change" (PDF), and Clinton's is on her website under "Reform." Here are the key differences:
Clinton's plan is very specific, and centered around reforming or strengthening laws already in place. For example, "Strengthening whistleblower protections," "Restoring the Office of Technology Assessment" and "Rebuild the Department of Justice's traditional role in defending civil rights and the rule of law, and review charges of improper, politically motivated hiring." Her ten points are all steps in the right direction, but I don't personally feel that they go far enough to make up for the gross negligence and secrecy inherent in the Bush administration.
Obama, on the other hand, is on a mission to open the government wide. His plan includes "an independent watchdog agency to oversee the investigation of congressional ethics violations so that the public can be assured that ethics complaints will be investigated," "a 'contracts and influence' database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them," ensuring "that any tax breaks for corporate recipients – or tax earmarks – are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format," "Sunlight Before Signing," in which all non-emergency bills sent to the President for signing would be available on the White House website for public review and comment for five days before being signed, a requirement for "Cabinet officials to have periodic national broadband townhall meetings to discuss issues before their agencies," "Make White House Communications Public" and requiring "appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can watch these debates in person or on the Internet."
Obama has a record of working for this kind of transparency in government, beginning in Illinois where he introduced and passed the most comprehensive campaign finance reform in the history of the state. He worked with Russ Feingold from Wisconsin on ethics reform at the federal level. And, the very first bill that he got passed in the Senate was "Google for government," which creates an online, searchable database of federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.
In the California debate, Obama called for the negotiations on health care to take place on C-Span, in front of the American people. Clinton's record on trying to change the health care system involves secret meetings and closed doors, resulting in abject failure.
Another stark example can be found in the candidates' answers to a questionnaire by the Boston Globe. When asked who advises the campaign on legal issues, Obama gives a list of four very distinguished individuals. Clinton says, "I have a large and diverse group of advisers."
On the personal front, Obama has fully disclosed his financial information to the public, including his tax returns. Clinton refuses to do so until after she has won the nomination.
After seven years of the White House cloaked in secrecy, Obama's approach seems to me to be the only way to even begin to restore public trust in the government, and to encourage as much citizen involvement as possible. A Clinton presidency is once again a partisan one, the politics of the past.
That slogan, again, is "Yes, WE can."
So here's the wrapup on contrasting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in their quest for the Democratic nomination.
Part one was about health care. Part two was about immigration. This part is about leadership, and everything that entails.
What is the Presidency really about? What are we picking one of these people to actually do?
Obama said, when he announced his campaign, "This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change." And all along the campaign trail, he's asking people to jump right in with him.
Clinton said, "I'm not just starting a campaign, though, I'm beginning a conversation." She stayed with that message through New Hampshire, when she said, "I found my own voice." In debates and other statements, she has said, "I will solve your problems." But her actions and her rhetoric on the campaign trail tell a different story. She's making appearances of listening to people, while calibrating her behavior by poll numbers.
These two approaches show a fundamental difference. Obama sees the Presidency as an opportunity to bring people together to make this country what it ought to be, to give the government back to the people, to create solutions with the input of the people they will effect most. Clinton sees the Presidency as a stack of problems waiting to be solved by the right person.
Obama wants you to take some responsibility for the direction of the country. Clinton wants to do it all for you. Obama wants to ask you to roll up your sleeves right alongside him. Clinton wants you to trust the experts, namely, her, to make things happen.
Look at the way they've raised money in the last year. A full 75% of contributions for Clinton were from donors giving $1000 or more, and 50% of her donors have given the full $2300 allowed by law for the primaries. Only 14% of her contributions have been under $200. By contrast, Obama's contributions over $1000 make up 54% of his total, and only 33% of his donors are maxed out. Contributions under $200 make up 32% of the total.
Near the end of 2007, the 500,000th person donated to the Obama campaign. In January, more than 250,000 additional people donated.
That's the kind of leadership that I think this country needs after these seven long years. The kind of leadership that brings people in to a common cause, a common good, to go out and do rather than sit back and wait. The people have a stake.
More evidence of this contrast can be found in looking at the format of both campaign websites. Obama has a tab titled "People," where people in different identity groups can network and find information related to their specific concerns. Clinton has "Take Action," where you have to register in order to get any information at all.
For me, this comes down to trust: Obama trusts people to make their own decisions. Clinton does not; she wants to track every last detail and crunch all the numbers and go from there.
Then there's the question of admitting when you screwed up. I don't want a leader who is perfect in any way, and I especially don't want one who thinks they are. Clinton refuses to say that her vote to authorize the war in Iraq was a mistake. This is a mixture, I think, of being afraid of having it come back to her in the general election -- "She was wrong then, how can she be right now?" -- but also just plain hubris.
On the other hand, Obama is willing to say, "that was boneheaded," and move on. And, he wants people in his cabinet who will argue with him, who will say "no" to him, and challenge his ideas. This is a very collaborative style, which is much more suited to getting things done than an authoritarian style.
And lastly, there's Bill. For me, this is a minor point, but one worth making. The pattern in the campaign has been that when things start to look shaky, out comes the former President. What does this say about how a second Clinton administration would function?
To sum up. I would much rather a President who trusts the people to be involved in their government. I would much rather a President who inspires an entire nation to come together, rallying around the things that bind us together rather than those that divide us. I would much rather a President who sees possibilities and says, "Yes, WE can."
Part four, on transparency, can be found here.
This is the second in a series of three posts of my conclusions in contrasting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as candidates for President, this time looking at their approaches to immigration. The first on health care is here.
On paper, their plans for comprehensive immigration reform, and the value they place on it, are extremely similar. They both have rhetoric about "strengthening our borders," enforcing the law, requiring undocumented immigrants to pay fines and learn English, and cracking down on employers who exploit those who come here illegally to work.
The difference is in how they talk about the people that their policies might actually effect. In the debate in California the other night, I found the contrast to be stark. The question was about the effect of immigration on the African-American community in regards to unemployment and falling wages. Obama's first response was that scapegoating immigrants for the consequences of an economy out of balance, where the corporations and the rich have all the advantages, doesn't help anyone. He sees the way that immigration has been used as a wedge to divide people rather than treated as the serious, nuts and bolts issue that it is for the people at the very bottom of the economic scale, citizens and immigrants both.
Clinton, on the other hand, drove that wedge deeper, immediately going to a story from an African-American man who told her that he couldn't get construction jobs because they all went to illegals. She tried to broaden the point to the companies that exploit cheap labor, but the damage was done in affirming the divide between African-Americans and Latino immigrants, by saying that we have to "be honest" about job losses. She also emphasized her position that anyone who is here illegally has to be checked to see if they've committed a crime before given any path to citizenship -- which reads to me as "Look at me, I'm tough on crime!" rather than a practical part of what needs to be fixed in the immigration system.
[When I watched this the first time, I was bothered by her answer but couldn't put my finger on why. Rachel Maddow (on whom I have a HUGE girl-crush) hit the nail on the head on MSNBC -- here you have two communities who are hard-hit by the economy in this country. What a great place to drop a bomb, politically speaking!]
The difference here is that Obama sees the people in the issue, sees that it is the system that is failing individual people who work for a living by being vulnerable to exploitation by greed, where Clinton sees a series of talking points aimed at very specific demographics of people. He has a record of telling the African-American community the truth -- your problems are not the fault of illegal immigrants, and maybe looking for a scapegoat won't solve everything -- where Clinton exploits the divide between African-Americans and Latinos -- yes, as a matter of fact, the illegals are taking your jobs. She does it in a very subtle way that I find disturbing, carefully cloaked in language of laws and accountability.
So what does this mean for what either candidate would do as President on the issue of immigration reform?
In the end, of course, it comes down to how well they can work with the Congress to get specific legislation through. They both have a record of working with the other party on immigration reform, their proposals are similar, so what's the difference?
For me, it's knowing that Obama will have real faces, real lives, in the front of his mind at every turn, not just anonymous demographic groups, and that he welcomes those people into the process itself of making the needed changes. That kind of passion, and citizen involvement, is what really gets things done. Clinton understands the importance of reform in a more detached way, as a constituency issue, and takes the concerns of the corporations into much greater account than does Obama. For her, it's about business, and the bottom lines of statistics and talking points to trot out later.
Next up, leadership, which is really what I've been talking about all along.
I'm a political junkie. I read everything I can get my hands on, watch all the video I can find, argue out loud with the pundits on the television screen who try to tell people how to think about political issues, and I love every minute of it. So this will be a three part series on some conclusions that I've come to after the Democratic debate last night and the events of the past few weeks, on three major issues: healthcare, immigration, and leadership.
The differences between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are much starker than the media would allow us to think, in my view.
They both have some of the same ideas about what changes should be made in the government as it exists now, and what kinds of things people need in their every day lives. But their ways of going about making those changes and providing those services are fundamentally different. And it follows that the actual effect on people's lives of the changes that they might make are also fundamentally different.
Obama wants the people to be involved. He wants a transparent government, where elected officials are visibly accountable to their constituencies, where the government actually listens to the people it claims to serve and acts accordingly.
Clinton wants to solve everyone's problems singlehandedly. She feels that she knows best, that she can take care of the people, that with her in charge, the people shouldn't have to worry.
Obama believes in bottom-up government. Clinton believes in top-down.
Obama believes you should make your own choices about your health care coverage, for example, while Clinton believes that it should be against the law to not be covered. (And, I might add, she never has answered the question about what she would do about those who defy her mandate for health insurance, dodging it yet again last night.)
Obama is very pragmatic about it, looking at the reality of how people spend their money and how to help them get the coverage they need -- make it affordable and accessible, and people will buy it. Require coverage for children, allow parents to keep their children on their policies until age 25, and let adults decide for themselves what they need. Offer subsidies for people who still can't afford it, and work to get the premiums lower for everyone by increasing oversight, modernizing the system and improving preventive care.
Clinton wants to appear very practical, but her idea of a solution to premiums that are too expensive is to offer a tax credit. This is all well and good, except that you have to have the money up front to pay the premium in the first place -- most people won't be able to wait for their tax refund in April if they already can't afford the insurance. (This makes me wonder when the last time was that she had to balance her own checkbook, or if she knows what the price of milk might be.) Her plan also does not provide any checks on the insurance companies in determining the cost of premiums -- like Obama, she requires coverage regardless of illness or pre-existing condition, but only if you can pay the premium. Obama has a plan for more oversight, and says that premiums will not depend upon health status.
I look at the way my dad approaches his healthcare. He's now over sixty, a smoker, and has had a heart attack. He is an exercise junkie, riding his bike pretty much everywhere unless there's too much ice. He had catastrophic coverage, which took care of the bills for the heart attack, but once he turned sixty the premiums cost more than any other expense in his budget.
So instead of continuing coverage at exorbitant rates, he canceled it and is putting the money he was spending on premiums aside to pay for any care he might need. And when he goes to the doctor, he has very specific questions for them before he undergoes any treatment: how much will it cost?
The doctors can't tell him. They are so divorced from the nuts and bolts of the business of medicine because of the way the insurance companies operate, that they can't give him a straight answer about what a particular test will cost him. They outsource their billing and assume that you have insurance.
But when you go to the dentist, or the vet, they can tell you exactly how much you will pay for a procedure, usually pulling out a chart that has all the numbers listed, before they start doing anything. They're not dependent upon insurance companies dictating their prices.
Do I think that either Obama's or Clinton's plan for healthcare can fix this problem? No. But, I think Obama's plan comes a lot closer to getting people more involved in their own healthcare choices than Clinton's, simply because he's not trying to ram it down the people's collective throat, and he already has articulated a plan to better oversee the insurance companies that are the main part of the problem. He wants to give you options for your family that you can afford, not reimburse you later. Clinton doesn't want you to worry about these things, much like the insurance companies; she wants you to trust that she knows best for you.
Next up: immigration.
"it's gonna take every day people like me, like you, like everybody who is serious about what's going on in this country, to say, "Hey, look, I have a role to play in this" . . . to get to working. Roll up your sleeves and get to working. Help to destroy some of those stereotypes that divide us . . . I don't think there is a simple answer to the problems, but I think it's worth working for." ~~Josh Stroman
"it's gonna take every day people like me, like you, like everybody who is serious about what's going on in this country, to say, "Hey, look, I have a role to play in this" . . . to get to working. Roll up your sleeves and get to working. Help to destroy some of those stereotypes that divide us . . . I don't think there is a simple answer to the problems, but I think it's worth working for."
~~Josh Stroman
I often hear in conversations about politics, "I'm not sure if Obama has enough experience to take on the Presidency."
To me, it's not about experience, it's about grit. And this story, from the Washington Post, is exactly what I'm talking about:
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused. Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped. This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it. Obama had his work cut out for him. He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics." The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping. By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many. Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.
Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
He responded with an all-out campaign of cajolery. It had not been easy for a Harvard man to become a regular guy to his colleagues. Obama had managed to do so by playing basketball and poker with them and, most of all, by listening to their concerns. Even Republicans came to respect him. One Republican state senator, Kirk Dillard, has said that "Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics."
The police proved to be Obama's toughest opponent. Legislators tend to quail when cops say things like, "This means we won't be able to protect your children." The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.
By showing officers that he shared many of their concerns, even going so far as to help pass other legislation they wanted, he was able to quiet the fears of many.
Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
