I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but President Obama's health care reform as he and Democrats in the House have put forth will do little to reform health care in the U.S. Adding the costs of caring for an additional 50M Americans in a failing economy, with a historic budget deficit, and a market system that is flawed at its core would be a mistake of historic propostion. As a health care consultant and scientist with over 30 years experience in health care, I will explain why.
The primary authority by which the federal government should act to assure the availability of health care lies in public health and safety, and to this end, if our system is to be a free market system, then government must act to assure that consumers are able to freely participate and obtain quality and economically responsive care and options. Allowing politicians and scientists to oversee the government health institutions such as NIH, FDA, and Medicare, and leave them to go and work for the very companies they regulate, diminishes our free markets, competition, care options, and compromises safety and efficacy of the products they serve to approve for use in the U.S.
The predicament that Obama and Congress faces here is that government, by way of its many overseeing agencies has become the "enabler" of so many of the flawed practices and runaway costs we face today. Nearly every health care product and service sold in the U.S. today has a 300% to 2000% markup, and government led controls determine in large part the care and such we are permitted to receive. These compromises further extend to prestigious (non-profit) U.S. universities, non-profit organizations, and philanthropists who enjoy tax free benefits and unbridled opportunities in medical research, new product launches, and wealth at the expense of American tax dollars. If a university or entity is to be given tax exempt status, it should act first in the interests of the public good, not in quest of royalities on intellectual property.
I speak to the above having undertaked extensive scientific effort, advocacy, public policy, criminaql investigations, and law following a 1992 brain injury, where I was termed a pioneer and visionary, yet was "prohibited from receiving NIH and other tax dollars to pay the research and development cost of "solutions" and new treatments I put forward - for which industry and universities were unwilling to undertake. In acting in this manner - they failed to meet the greater public health need. There interests were purely motivated by capitalism and profit. I am working on a book covering my extraordinary efforts and experiences of undergoing 7 brain shunt surgeries over a 17 year period, incorrectly treated most all of those years.
The current manner in which care and options are often restricted in the U.S. also raises Constitutional issues of freedom and liberties to chose the course of care we are most comfortable with. The federal goverment and its contracting partners must do a better job in making more alternative care and treatment available and reimbursable thru insurance. Currently, wellness prevention, Eastern medicine, and care alternatives are not well reimbursed in the U.S.
In my expert view, the areas below is where Obama and the Democrats in Congress must start with reform. Once underway, and when the economy picks up, they can introduce coverage for the 50M uninsured Americans. In the interim, they could draft funding for low cost medi-gap policies for people out of work. My proposal will go a long way towards reducing costs, improving health and treatment outcomes, and spurring new consumer health opportunities. As you can see from my proposal, it's all about "free market control" and who has it: the marketplace or industry? Below, are a number of recommendations to reduce costs, improve care:
* Reverse the Medicare prescription drug clause on negotiating drug prices
** Pass legislation restricting and requiring full disclosure of payments made to physicians from medical manufacturers.
*** Pass legislation restricting re-employment of NIH, FDA, and similar agency scientist by medical companies.
**** Reform the qualifications and health activities by which non-profit entities act and do business, including, a new source of funding so organizations can undertake patient education and advocacy without the funding and control of industry as seen today
Then, form a sub-agency of NIH to enact the following:
1. Introduce new and immediate standards for electronic medical records (EMR), including, wireless consumer care and technology tools - these will strengthen the patient/physician relationship
2. Set standards and deadlines for the availability of new consumer patient monitoring tools
3. Set standards and a timetable requiring every American to become proficient in health education
4. Set weight and obesity limits on premium and low cost health policies, with financial incentives and options for those who maintain A-level practices and wellness prevention
5. Introduce standards for improved reimbursement of "alternatives care" treatments in illness and disease
6. Establish fiscal caps on end of life care, and offer incentives on alternative care
The above should be a centerpiece to any health care reform. I have not touched on family planning and funding of abortion, nor whether employer-based health benefits should be taxed. I will save these for later.
I regret to say that Obama and the Democrats are trying to tackle the most challenging policy and social issue in America, much more than illegal immigration or defense. Yet, understanding this, I believe will help in shaping policy on the other. If they move carefully and wisely, they may just succeed at health care reform.
Stephen
In the midst of this historic election, I can’t help but wonder whether an Obama presidency might represent a “finale” to the 60s movement that we never had. I mean, it has only been in recent years that the 1960s have been ramticized by youth and marketers eager to capitalize on its popularity. Obama's rise to the presidency is an American story brought about in large part by the revolution of thwe 1960s. But it wasn’t romantic by any stretch of the imagination. It wasn’t about selling hamburgers and cars in cool clothes. It was real. It was a difficult period in our history. We nearly had a nuclear war with Cuba and Russia. Kennedy was assassinated. There was the civil rights showdown on segregation in schools. The 1965 riots. Then a worsening Vietnam War and mandatory draft of young men, many going to their deaths for a war that had no direction and could not be won. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Robert Kennedy as well. Americans began to leave their churches, pareticularly, the Catholic church. Young people began resisting and demonstrating. Then there were the Kent State shootings of eight students by the Ohio National Guard. For a kid growing up in the 1960s, it was a lot to absorb.
By the mid-1970s, the Vietnam War, the 60’s activism, and Nixon presidency were over. The country seemed at a loss for direction. I was in college then. Our chief concern was in the nuclear arms buildup in trying to keep up with Russia. I recall numerous pieces in the news then how the world might end by 2008. I actually dropped out of pre-med in part because of a lack of confidence that I (and we in the U.S.) would not have a certain future. As it turns out, we did. But the manner in which it was done has become one of short sighted, weak leadership.
The country merely “moved on” from the 60s. We didn’t get it! It's like we took a “stupid pill” and forgot everything we had gone through between 1962 and 1974 - threw away our notes, and forgot to formalize conclusions that we could follow in years to come. As a result, the 70s were extraordinarily dismal economically and culturally. The leadership of both major political parties was “milk toast.” I mean, “disco” became the highlight of that critical period. That should tell you something. In 2008, we face history with the opportunity to elect a black President. Yet, some in this country who might oppose a black President for the color of his skin never "got it" from the 60s.
By the 1980s when Ronald Reagan took office, he brought a new and different course to economic and military progress. The country was amiss in problems in the Middle East and Russia. Reagan introduced trickle-down economics that sparked a new economic era, but it included cuts in needed government services and in exchange ushered in a new more accomodating view of U.S. corporate mergers and acquisitions, the real beginning of today’s deregulation that in my view led to the excesses that brought down our financial markets and economy in 2008. Despite economic prosperity in the 1980s, it was “politically incorrect” to bring up the 60s in reflection. Political candidates and business leaders frequently denounced their 60s involvement in order to become successful businessmen. Still others ended up on the street as Vietnam War Vets with PTSD and similar disorders. They and others became the illegitamate offspring of a difficult, revolutionary, and defining period in American history. Depending on who you asked, you would hear either good and bad views of this period.
By the mid to late 80s, the country had seen fairly widespread growth and prosperity, except for the forgotten war vets and increasingly crowded and poorer inner cities like Los Angeles and New York City, that had been left out of the economic expansion as companies took jobs and fled the inner cities in huge numbers for the suburbs and first wave of outsourcing with cheap foreign labor. At that time, no one figured there would be a sizable unrest just a few years later in the 1992 Los Angeles riots. We weren’t looking for it. We had Bruce Springtein, the very successful 1984 Olympics, the expansion of professional sports, the fall of the Berlin Wall, with Russia right behind it. But per the stresses released in the 1992 riots, there were siginificant pentup issues, and arguably abandonment. Also, by 1992 the U.S. and particularly California, was in the grips of a sizable recession.
Somehow - we got through the 1992 riots and that recession. And by the late 90s, we had the tech boom, NAFTA, and more outsourcing of jobs. It wasn’t real apparent, but there was a growing divide between the middle class. A lot of people lost money when the tech boom went bust, yet it gave us insight into new and creative funding of economic expansion, including, new and creative tools to fund the economy, particularly, “derivatives.” Real estate values soon began growing at a never before seen pace. Life in the U.S. between 2002 and 2006 was all about money, and how an average Joe Homeowner could pull from their home, like an ATM or slot machine. But with this period, was increasing homelessness and poverty, and failed opportunities to invest in our nation’s infrastructure and new technologies. We “jacked off the dogs to feed the cats” so recklessly, that when we woke up, we realized the dogs had died and much of everything else was starving. By 2007, an ugly handwriting was on the wall. But, Wall Street gurus responded with increasingly brazen attempts to spin and create money. Then came the news of Bear Stearns, and the 1st governemt bailout.
For too long as a nation, we have ingored the obvious, our people, our infrastructure, our sick and needy - and all in exchange for leveraged riches for just a few. And now our ways have caught up with us. But, I must correct myself here. I was NOT a part of this reckless economic expansion. Since 1992, I’ve been undergoing a series of brain surgeries to get a shunt to correctly relieve fluid pressure on my brain. During this period, my life, health, and recovery were blocked by Wall Street and FDA level failures and coverups of safety issues with a popular CNS shunt device. Yes - I was sold out for Wall Street riches - just like many of you. Brain shunts are big business. In order for me to have any hope for a future, I had to become a health advocate, FDA policy and law expert, a neuroscientist, an expert in artificial intelligence, and an inventor of a diagnostic shunt test. But no matter what I did, it was never good enough. On every occassion, I had to fight Wall Street influences. In fact, I directed my 2 most successful surgeries. But, it’s taken me 7 surgeries in all, including, my recent successful surgery in May of 2008 that finally relieved the swelling on my brain, albeit after 16 years. Why 16 years? It took that long to convince the powers that be on the right way to implant shunts, as well as numerous supportive scientive papers I had written. I nearly got my shunt of today implanted back in 1998. On that occassion, the FDA stopped me. Then, on numerous times since, each and every neurosurgeon I saw was somehow affiliated with a (Wall Street) shunt company, whose shunts all failed me. So - I am kind of like those in the inner city. Like those being drawn in or brought here illegally to work for cheaper wages than a residing American. I am an American, disenfranchised and deprived of life and liberty by today's Wall Street and its influences. Now, as much as half of the country has also been disenfranchised albeit by the same dishonest mechanism. Yes - in September/ October 2008, shit hit the fan in the U.S., and government and business leaders who had prided themselves on deregulation, low taxes, and outsourcing were brought to their knees - and in the balance, a nation waits, eager for any hope of new leadership. And, then came Senator Barrack Obama.
Yes - I had a vision today of what was, and what could again be. A proud and homogenious America, an accomplished nation. I saw Barrack Obama at the helm. I believe the excitement that so many see is that of an Obama presidency and the prospects that we might once again reconnect with our past, perhaps in a revolutionary type of way as I expect the change and resulting progress to be unharalded per any other era in our history. And we need this. We need this to help us better understand who we are as Americans, and the course we must plot in moving ahead. With the ascention of Barrack Obama as our favored next President, I couldn't think of a better "finale" and tribute to an era and movement I and others knew as the "60s."
So, with this critical election so close at hand, I again choose "us," just as I did in the 1960s.
All that fuss during the primary. All Bill and Hillary Clinton's rankering about the 18 million women supporters she brought into the primary - is now being used to aid Sarah Palin and the McCain/Palin GOP ticket. No, it wasn't just Hillary's 3am add about her supposed foreign policy experience that then hurt Barrack Obama. She caused the American voter to re-think what Presidential experience is, and what it is NOT. She spoke of how critical it is to have women serving in high office.
There is no doubt Hillary "opened the door" for Sarah Palin and the GOP, again. Palin, who could well become the President in that McCain's health and age are in question, is no Hillary. The only thing they have in common is gender and big oil. But Palin is a radical religious right loyalist, hand picked by Carl Rove. She's more right than George Bush. The only change she would bring is further to the right! The American people are getting waxed by the Rove machine!
So - where is Hillary? Where are her communications with the 18 million women she claimed were democrats in the primary? Her SILENCE is remarkable. It raises serious questions about her loyalty to the party and future in the Senate.
Wake up New York. Your Senator is about to hand the GOP the 2008 election!
As if we didn't see too much of him these last 8 years as the master of sleeze-spin for the Bush White House, and their evil agenda.
I've read at least one report claiming Carl Rove is very involved with Sarah Palin. Does anyone know just how involved Rove is with Palin and the McCain/Palin ticket. If voters knew the extent of this, and that radical wing of the republican party's involvement, I doubt they would support McCain/Palin no matter how CUTE she looks and sounds as the fresh face from Alaska.
Like we used to do in soccer, you assign people who's sole role is to stick to a specific player like GLUE. It makes it a lot more difficult for that person to cause a raukus. "Casper the friendly ghost," as I refer to him, is ONE EVIL MAN. He weilds more power in the lives of republicans than God! In fact, I think he believes he is God!
This 2008 election is all about where we believe the U.S. should be in the 21st Century. Do we want to prosper into the 21st Century using the best of what we know of science & technology? Or do we want to cower down and be sentimental of what we knew of the 20th Century and fall back on guns & religion? Do we move forward, or backwards?
Which will best move us forward: "science & technology," or "guns & religion?"
Substance or story?
Matters of science, technology, and related economic growth favor the democrat philosophy and Senator Obama, and he should attack McCain/Palin on this clear weakness. McCain/Palin are handicapped on science and technology progress by virtue of their religious beliefs.
Matters of science and technology are very critical in the 2008 election, probably more than in any election in history. Sure, small town people who value guns and religion don't understand science and technology, but they must know how critical it is to survival in the 21st centure. It is the religious right views held by republicans, particularly that of "creationism v. evolution (science), and life," and the roles that humans and the planet are thought to play in the big picture, that handicap the republicans in foreign policy and domestic progress on matters involving science and technology. The religious right time and again continues to discount science and the planet, and want us to place their beliefs front and center to determine broader policy. It is down right scarry, if not incompetence and a failure of one's duty to lead! Fairy tales are not policy!Discussions on energy and science are leading this 2008 election, with energy emerging as the No. 1 issue, and doubling as economic and adverse environmental impact. Health care is next as it relates to R&D, costs, and efficacy of care and treatment - again about science. Thirdly, it is our advances in technology today that drive much of our economy. I believe all three science sectors favor the Obama/Biden platform and should be excellent theatre debate! We must also demand more scientifically accurate discussion of science topics in debate and coverage. Such debate should favor Senator Obama over McCain due to his more recent schooling, whereas the GOP VP Palin's younger age and environmental interests could balance out any McCain objections. Note I only include the environmental sciences as it relates to energy, as many still challenge the reports, and it is best to avoid having a "debate within a debate." Clearly, the pinacle of all science debates is that of creationism v evolution. And based upon the GOP's vice-presidential pick of Governor Palin as a creationist, the GOP would likely try to kill discussion on this topic. But as voters, we cannot give McCain/Palin a free pass on a sciences debate. Obama should engage the GOP. The creationists view is a liability as to embracing 21st century economic development fueled by new products and discoveries in the field of science. Truly science's best marketing will come by way of featuring new products and discoveries. Television ads and programming could play a major role in the campaign, and later in promoting new science discoveries, as it did in the late 1950's, when then actor Ronald Reagan hosted "GE Theatre." As a voter and scientist, I am offended when a candidate is unable to grasp key science concepts and data when discussing a key science or technology issue. We should DEMAND more factual coverage of science topics when they impact a candidates understanding of such things as energy, health policy, military perogatives, economic growth, and so on.
Hey all:
I stumbled upon this pretty well done and funny YouTube video of farm animals speaking out in support of Senator Obama for President.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-zCyTnLyaE
If you want to know what type of support the Clintons will extend to the Obama/Biden ticket, you ought to be looking into where her money has been coming from. There were reports last year that many of the same organizations that had poured money into the McCain race also were contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. It should come as no surprise that the two ganged up on Obama in the primary, and are doing it again in the general election.
With the convention ready to start, perhaps some fresh news pieces on her sources of money and connection to John McCain might cause her supporters to re-think their support of her. Elected office is supposed to be "public service," not "self service!"
Here's the link to my discussion following Obama's clinching the nomination:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stevadore/gGBy5v
I see this 2008 presidential election race shaping up as the "Little Known Black Man v the Old Has-been White Man," and I don't like it. Things are tough and are going to get worse by Fall. It's not that I don't have confidence in Senator Obama, I don't have confidence in my fellow "white American's" to demand real transformation to bring our country and many of its policies into the 21st Century, and then go into a voting both and hand this over to a black man. Remember how when you unplug a device and reconnect it, it goes back to its "default" setting. Well, "white male" is the default setting. Folks - we need a person to come in and be the difference-maker! Who do ya think it's going to be? Colin Powell? Bill Clinton? Al Gore?
No matter what Senator Obama says or does of late, his praise is muted by the roar of cynicism and status quo from the far right. But, it's not only in matters regarding Obama. I'm disgusted over the obvious SPIN and COWARDICE in examining the run up in oil prices and how many said it came about due to excessive market option trades and expert projections of mid 08 $150 a barrel oil, and how all the experts conveened in Chicago and Washington, and some while others played dumb. Then, SEC Commissioner Cox reigns in this week on "naked option trades" just in time to save a series of major banks from failing - but, that's always been illegal. Why is it only being enforced now? Kind of like illegal immigration that's not illegal yet cause it makes money? Folks - I tell ya, we need to break out the "whoopin stick." I mean, there are a slew of political and business leaders in this country that are in need of an old-fashioned "ass whoopin," like mom or dad used to give when you were a kid and really stepped out of line. It's as simple as that!
Senator Obama or any other sole democrat will not be able to win this Nov election on the merits. The SPIN and distrust runs too deep. Senator Obama was correct in many respect when he alluded to many in the country cling to guns and religion. Another way of looking at ut is - DENIAL. In fact, I believe what is ailing much of our economy and nation is "denial" and "failed credibility." More than ever, we need to put our thinking caps on and look for a real difference-maker. We saw Bush become the "default selection" in 2004. Let's don't repeat that mistake.
Senator Obama has attracted the nation's attention to the need for CHANGE. But what type of CHANGE is needed, and how best to implement that CHANGE. The following in one analyst's view.
This type of change is a long time in coming, and it won't be easy. But now that the Senator has the nation's attention, we've passed the first step. The next step is in identify the areas most in need of change, and these are HEALTH, BUSINESS LEADERSHIP, and FAMILY.
HEALTH: Perhaps 50 percent of the nation is overweight. Another 25 to 30 percent are facing mental health challenges as a result of drug and alcohol abuse. Almost 25 percent of the population is over the age of 50 and will be facing more serious age related health concerns, with many uninsured or underinsured. A healthy nation can withstand the challenges of change.
BUSINESS LEADERSHIP: Many of America's business leaders have become visionaries in innovation and job creation, while almost an equal number have become innovators in exploiting financial opportunities over business ethics and adherence to U.S. laws and practices. We must better define 21st century business leaders and how they who will guide sustained technological growth and prosperity, not merely short term schemes. There needs to be open dialogue on standards of practice and how new economic growth can best be achieved, with more coordination of targeted policy from Washington.
FAMILY: The break down of the American family over the last 30 years has driven a wedge right into the heart of this great nation. The data on children in the inner cities growing up amid violent crime, drug abuse, and later ending up in prisons is astronomical. Even children of middle class families have not been spared from the fallout of broken homes, failed education, and drugs. We must tackle these issues head on. Children of today are our leaders of tomorrow, or they can become our liabilities. We need new leadership and vision in tackling the issues facing our youth. It's not about programs, it's about committing to goals and ideas.
CHANGE occurs from the inside and spreads outward. It is also contagious, like WINNING. The reasons why the U.S. has struggled in the above 3 areas is that we were trying to do it from the outside, moving in. CHANGE can't be mandated, it can't be bought. It must be WILLED. We must want it!
I purposefully excluded FOREIGN POLICY from the above priorities, because of the overemphasis of some in this country on forcing our will on others. PEACE, as it has been described by many in the concervative sector of this country, is an ILLUSION. You can't WILL peace on others. They must WANT IT. What happens in Iraq is the collective WILL of the people living there. Period! As a nation, there is only so much we can control as to the decisions of others on foreign land. But - we can lead by EXAMPLE, and by our strength in our resolve to our VALUES and where possible aid others in achieving the same.
We must also FIGHT for the weak, for those who cannot defend themselves, as it is our responsibility in LEADERSHIP, standing up for VALUES, where others can follow, that others can depend on. We must also work to maintain open DIALOGUE as best we can amid difficult times.
In Obama's consideration of his selection for Vice President, among the prospects discussed were retired military commanders, including, Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. Obama must not only select a solid VP, but he needs to bring in a military person in a key position to go toe to toe with John McCain on foreign policy and terrorism, as well as he must find a way to reach the blue collar male voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. And, he must figure out a STRATEGY where he can not only APPEASE the CLINTONS, but UTILIZE them to his political benefit.
Obama is already gaining good numbers on the economy, and I believe his VP selection strategy must focus on the war and terrorism and his selecting a respected military/foreign policy mind. Perhaps someone like Jim Webb of Virgina, who might also help Obama with the blue collar vote. With Senator Edward Kennedy's failing health and age limiting his role as the senior spokesperson in the Senate, Hillary Clinton's new found popularity makes her a shoe-in to take over the leadership of the Senate. She needs Obama to gratefully give her the floor at the right time at the convention, a promise from Kennedy and a few others, and she's set. I believe this would make her very happy as leader of the Senate, though she'll also ask Obama to agree in principal how he would work with her as President. I think Hillary looks taken care of.
Bill Clinton is a different story. I think he and Obama BOTH need to appologize to each other for things that were said in the primary, even though most would agree it was more Bill Clinton's doing. But, Bill is the senior of the two by age and tenure, and Obama should give him this. Next, I think what would make Bill happy, as well as Obama, is if Bill could speak and work within the party (and possibly his campaign) on domestic, states, and economic issues. Bill Clinton has a lot of skill in state matters and governments, and between this, the economy, and kind appothetic words from Obama, I believe Bill Clinton could become very happy. But - Clinton must understand it is Obama's turn at the wheel! Not easy for Bill, but with Hillary happy in the Senate, it increases the prospects Bill could be made happy too. I actually see Bill Clinton helping Obama more in the 2008 general election than Hillary, as he still is the "brand," where Hillary is more an unproven brand, and more the image or brand for the new "woman" in politics. Bill can help heal the chasm in the white working male vote I think more than Hillary, and it won't look like either are kissing ..., and Hillary keep her promise to women, and albeit thru husband Bill and Obama.
That's my proposal. How many of you think it holds water?
Stephen Dolle, California, Former life long Republican
We have seen the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley act on financial analysts who appear on television programs like CNBC. When a guest speaker or analyst might have any kind of relationship on the matter to which they are speaking, we the viewers (and host) are informed and I'm sure you've noticed as I have - there's a lot less SPIN on financial reporting. Needless to say, such disclosures did not deter the onset of one of the worse recessions in recent memory. However, just imagine how much WORSE it could have been w/o this disclosure. It added much needed transparency and boosted the checks and balances averting a disaster.
To Senator Obama, I am proposing that YOU initiate a new VOLUNTARY REPORTING PRACTICE whereby all of your advisors, surrogates, analysts, and the like, when speaking on camera or to the media of any kind (just like financial analyst), that you require that each disclose all of their relationships with you, industry, and any organization of relevance to the matter on which they are speaking. This VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE would also extend to broadcast anchors, reporters, columnists, and analysts,
The IMPACT of this disclosure on Senator Obama and 2008 Election. This DISCLOSURE would help to stregthen public trust in our political system, that in recent years and as Senator Obama has spoken about, has crippled our leadership in Washintgton. What a great rallying story for Senator Obama to take the initiative on a matter so important to the leadership of our nation. I believe this DISCLOSURE practice would also favor Senator Obama's candidacy over Senator McCain, who's campaign is reported to be riddled with conflicts thru lobbyist and legislation, but where few Americans have paid attention. We've become NUMB to the lies and SPIN. But no more. From here on out, SPIN and DECEIT will be substantially reduced!
Below, are links to financial disclosure and Sarbanes Oxley:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=891003
http://www.soxlaw.com/
Change we can believe in.
Former Vice-President and 2000 democratic candidate for president, Al Gore, spoke to the democratic party and nation in Detroit today in lead up to his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President, and perhaps for the first time since his contested loss in Florida in 2000, he spoke up about the important responsibilities voters have in assuring the future of America - which tragicly alluded us eight years ago and for which we have paid a steep price since.
Al Gore, the President that "never was," delivered the speech of his political career. Gore looked more presidential than he had ever looked over his entire political career. And his statesmanship on behalf of the democratic party, and the nation, dwarfed any speeches delivered by former President Bill Clinton in the years since his impeachment proceedings and his leaving office.
Gore's uplifting and uniting speech also comes at a time following months of Obama trashing and splitting of the party by former first-lady and democratic candidate for President, Hilary Clinton. Gore's emergence and speaking out on behalf of the party is a welcomed breath of fresh air!
Thank you Al Gore.
I hate to be the bearer of "bad news," but the democratic primary is far from over. Read between Hillary Clinton (and Bill) statements. She's not going away. Just a week ago, she was suggesting he could be assassinated. Now, she's suggesting that if Barrack Obama chose her as his vice presidential candidate, that she'd be willing to go along "in the interest of the party."
In reality, there probably aren't two more different people in the entire democratic party than Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, and at its core, the differences are a matter of political philosophy rather than party philosophy. Clinton represents the old say and do whatever it takes hard sell to get elected philosophy. Obama represents the new intellectual, more transparent, soft sell, team player philosophy. I liken trying to mix these two philosophical styles to that of trying to mix water and oil. It just isn't going to happen. AND - Hillary Clinton is not going to go away. It's not in she nor her husband's character to think more of the greater good of the party. Lest us not forget, the former president Clinton referred to Obama's candidacy as a "fairy tale."
Where do we go from here? Hillary needs to be KO'd. That's the only way she's going to leave, on a stretcher! And the man who could deliver that knock out punch is AL GORE, the man who has been quietly looming in the shadows for nearly 8 years, knowing, that some day he may have to FORMALLY speak out about the Clintons and the harm they brought to the White House and party.
If this gets as ugly as I think it could get, you better break out the prozak and a team of psychologists and political experts. We're in for a SHOW!
Have you noticed the wide use of the propaganda, "You can agree or disagree with my or Bush's decision to ...." go to war, condemn Scott McClellan and Richard Clark for disloyalty to the administration, pardon Scooter Libby, etc. by Bush White House surrogates? Yesturday, Tony Blair used it multiple times when asked about going to war in Iraq, and he kept trying to simplify his answer down to, either you "agree or disagree with the decision." Not that "if and why" it was the right policy, rather, if you agree with his decision. When the state tries someone for murder, they don't ask the jury if you agree or disagree with the defendant's decision. They ask if he/she did it!
Today, White House propaganda and politics are mirroring movies. In the movie, "Get Shorty," the lead character, Chili Palmer, played by John Travolta repeatedly and manulatively inserts the phrase "look at me, no, I mean really look at me" when he is speaking to them. It allows him to control the conversation and questioning. However, by the end of the movie it's gotten so overused that the character Harry Zimm, played by Gene Hackman, gets beat up for saying it.
Wait until rich politician's kids get caught running around and in trouble. I can see these kids using this reasoning on their bonehead parents: "You mean you disagree with my decision (to get in trouble)? Then, OK, I can respect that. But, you have to respect me. Then, we can agree to disagree. And if you're upset, I'm sorry that you feel this way!" I mean, what a crock of sttt! If that was my kid saying that, the fire department would have to extract his body from the wall!Hopefully soon - we'll see a surrogate get hammered for asserting this "agree or disagree with the decision" phase. Heck, I'll even call the fire department!
New spin on what to do with Florida primary votes for Hilary. Fairy tale defenses from Bush & Co. on Scott McClellan. Sniper fire. Possible assinations. White workers. Oil at $135 a barrel Iraq War is positive step for the U.S. Where's the "propaganda" going to end? And who started it?
I believe you have to place our current "propaganda climate" at the feet of former President, Bill Clinton. Prior to Clinton, the slightest bit of propaganda was out of Nixon, and it didn't last long.
When Clinton took office in 1993, he began to routinely use the news to put a favorable spin on everything he was doing, rather than just let things be reported. This infuriated Republicans who then used it to take back the House in 1994, and throughout the 1990s, Bill Clinton and his spin or better termed "propaganda machine," was frequently seen polling and putting a spin to news and developments in the country. By 1999, when the Monica Lewinski scandal broke, he was on TV redefining "sex," refusing to resign in the face of a clear breach of his oath of office. Clinton's propaganda all along was being studied and preped for Bush's presidency.
We have seen striking similarities in Bush's war, unusual powers, FCC, judicial, religious, and energy propaganda to that of Clinton's out right lies and spin. Now, Chavez and Armanadinajad's propaganda follows that of Clinton and Bush, with other world leaders obstaining.
Now we have Clinton III (Hillary) and Bush III (McCain), and the propaganda being turned up. I will anxiously await to SEE how LONG this spin will last. The American people have come to know better.
This was a question and thread I authored on the "Physics Forum" in September of 2005, just weeks after the Bush White House's horrendous response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. I pose it here today because I believe through this symbolic perspective on where the two major political parties had been for some 15 years, it helps us "move on" with the kind of change needed today - and one that Barack Obama clearly has brought to bear.
In September 2005, Bill Clinton still stood for the successful image of the Democratic party in the 1990's, something to emulate, and George W. Bush represented the image of a successful Republican leader. The Democratic party had no new front runner, though rumors were tossed about as to Hillary Clinton being the party successor. At that time, Al Gore had yet to return to popularity with his movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth." And it was also right before the country began seriously questioning Bush on the war, and around the time music artist Neil Young introduced his big anti-war song. The country and parties were lost and clinging to the past in what they only knew: "sex and oil."
Bill Clinton stood for anything and all things related to "sex" and people, whereas, George Bush stood for all things related to "oil." But, today in late May 2008, everything has changed. What we thought to be true then, as for party leaders to emulate, has been proven false, and new leadership has arisen. The leadership of Senator Barack Obama.
I believe our country and party needs to move forward and away from the old and failed leadership of the Clintons and Bush's. So, What'll you have, sex or oil? Or a tripple serving of better times and new leadership through Barack Obama?
Below, is my original discussion from back in September 2005.
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-90991.html
