Here's an article from Sunday's Chicago Tribune that got my blood boiling:
By Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger
Tribune Newspapers
August 24, 2009
WASHINGTON
-- Demonized by Democrats and ostensibly threatened with more government regulation, medical insurance executives have lobbied so successfully in Washington and the home districts of key lawmakers that they are poised to reap a financial windfall from the health-care overhaul."It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, who tracks reform legislation as president of consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates.Some insurance company leaders profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Barack Obama's massive health-care initiative and point to concessions granted. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boils down to one word: "Hallelujah!" Like major drug companies and other health-care stakeholders, the insurers lobbied early and hard for concessions from Democrats eager to pass landmark legislation that would provide medical coverage for all citizens.The half-dozen leading proposals in Congress would require all citizens to have health insurance, guaranteeing insurers tens of millions of new customers, many of whom would get government subsidies to help pay the companies' premiums. At the same time, these proposals would limit government's potential role as competitor and regulator."The insurers are going to do quite well," said Linda Blumberg, a health policy analyst at the non-partisan Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank. "They are going to have this very stable pool, they're going to have people getting subsidies to help them buy coverage and ... they will be paid the full costs of the benefits that they provide, plus their administrative costs."UnitedHealth Group, the top U.S. insurer by sales, last month reported that revenue grew to $21.7 billion in the three months ended in June, compared with $20.3 billion from the year-ago period.One of the Democratic proposals that most concerned insurers was creation of a "public option" government-sponsored insurance plan. The industry launched a campaign on Capitol Hill, distributing arguments opposing the government option that often were grounded in a study published by The Lewin Group, a health policy consulting firm owned by UnitedHealth.Opposition ramped up this month when the idea was attacked by critics at town hall meetings hosted by members of Congress who were home for the August recess. The attacks, supplemented by conservative critics on talk radio and other forums, drew national attention.Leading insurers, including UnitedHealth, sent e-mails to their tens of thousands of employees around the country this summer, urging them to speak out.Company "advocacy hot line" operations and sample letters and statements were made available. Some insurers supplemented the effort with local advertising, often designed to put pressure on specific members of Congress. Undermining support for the public option wasn't the insurance lobbyists' only score this summer.In May, the Senate Finance Committee discussed requiring that insurers reimburse at least 76 percent of policyholders' medical costs under their most affordable plans. Now, the committee is considering setting that rate as low as 65 percent, meaning insurers would be required to cover just two-thirds of patients' health-care bills. Today, most group health plans cover at least 80 percent of a policyholder's medical bills, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service. Industry officials say that the change is necessary for insurers to provide flexible, affordable insurance plans."It is vital that individuals, families and small-business owners have the flexibility to choose an affordable coverage option that best meets their needs," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry's Washington-based lobbying arm.Consumer advocates see it differently, arguing that requiring individuals to pay substantially more places an unfair financial burden on seriously ill patients and their families while also departing from the current industry standard."These are a bad deal for consumers," said J. Robert Hunter, a former Texas insurance commissioner. Consumer and labor advocates acknowledge the industry's recent success and attribute much of it to lobbying. In the first half of 2009, the health service and HMO sector spent nearly $35 million lobbying Congress, the White House and federal health-care offices, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics."They have beaten us six ways to Sunday," said Gerald Shea of the AFL-CIO. "Any time we want to make a small change to provide cost relief, they find a way to make it more profitable."
www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-mon-insurers-0824-aug24,0,3544795.story
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
On August 19th, I sent out an email summarizing Congresswoman Melissa Bean's tele-town hall. One of the recipients posted it in full on Daily Kos, and there have been some interesting comments (many quite positive). My summary was also quoted on the Progress Illinois blog.
Bean said she could support a plan with a public option or without one, as long as a public plan doesn't have an unfair advantage over private insurance companies. Bean added the proposed public option would be a non-for-profit organization paid by premiums, and would have to stand on its own without government help.
Following is an email I sent to friends in the health care reform movement on Wednesday, August 19, 2009:
My wife and I received an automated call tonight inviting us to participate in Congresswoman Melissa Bean's tele-town hall, so we joined in. Based on the questions asked, it appeared that we were selected randomly. The entire town hall (about 30 minutes) was about health care reform. We were very pleased by what we heard.
The first caller asked how we were going to reduce the deficit by cutting costs rather than by raising taxes, saying his taxes are already too high. Melissa talked about her efforts to reduce costs and impose fiscal responsibility (such as restoring "pay-go" budget rules, which she pointed out had been in effect during the Clinton Administration but not during the Bush Administration). Then, she volunteered that if we don't get health care costs under control, they will take an unconscionable share of our GDP and destroy any chance of balancing the budget. She said we shouldn't be so concerned about "transition costs" that we lose sight of the big picture.
Another caller asked whether the public option would destroy insurance companies because it would have the unfair advantage of the power of the Federal government. Melissa welcomed the question and said that the bills that are now pending would create a "level playing field." She also cited the CBO study predicting that most people would still opt for private insurance coverage. She emphasized that people should have a choice of which entity they trust to provide their health insurance.
Someone asked whether individuals really would still be able to keep their current plan if they like it, asking whether employers wouldn't still have control. Melissa explained how the health insurance exchange would work and that individuals could get the benefit of large group rates, so they could choose to keep their current coverage even if their employer chose the public option. She also said that employers would pay a penalty if they dropped coverage, mentioning that the threshold for small businesses to be penalized had been increased (at least in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill) had been increased from $100,000 annual payroll to $500,000.
A caller asked about the viability of coops as an alternative to the public option. Melissa said that "some people" in recent days have been talking as if coops would eliminate the need for a public option, but that this was based on a misunderstanding. She said that states could opt to create coops, but that individuals or businesses could still choose the national public option. She emphasized the importance of giving people choices.
Melissa stressed the need for portability. She mentioned the elimination of pre-existing conditions and said that people should not be forced to stay in a job because someone in their family has a pre-existing condition and can't get insurance if they leave the group.
She said that everyone should have to pay something so that they would have a stake in keeping costs down. She gave an example that even a poor person who is subsidized might pay "$3 or $5, if that's all they can afford to pay." [I was particularly pleased by this statement, since it's realistic about what people really can pay.] She said that, if people choose a name brand drug over a generic, they should pay a little more.
At two junctures, she asked people to vote by pushing buttons. Questions included whether people had insurance; whether they were insured through their employer, individually, or by the government (Medicare, Medicaid, and VA); and whether people were "moderately concerned" or "very concerned" about the increase in premiums. She also asked whether people preferred to have their health insurance provided by a for-profit company, a not-for-profit, or by a public option.
The entire experience was very encouraging. Melissa spoke very well about the need for reform and explained how Democrats in Congress are going about it, in a very supportive way. (Republicans weren't mentioned.) There was nothing in the call that was negative or disturbing. There was no bashing of the pending bills; to the contrary, Melissa defended and spoke positively about the bills that are now in the House. Her discussion of the public option was the most positive I've ever heard from her.
We should be very encouraged. Let's treat Melissa Bean as a supporter of health care reform, and watch to see if she continues to move in the right direction.
P.S. Anyone who thinks Members of Congress should face constituents in live town halls should reconsider. This was a much more substantive, calm, and informative forum than the freak shows we've been seeing on TV. The callers spanned a wide range of viewpoints, but all were civil and Melissa was able to make her points without being shouted down. At least for now, this is a better forum for real communication.
Many of my friends know that I've been working on the fight for health insurance reform, so they often ask me questions about the subject. It's a complex subject that doesn't lend itself to simple answers, but you don't need to be a health care expert to gain a basic understanding of the debate.
If you want a quick overview, here are four good sources:
1. The Chicago Tribune had two excellent articles on July 26th. The first article compares the Senate and House bills in a fair and unbiased way. The second article describes the public option fairly, and states frankly that the Republicans' characterization ("socialized medicine") is wrong.
2. The three House of Representatives committees that have jointly approved H.R. 3200 have a fact sheet titled “What’s in the Health Care Reform Bill for You?”
3. The White House website includes an analysis of “How Health Insurance Reform Will Benefit Illinois.” (If you live in another state, change the state name in the URL.)
4. The House Education and Commerce Committee published a fact sheet showing how the bill would benefit my Congressional district. In one page, it makes the benefits of the bill clear. (There are similar fact sheets for other Congressional districts; change “IL8.Bean” in the URL to your state, district, and Representative’s name.)
If you have time and inclination to learn more, here are some more in-depth sources:
5. Timothy Noah, a very good journalist, has published an "online guide to following the health care debate" that gives links to many other good sites.
6. On the websites of the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, you can read the actual House bill or various shorter papers explaining it.
7. The right-wingers and the health insurance companies (and the phony “grass roots” groups and media outlets they control) have put out a lot of dishonest propaganda. Factcheck.org, a project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center, does a good job of dispelling lies about health insurance reform. My only criticism is that they treat legitimate disagreements (like what percentage of the uninsured will be covered under a particular bill) like outright lies (such as the claim that senior citizens will be euthanized).
8. Finally, the White House health insurance reform website includes a rebuttal of some of the misinformation that opponents are spreading.
Let me know if you have any questions or know any other good sources of information.
For year, I’ve been a liberal Democrat in a conservative area. Some of the arguments for health care reform that work in liberal areas don’t work well in trying to persuade undecided voters. You’re never going to convince hard-liners, but you can tell moderate voters why they should support health care reform.
Don't bash the profit motive. It makes moderate voters think we're really socialists. A lot of good things have come from people trying to make a profit, like Apple computers, Patagonia clothing, and the Toyota Prius. The profit motive can be harnessed to good ends, like paying medical groups more if they keep patients healthy. When we talk about how much money the health insurance companies make, moderates are turned off because they believe making money means you’re doing something right.
Don’t talk too much about the uninsured. Most people who have health insurance don’t know uninsured people, and they may think uninsured people did something wrong. They don’t want to risk what they have to help those who don’t.
Don't reject arguments for personal responsibility. Many generous, caring people are offended by others who bring problems on themselves. For example, I spoke with a labor and delivery nurse at a Chicago hospital that serves mostly Public Aid patients who is offended by patients who game the system. President Obama has spoken often about the need for personal responsibility. People should be expected to get annual checkups and stop smoking. But they shouldn't be deprived of health insurance because they make bad choices.
Talk about how real health care reform will save us far more money in the long term than it will cost in the short term. The President's first principle was to reduce the spiraling cost of health care. That's something moderates support.
Focus on choice. President Obama says constantly that if you like your current insurance, you can keep it. That’s important to people, especially since there’s been a lot of propaganda about government control of health care. Moderates like choice.
Don’t say that you really prefer a single-payer system. That just makes moderates think the public option is a step toward eliminating the health insurance companies and replacing them with a government-run system. President Obama makes clear that he expects the public option to compete with private insurance, not to replace it. That’s important to moderates.
Talk about how health care reform will help small businesses. Many small businesses that want to offer their employees health insurance can’t afford it, and many that do will drop coverage if costs keep rising. H.R. 3200 will help small businesses provide insurance for their employees. The health insurance companies haven’t even suggested any way to help small business.
President Obama said many times during the campaign that every American should be able to buy health insurance as good as members of Congress get. This is a way to get people to understand what "public option" means. It also reminds people that the Federal government is already in the health insurance business. And it's hard for any Representative or Senator to argue that you shouldn't be able to buy the same insurance he or she gets.
At his July 23rd press conference, President Obama said:
“if somebody told you that there is a plan out there that is guaranteed to double your health care costs over the next 10 years, that's guaranteed to result in more Americans losing their health care, and that is by far the biggest contributor to our federal deficit. I think most people would be opposed to that. Well, that's the status quo. That's what we have right now.”
That’s a very effective argument.
A moderate conservative friend remarked that the left "goes nuts" whenever President Obama does something we don't agree with. I said that people should ignore the extremists on both sides; the far left doesn't represent my views any more than Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly represents his. Most thoughtful people, whether they're liberal or conservative, believe the Obama administration is doing what it has to do to deal with our extraordinary economic problems, and that actions like disavowing torture and talking with our enemies will make us safer than the failed policies of the Bush administration.
But my friend has a point. When President Obama does something that's not in accordance with the left-wing gospel -- whether it's deciding not to release torture photos or not ending the "don't ask, don't tell" policy immediately -- liberal pundits and bloggers react like they've been betrayed. This is the same fratricidal bloodletting that has characterized the right wing. If a Republican disagreed on any issue, he was condemned as an infidel and cast out of the party. John McCain wasn’t conservative enough for the true believers, and they almost lynched Charlie Crist for supporting the bailout earlier this year.
That our opponents do it is not a reason for us to emulate their style (which has made the Republican party less popular that is has been in 50 years). Let’s recognize that Barack Obama believes in the principles we do, that he’s the best person we could possibly have elected, and that he got elected (despite overwhelming odds) because of his ability to connect with people who aren’t already liberals or even Democrats. He is the smartest person, both in pure intellectual ability and in people skills, any of us has ever known. If he does something that doesn’t automatically seem right to us, let’s stop and think about why he’s doing it rather than reflexively condemning it.
Too many people think that both parties act the same way, and too often they’re right. Let’s show them we’re different. Accept the fact that every decision won’t be what you think it should be, and don’t “go nuts” when that happens. It’s OK to say you disagree with the President, but don’t act like you have all the answers. If you think CIA agents who waterboarded should be prosecuted, acknowledge that most Americans disagree with you and that prosecutions that end in acquittals would give the right wing another excuse to justify torture. If you support a single-payer health care system, recognize that Dennis Kucinich (the only Presidential candidate who supported single payer) never came close to winning even one primary or caucus. You may feel that this is because the right wing and the health care industry have lied to people, but it’s a fact the President has to deal with.
President Obama is connecting with moderate, independent voters. He's making them reconsider what they think about Democrats and Republicans, and about the role of government and the private sector. One reason he's succeeding is that he's considering all points of view, and he's not afraid to agree with conservatives when they're right. We couldn't ask for a better contrast with Dick Cheney, who refuses to give Obama credit or take the blame for anything. People are responding -- Obama is wildly popular, and Cheney is less popular than ever.
President Obama has brought a thoughtful, intelligent, articulate, and civil style back into our politics. He’s rejected the extremism, the personal attacks, and the sound-bite manipulation that have characterized modern politics. Let’s follow his example, not that of Limbaugh, O’Reillly and Ann Coulter.
When he announced his candidacy, Barack Obama said he wanted to change politics. He’s doing it. Let’s help him make that change.
Appropriations Committee: Health/Education On the Appropriations Committee, where he is one seat away from becoming Chairman with a change in Senate control, he led the fight to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health from $12 to $30 billion to expand medical research to find cures for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other maladies. He has supported expanding health care for seniors and children and has proposed legislation to cover the almost fifty million Americans who do not have health insurance.
I've been so proud of President Obama in the 5 weeks since he took office. He's tackled the toughest problems of our time -- the banking crisis, the economic stimulus bill, torture, Guantanamo, and others. He's done it with intelligence, integrity, good humor, and a sure-footedness that shows how wrong the conventional wisdom was when people said he wasn't ready to be President. Remember the claim that he wouldn't be "ready on Day One"?
Tonight's speech showed why he is the man for the time, and why this is the time for the man. What a perfect speech! As he has done since he ran for the Senate in 2004 (and no doubt before that), he explains why liberal ideas are right for our country in a way non-liberals will understand and agree with. When was the last time we had a leader who did that? Ronald Reagan explained conservative ideas to non-conservatives, and he started a conservative era that ended 28 years later. Let's hope President Obama's influence is as long-lasting.
In every way imaginable -- intelligence, integrity, humanity, transparency, respect for those who disagree, and sympathy for those who need help, to name a few -- this is real change from the last Administration. "Change we can believe in" wasn't just a slogan, a set of meaningless words designed to sell a candidacy. It was a promise that President Obama is keeping.
We should all be proud to have played a small part in bringing about that change, and honored to have had the opportunity to do so.
I’d been planning to blog about how people need to be more patient and not buy into the conventional wisdom about President Obama’s efforts to get Republicans to support his stimulus package. So I was delighted to see Bob Herbert’s column in Tuesday's New York Times titled “The Chess Master.” You should read the whole column, but here are a few excerpts that are particularly insightful.
After describing the criticism Obama has been taking, Herbert says:
"And what was Mr. Obama doing as this chaos and tension and criticism swirled about him?Not surprisingly, keeping a level head."
After describing the positive public reaction to his appearance in Elkhart, Indiana, Herbert says:
"There is always a tendency to underestimate Barack Obama. We are inclined in the news media to hyperventilate over every political or policy setback, no matter how silly or insignificant, while Mr. Obama has shown again and again that he takes a longer view."
"It’s early, but there are signs that Mr. Obama may be the kind of president who is incomprehensible to the cynics among us — one who is responsible and mature, who is concerned not just with the short-term political realities but also the long-term policy implications."
"Mr. Obama is like a championship chess player, always several moves ahead of friend and foe alike. He’s smart, deft, elegant and subtle. While Lindsey Graham was behaving like a 6-year-old on the Senate floor and Pete Sessions was studying passages in his Taliban handbook, Mr. Obama and his aides were assessing what’s achievable in terms of stimulus legislation and how best to get there."
There was an episode on "The West Wing" in which fictional President Bartlett told his aides about how a great chess player needs to "see the whole board." Sometimes life imitates art.
Bob Herbert “gets” what’s so special about Barack Obama. He’s the first leader in a long time who doesn’t let today’s news cycle get in the way of his vision of the big picture. We should learn from his example.
Kimberly Fornek from the Palatine Countryside called me this week to interview me about our plans to attend the inauguration. Her article was published in Thursday's edition. What make this a dubious distinction is that this was the final edition of the Countryside, which is going out of business. Here's the story:
Flamm to attend inauguration
January 15, 2009 By KIMBERLY FORNEK kfornek@pioneerlocal.com
Matt Flamm will attend the inauguration of Barack Obama to be part of a history-making event.
"It's the first African-American president in world history," Flamm said. "It's the first time, I believe, that any country with a white majority has elected a minority leader. Most countries wouldn't think of it."
If someone merely wants to see the inauguration, "you could stay home and watch it on TV," said Flamm, a Palatine resident and vice president of the Palatine Township Democrats Organization. "But to be there, as a historic change is taking place, is too good to pass up."
"I have been a big supporter of Obama from the beginning," Flamm said. "I was in Springfield when he announced his candidacy in February 2007. That was the beginning, and this is the culmination."
Flamm and his wife, Betty, got their tickets to the inauguration through U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean's office. They don't know or care whether their tickets are for assigned seats or a seating area.
"I will be grateful to have it," Flamm said. "We have to pick them up at Bean's office in Washington on Monday afternoon. I think that's to avoid scalping."
The couple will attend the Illinois Ball Monday night held at the Renaissance Hotel by the Illinois State Society.
"I am sure it will be long waits and long walks and that sort of thing. I was at the convention, when he made his big speech in Denver, and we went to Grant Park on Election Night. I am expecting more of the same, but it's worth it."
Following President-elect Obama's call for a national day of service, 19 of us signed up to volunteer with a local not-for-profit that operates shelters for homeless people in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. After a training session last week, I was assigned to help last night at a shelter in a church in Mount Prospect.
The center was run with efficiency and sensitivity by long-term volunteers. The 30 or 40 guests were greeted by volunteers, checked in, assigned to a mattress location, given bedding, and asked their choice of lunch for the following day (peanut butter and jelly or meat and cheese). The guests were about 80% male and ranged in age from 20 to senior citizens. Some were there for the first time, while others were regulars.
Other volunteers were assigned to serve dinner (roast chicken, pasta, rice, and dessert) and perform other tasks. I was told to mingle and converse with the guests. I had conversations with a middle-aged couple who had just started coming to the shelter after losing their jobs; several older men, black and white; and an intense young woman who had just spent two weeks in jail.
These were not alcoholics, addicts, or people suffering from mental illness (at least as far as I could tell). They were people just like other people you would meet in the suburbs. They had been people with jobs and homes, but who had fallen on hard times. These were the people behind the statistics about unemployment and foreclosures.
I told the center director I'd be happy to come back when they need me. It was a very rewarding experience for me, and the guests really appreciate all the help the volunteers give.
This is an example of the kind of public service Barack Obama has called for. We must stay involved in our communities, not just when there are elections to be won.
Self-righteous commentators are indignant about Senate Democrats agreeing to accept Roland Burris after saying they wouldn't seat anyone appointed by soon-to-be-ex-Governor Blagojevich. They should get off their high horses.
First, the Constitution and Illinois law authorize the Governor to appoint a replacement Senator until the next election. And Blago is still Governor. If you don't like the law, change it. if you don't like the Governor, impeach and remove him. (We're working on it.) Until he's out, he has authority to do what he did.
Second, Illinois has voted overwhelmingly to send two Democratic Senators to Washington. Burris is no Barack Obama, but he'll be a reliable Democratic vote. Not to seat him would be to deprive Illinois of half its representation.
It was good politics and good policy to delay accepting Burris until after he testified before the Illinois House that he didn't give the Governor anything for the appointment. Now that he's done so, it would be suicidal not to seat him. He'd sue, and the case would be in court for months or years. Based on precedent, Burris would probably win. And the Senate would be missing one Democratic vote that should be there.
Finally, there have been 4 African-American Senators in the entire United States since Reconstruction. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts served from 1967 to 1969. The only other black Senators have been from Illinois: Carol Moseley Braun (1993-1999), Barack Obama, and now Roland Burris. Give us a little credit here in Illinois. We may be corrupt, but we're progressive.
Hey Lake County!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What are you doing on January 20th? If you can't make the historic event in Washington D.C., there is a local event you can attend right here in Lake County.
The Eight District Democrats and Independents in conjunction with Illinois State Senator Michael Bond will be hosting an Inaugural Ball at the Byron Colby Barn at the corner of Route 45 and Jones Point Rd (Prairie Crossing) from 6:00 p.m.
Dress is Business Casual, but if you insist on formal wear, by all means do so.
We ask that attendees bring a dish to share and a non persishible food item to donate to one of the Lake County Food Pantries.
We are suggesting a $10.00 donation.
Soda, beer and wine will be provided.
Live streaming television will also be provided with all of the festivities going on in our nation's capital as well as re-broadcast of the Inuaguration itself.
RSVP to illinoiseddi@hotmail.com, 847 550 8631 or simply go to "Events in my area"tab in your Mybarackobama.com webpage.
We look forward to seeing you at the ball.
It's been one year since the Iowa caucus. Everyone who was there has a story - this is mine.
Buchanan County was the "sister city" for the northwest suburbs of Chicago. Independence (population 6,000) is the county seat. Volunteers from our area had been there many times, beginning in September. Four of us were assigned to Buchanan County for the week leading up to the caucus. Audie Schmidt, the Obama campaign staff organizer for the county, decided I should go to the small towns in the northeast corner of the county - Winthrop (pop. 772), Lamont (pop. 503), Aurora (pop. 194), and Stanley (pop. 128). I went to each town 2 or 3 times and visited farmers in between the towns. The temperature hovered around zero, and I got stuck in a snowbank and had to be towed out. In Stanley, I saw a pet goat running behind a pickup truck.
Michelle Obama spoke in Independence on New Year's Day. She told how reluctant she was when Barack said he wanted to run for President, but then she realized that was her fear, cynicism and selfishness talking and that she had to give hope a chance. It was the most moving I've ever heard her speak. (I passed along a greeting from Michelle's aunt and uncle, who I'd met in a bar in Cedar Rapids on New Year's Eve.)
In Lamont, I found a number of supporters. Audie said, "Get out -- I've been trying to get something going there for 6 months!" I recruited a precinct captain, a 19-year old woman who had never voted and who needed to register at the caucus. She was so proud to be asked. She asked me to give her the blue book of Obama's positions so she could answer her neighbors' questions.
On caucus night, I hosted a pizza party for high school seniors at East Buchanan High School in Winthrop. I told them this election was about their future. I then left for the Lamont caucus.
There were 40 voters in the caucus, almost double the usual. On the first vote, it was Clinton 13., Obama 12, Edwards 12, Richardson 3. Two of the Richardson voters came over to Obama, but the third one was skeptical. I explained Obama's positions on various issues, but what really brought him over was when one of our supporters (who had taught the voter in school) showed him Andrew Sullivan's article, which had just appeared in the Atlantic. The final vote was Obama 15, Clinton 13, Edwards 12, so Obama got 2 of the 4 delegates from Lamont.
Throughout our time there, the people of Iowa were wonderful to us. They were patient, openminded and thoughtful, and they took their responsibility seriously. They gave Barack Obama a chance to persuade them, at a time when the mainstream media and conventional wisdom didn't think he had a chance. Like Michelle Obama, they let hope triumph over fear and cynicism, which have ruled our politics for more than the past 8 years. As Michelle said, if we'd lost Iowa it all would have been "just a dream." Instead, Iowa led our country out of its long nightmare into an era of hope.
The Iowa caucus was how politics should be, but rarely is. We stayed true to the campaign's motto of "Respect, Empower, Include." Let's keep that spirit alive as long as we're alive. Like the old Kennedy supporters, we need to be the keepers of the flame, the spirit that animated the Obama campaign in Iowa and throughout the year.
For the past two days, the left (including Bill Press and Keith Olbermann) has had its shorts in a knot about Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. I'm a proud liberal/progressive/Democrat and I disagree with Warren about gay marriage, abortion, and the existence of God, but I think my fellow liberals are wrong about this.
For too many years, fundamentalist evangelic leaders have used religion to advance conservative, Republican political goals that are contrary to real Christian principles (tax cuts for the rich, unnecessary wars, deprivation of civil rights, intolerance of members of other religions and atheists, and refusing to talk with those with whom we disagree). Democrats have abandoned this large voting block because they thought they couldn't compete for evangelical votes.
But not all evangelicals are fundamentalists or believe in the right-wing interpretation of the Bible. Many members of evangelical churches will acknowledge (as Rick Warren does) that morality is about more than just abortion and gay rights. Obama was able to get critical votes from young evangelicals. By speaking in language they can relate to and appealing to their principles, Democrats can overcome the control of the evangelical churches by the right-wing political preachers.
This doesn't mean watering down our positions. Obama hasn't budged on abortion or gay rights. He's made it clear that he disagrees with Warren on those issues and others. Those who have narrowed their focus to abortion and gay rights won't be convinced, but others will see the big picture. Warren's willingness to bless Obama's presidency sends a strong message to evangelicals that Obama is a moral leader worthy of their consideration. Instead of viewing all Democrats as their enemies, moderate evangelicals will listen to what Obama has to say, and they'll like a lot of it. And some of them will realize they were wrong about abortion and gay rights.
Let's not be as intolerant as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. We don't cast out Democrats who are anti-choice, anti-gun control, or who disagree with other positions we stand for. By building bridges, Obama can expand the base of people who support his programs and reduce the strength of the forces working to defeat those initiatives.
I live in the 8th Congressional District of Illinois, in the northwest suburbs of Chicago. For 35 years, the 8th District was represented by Phil Crane, one of the original right-wingers. The district voted for George W. Bush by 56% to 42% in 2000 and by 56% to 44% in 2004. That made it the most Republican district in the northern half of Illinois. But in 2004, Crane was defeated by Melissa Bean, a moderate Democrat who targeted independent voters. She beat Crane 52% to 48%, which means that 8% of the voters split their tickets. She was reelected in 2006 with a 7% victory margin.
This year, Melissa Bean was reelected with an amazing 61% of the vote. Barack Obama won the district by 57% to 42%. That's a 27-point swing from 2004 to 2008. You won't find too many districts that have changed that much in 4 years.
Melissa Bean's success in a traditionally Republican district signifies the importance of appealing to independent voters. Many people don't vote for one party consistently. A Democrat who appeals to independents can win even in hostile territory.
The flip side is that a Republican who appeals to independents can win in a Democratic district. In the adjacent 10th District, Republican Mark Kirk was reelected by 54% to 46% even though Obama beat McCain by 61% to 38%. That means that 15% of voters split their tickets, voting for Obama and Kirk. Democrat Dan Seals ran a great campaign, but Kirk has assiduously courted independent voters.
Elections aren’t won and lost by the votes of people who always vote for one party. They’re won by the votes of independent voters. Any candidate who ignores that fact is likely to lose.
Two-Year Suspension of the Capital Gains: Immediately suspend the capital gains rate of 15% for individuals and 35% for corporations. By encouraging corporations to sell unwanted assets, this provision would unleash funds and materials with which to create jobs and grow the economy. After the two-year suspension, capital gains rates would return to present levels but assets would be indexed permanently for any inflationary gains.
The same Google search revealed a link to Time.com, which says the Republican plan "seems to be a joke," and a link to a liberal blog which refers to the plan as "“breathtakingly hairbrained” and "totally ineffective."
This attempt to use the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression as an excuse to give huge tax breaks to the super-rich came from the Republican Study Committee, a group of right-wing Congressmen formed in 1973. The first chairman of the RSC was Phil Crane, who Melissa Bean unseated in 2004, and Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay got their start in the RSC. It has more than 100 members. That's more than half the Republicans in Congress, including Peter Roskam (IL-6) and Donald Manzullo (IL-16).
Every Republican candidate for Congress (incumbent or not) should be challenged to say whether he or she supports the RSC proposal. If they do, we should hit them over the head with this. Those who are members of the RSC, like Roskam and Manzullo, should not be allowed to avoid responsibility for trying to use this crisis to benefit their wealthy supporters.
I’m a volunteer field organizer for the Obama campaign. I’ve recently received emails from volunteers asking questions like “How can the Republicans get away with lying?” or “How is Obama going to respond to [the latest Republican tactic]?” These emails often mention polls or something some commentator said on TV.
Here’s why I haven’t responded to such emails and why I won’t do so in the future (other than to refer people to this blog post).
I’m a field organizer, not a member of the strategy team. My opinion about strategy is no more significant than yours. I’m flattered that you are interested in my opinion, but that’s all it is.
Every minute we spend speculating about things we can’t control is a minute we could have been calling or emailing volunteers to recruit them to canvass or phonebank. Don’t give the right-wingers a victory by letting them dilute our efforts to bring about the change we need.
I have faith in Barack Obama, David Axelrod, and the rest of the campaign brain trust. They have run a brilliant campaign. Their timing has been perfect, peaking at the right times (the Iowa caucus, Super Tuesday, etc.). They defeated one mighty political machine, and I have confidence in their ability to defeat another.
And I have faith in our cause. We know that Barack Obama stands for the values that have made this country great and that the Republicans have dishonored those values and disgraced and impoverished our country. We’ve seen how people respond to Barack as he has campaigned throughout the country for the past 19 months.
We always knew this was going to be a tough fight to the finish. Change never comes easily. Did you think it would be easy to elect a black man named Barack Obama? It comes as no surprise that Republicans continue to lie and play on voters’ fears. What else do they have to say?
The only way for us to win is to do everything in our power to maximize the number of voters who come out November 4th and vote for Barack Obama.
So stop worrying, stop speculating, stop wasting your time talking with other supporters about how bad the other side is. Volunteer as much as you can, recruit other volunteers, and give or raise as much money as you can. If you know people who aren’t registered, get them to register. Talk with your family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers and make sure they understand the issues and why it’s critical that they turn out and vote.
To paraphrase Barack Obama's 2004 DNC speech:
