There is a brilliant article by T R Reid in the Washington Post today pointing out myths about foreign health care. It also makes the point that universal health care is possible (in Germany, Switzerland and other good systems) without a public option, but with VERY strong regulation and an opening up of competition, to a national level.
Here is the linkhttp:
//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html
The Action Americans Need By Barack Obama Washington Post Thursday, February 5, 2009; A17 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/04/AR2009020403174.html By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring. What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis. Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse. That's why I feel such a sense of urgency about the recovery plan before Congress. With it, we will create or save more than 3 million jobs over the next two years, provide immediate tax relief to 95 percent of American workers, ignite spending by businesses and consumers alike, and take steps to strengthen our country for years to come. This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, health care and education. And it's a strategy that will be implemented with unprecedented transparency and accountability, so Americans know where their tax dollars are going and how they are being spent. In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive. I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail. Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now. Now is the time to protect health insurance for the more than 8 million Americans at risk of losing their coverage and to computerize the health-care records of every American within five years, saving billions of dollars and countless lives in the process. Now is the time to save billions by making 2 million homes and 75 percent of federal buildings more energy-efficient, and to double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy within three years. Now is the time to give our children every advantage they need to compete by upgrading 10,000 schools with state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs; by training our teachers in math and science; and by bringing the dream of a college education within reach for millions of Americans. And now is the time to create the jobs that remake America for the 21st century by rebuilding aging roads, bridges and levees; designing a smart electrical grid; and connecting every corner of the country to the information superhighway. These are the actions Americans expect us to take without delay. They're patient enough to know that our economic recovery will be measured in years, not months. But they have no patience for the same old partisan gridlock that stands in the way of action while our economy continues to slide. So we have a choice to make. We can once again let Washington's bad habits stand in the way of progress. Or we can pull together and say that in America, our destiny isn't written for us but by us. We can place good ideas ahead of old ideological battles, and a sense of purpose above the same narrow partisanship. We can act boldly to turn crisis into opportunity and, together, write the next great chapter in our history and meet the test of our time. --- The writer is president of the United States.
Let’s be honest. We didn’t really expect Congress to come up with a "bold" stimulus plan, did we? But do we agree that NO action will only aggravate our current crisis?
The GOP surprised us when it failed to respond more constructively to the bipartisan overture from Barack Obama. I personally witnessed the precedent-setting bipartisan dinner for his defeated opponent (my photo of the President-elect at the dinner honoring McCain, January 19) and noted the subsequent meetings with Congressional Republicans. And what did we get in the way of proposals from the loyal opposition? More of the dogma-driven, supply-side ideology that contributed to our current mess: tax cuts!
On the other hand, GOP critics have a point: the bill that passed the House and was embraced by Obama essentially is an accumulation of favorite Democratic spending proposals.
What is missing is CHANGE. The CHANGE Obama advocated in his campaign for the Presidency. The CHANGE that won him a resounding mandate to govern for four years. The CHANGE from policies that have worked to benefit few and imperil many. Where are the first steps toward affordable health care, a sustainable green economy and alternative energy? And why are we not moving boldly to address the systemic failures that underlie the current crisis in credit markets?
Obama asked for ideas. And Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, among others, obliged. But what these brilliant men offer is predictable: rationales for orthodox Keynesian solutions and concern about labor market distortions, respectively. More is needed, not just in additional spending, but in fresh ideas that advance the President's policy agenda. So, if suggestions are still welcomed, here is my two-cents worth. And please do keep the CHANGE.
Health Care
Obama has promised the nation affordable health care similar to his own Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), to be available to all by the end of his first term. There is no need to back off this goal. Health care is one of the largest drags on our economy and the stimulus bill provides a real opportunity to begin managing its cost. In addition to the bill’s provisions to help state governments fund Medicare and work projects, I suggest that the federal government reimburse all state and local governments for their employer's share of health care for the rest of this year. In exchange, recipients may not fire government workers and must commit to integrating their health care plans with the existing FEHBP starting in 2010. That provides additional and immediate financial assistance to state and local governments, while paving the way for the establishment of a Public Employees Health Benefits Program. By January 2010, the federal government’s negotiated health care program would expand its base and economies of scale. The next step will be to apply the system to businesses, and subsequently to capture the un- and under-insured.
Energy Independence
Most honest leaders recognize that in due course government will have to produce the substantial additional revenue to pay for the stimulus. But good luck finding a politician willing to propose increasing taxes of any kind. So let me suggest instead a hefty tariff on imported oil to fund the “green economy.” A tariff of 50 percent or more on the landed cost of all imported energy (probably with some form of accommodation for our NAFTA partners) can be justified because of national security as well as the external costs to our environment inherent in the use of fossil fuels. And such a levy would promote conservation, subsidize domestic production, and help to fund and protect our investments in alternative energy. This is a measure that should be welcomed by Republicans who advocate "drill, baby, drill” as well as environmentalists interested in promoting clean energy. The windfall earned by American producers could be invested domestically or taxed as profits. And while there may be a marginal increase of fuel cost at the pump, it will pale in comparison with the amounts we forked over to foreign potentates rather than our own Treasury these past few years, when oil was effectively 200% greater than its current price.
Reestablish a ‘Risk-Free’ Investment Benchmark
Explanations for our current credit crisis and financial market meltdown abound, including the Washington Post's excellent series. But absent from all the expert analyses is any mention of the Treasury Department's October 2001 decision to discontinue issuing 30-year Bonds. That decision, on the heels of 9/11 and the cusp of Bush's costly war on terror, both lowered mortgage yields and prompted increased sales of bundled mortgages marketed as alternative 'risk-free' instruments, which in turn fueled the housing bubble and distorted both government and corporate credit point spreads. Treasury Bond auctions have resumed, but a clear provision to finance America’s recovery through borrowing would repair yield spreads – both between short and long term sovereign debt and in relation to all other debt instruments. Transparent budget financing will help re-establish more realistic risk pricing and global confidence in the US economy. But the 30-year Bond will not regain its position as a benchmark for 'risk-free' long-term investment if Fed meddling in the market, as it proposes to do with its planned purchase of Treasuries from troubled banks. In fact, this central-bankers-gone-wild approach will only create a greater Treasury bubble that will seriously aggravate our problems. Once markets are allowed to properly price the cost and risk of our recovery without Fed manipulation, global confidence in the US economy has a chance to be recover.
So Pay the Bill, and Keep the CHANGE
Barack Obama attended his last inaugural event, the Staff Ball, at the DC Armory on January 21. But he arrived after a performance by the opening act, Arcade Fire. So here are some insightful lysircs from their “Intervention”:
You say it's money that we need As if we're only mouths to feed I know no matter what you say There are some debts you'll never pay
You say it's money that we need
As if we're only mouths to feed
I know no matter what you say
There are some debts you'll never pay
The message is relevant to the stimulus bill now before Congress.
We can act responsibly and cautiously if we:
Pay the Bill and Keep the CHANGE.
The Undying Obsession with Black Family Values
Post-Racial Racism at the Post
By DEDRICK MUHAMMAD @ counterpunch.com
As we come closer to the "post-racial age" of a Barack Obama presidency, I am intrigued to find that post-racial racism is already being propagated in the pages of the Washington Post. In "An Enduring Crisis for the Black Family," Kay Hymowitz blames the economic disfranchisement of African Americans upon the personal behavior of Black people and the silence of Black leaders concerning this behavior. Ms. Hymowitz portrays the massive national growth of single parent homes as a Black pathology. She uses the real challenge of the breakdown in the traditional family to further stereotype and lay blame on African Americans for racial inequality in this country......
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.counterpunch.org/muhammad12112008.html
FACT: MCCAIN SUPPORTED 4 OF 5 BUSH BUDGETS
· McCain Voted for 4 of 5 Bush Budgets Adding Up To $9.8 Trillion In Spending. McCain supported four of the five Bush budgets that the Senate voted on from 2001-2006. McCain voted for the FY 2002 budget, the FY 2005 budget, the FY 2006 budget and the FY 2007 budget. The budgets added up to $9.8 Trillion in spending. [2001 Senate Vote #98; 2004 Senate Vote #58; 2005 Senate Vote #114; 2006 Senate Vote #74]
FACT: MCCAIN’S SPENDING PROPOSALS DON’T ADD UP AND ARE FAR MORE COSTLY THEN OBAMA’S PLANS
· McCain Offers Four More Years Of Soaring Deficits. Just like George Bush, McCain budget plan offers four more years of soaring deficits. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center said McCain’s tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade, and cuts for the wealthy instead of middle class families. [Tax Policy Center, 7/23/08, p. 42]
· New York Times: McCain’s Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To The Deficit Per Year. “The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this, and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain’s stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more.” [New York Times, 6/18/08 ]
· McCain Has No Plan To Pay For His Tax Cuts For The Wealthy And Corporations. McCain’s promise to continue George Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and give big corporate interests a tax cut would cost $340 billion a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times have all raised questions about whether McCain can pay for these tax breaks. In fact, a Washington Post editorial even said that his budget plan is “not credible” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/08 ; Editorial, New York Times, 7/12/08 ; Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]
· Washington Post: McCain’s Approach To Taxes Is Far More Costly Than Obama’s. “There is a serious debate to be had in this presidential campaign about the fundamentally different tax policies of Barack Obama and John McCain. Then there is the phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest debate that the McCain campaign has been waging -- most recently with a television ad. The two candidates have very different positions on taxes. Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and cut them substantially for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would cut taxes for more households, and by a larger amount, than Mr. McCain, who would give the greatest benefits to wealthy households and corporations. … The McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. … The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/31/08 ]
· Washington Post: McCain’s Plan To Balance The Budget By 2013 “Is Not Credible.” “McCain says that President McCain would balance the federal budget by 2013. The plan is not credible. … Mr. McCain sells American voters short -- and he does himself a disservice -- with his implausible claim.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/08 ]
· New York Times: McCain Cannot Balance The Budget On A Crusade Against Pork And A One-Year Sliver Of Federal Spending And He Either Has A “Secret Plan To Balance The Budget Or He’s Blowing Smoke.” “Mr. McCain’s main campaign promises, if fulfilled, would lead to huge budget deficits. Extending the Bush tax cuts, enacting more tax cuts of his own and staying the course in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more, every year, than the small bore spending cuts he has specified. Mr. McCain cannot balance the budget on a crusade against pork and a one-year freeze in a sliver of federal spending. Either he has a secret plan to balance the budget or he’s blowing smoke.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/12/08 ]
Truthfull to Americans, Washington Post's Stunning Editorial,McCain is more or less the same 8 Years & Bush is Whacked nicely?"Saint Says: Washington Post is one of the few news group that is atleast readable and some time make some sense in their writings and publications, when compared to the whole lots of hollyhood procrastinating and parsite writers of political garbage.Upliftthem thinks that there is some amount of media ethics ingrained in the washington Post than even the mighty and larger looking New York times, which often follows sensationalization directions. I am not here to say washington post is the best let alone good news papers, but comparitively scores better than other news papers, it is readable among the bunch of them, though it is no NPR or BBC. American news papers must and should learn some lessons from BBC as to how to publish and what to publish if they want to run a very good news media. Anyways, this is about the good news Washington Post published today that the post is officially endorsedObama for president today, this is just a great news. Infact, I like the reason and believes the Post has on Obama as a candidate and as a suitable President for the times of crisis we are living in this world, especially in America".Good move Washington Post!.Friday, October 17, 2008; Page A24
THIS STORY
Quote from Post: "THE NOMINATING process this year produced two unusually talented and qualified presidential candidates. There are few public figures we have respected more over the years than Sen. John McCain. Yet it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president"
OpEdNews has been the site of choice to post the growing list of major and minor newspaper endorsements for Obama. The Editorials are quoted generally in full, with interspliced commentaries from major editors and commentators, explaining what is behind the Editorials.
Part I Obama's Editorial Endorsements: including Washington Post, Fidel Castro, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, & more!
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-s-Endorsements-The-by-Stephen-Fox-081016-633.html
*******
Part II Editorial Page Endorsements of Obama Denver Post, Chicago Tribune, San Francsico Chronicle, Los Angeles Times
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Editorial-Page-Endorsement-by-Stephen-Fox-081017-544.html
********
Part III New Endorsements: Salt Lake City Tribune, Bangor and Brunswick, Maine, Philadelphia, Miami, Portland, Kansas City
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Endorsements-Salt-Lake-Ci-by-Stephen-Fox-081018-476.html
More Obama Endorsements IV: Sacramento, Katie Couric, Malaysia, Houston Chronicle, Detroit, Waco Tx (sort of)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/More-Obama-Endorsements-IV-by-Stephen-Fox-081019-492.html
Obama's Editorial Endorsements: including Washington Post, Fidel Castro, Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, & more!
I hope you take a few moments to share your insights in a comment here and at OpEdNews, which then becomes a vital part of a larger dialogue.
Thanks, Stephen FoxFounder, New Millennium Fine Art Santa Fe NM
GOOD MORNING! Follow this link to read the announcement in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?nav=hcmodule
Now that ought to send you out with a smile on your face! Please take time this weekend to canvass and phonebank! Here in Medford, our office is at 105 E. Main Street. Drop by or call to find out how you can help: (541)227-5107.
Have an awesome day!
Denise
Joe, and Sarah Six-Pack
By Dana MilbankFriday, October 3, 2008; A03
ST. LOUIS, Oct. 2 This week, Sarah Palin gave a curious rationale for her candidacy. "It's time," the Republican vice presidential nominee said, "that normal Joe Six-Pack American is finally represented in the position of vice presidency."
When she took the stage Thursday night here at Washington University for the vice presidential debate, Sarah Six-Pack all but popped open a cold one. Wearing a glittery flag pin on her jacket, she blew a kiss toward the audience. She gave a wave that Tina Fey would probably describe as adorable. Then she regarded her Democratic foe, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"Nice to meet you," Palin told Joe Biden. "Hey, can I call you Joe?"
"You can call me Joe," the senator obliged.
"Okay, thanks," she said brightly.
"Thank you," Biden replied.
"Thank you," she told him again. "Thank you, Gwen," she told moderator Gwen Ifill. "Thank you, thank you, thank you," she told nobody in particular.
It was going to be a long evening.
Palin's intellectual fitness had been put into question by her disastrous interview with Katie Couric, which was filled with panicked silences, flustered non-answers and even a promise to get back to the interviewer with more information. But when Palin took the stage with Biden last night for what may have been the most public IQ test ever administered, she had no problem meeting the exceptionally low expectations. She had talking points adequate to fill the 90 seconds on the various topics Ifill tossed her way, and often forced Biden to defend Barack Obama.
On the other hand, it wasn't exactly a confidence-builder. Palin, in her 90 minutes on the stage Thursday night, left the firm impression that she is indeed ready to lead the nation -- with an unnerving mixture of platitudes and cute, folksy phrases that poured from her lips even when they bore no relation to the questions asked.
"Let's commit ourselves just everyday American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation," she proposed when asked about the mortgage crisis.
"I want to go back to the energy plan," she said when asked about the federal bailout plan.
"I want to talk about, again, my record on energy," she said when asked about bankruptcy.
Biden grew frustrated. "If you notice, Gwen, the governor did not answer the question."
Replied Sarah Six-Pack: "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people."
And, indeed, she stared into the camera, largely ignoring Ifill, Biden and the audience.
On occasion, she unilaterally revised policy for John McCain, as when she said Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons." At other times, her answers defied comprehension, as when Ifill asked about her trigger for using nuclear weapons. "Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period," she answered.
Iffy, but not the alarming sort of answers she gave Couric on CBS. Then, Palin couldn't identify what newspapers or magazines she reads, couldn't cite a Supreme Court decision she disagreed with other than Roe v. Wade, or any regulatory effort McCain had supported. Asked to name a favorite vice president, she cited Geraldine Ferraro.
In the canned debate format, Palin's platitudes held up better than under Couric's follow-up questions. "Oh yeah, it's so obvious I'm a Washington outsider," she said with a shy grin when Ifill asked about putting troops in Darfur. "And someone just not used to the way you guys operate." Asked about the possibility that she would assume the presidency if the president died in office, she found herself saying, "I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C."
When Ifill said she was changing the subject to foreign policy, Palin tilted her head to the side, gave a slight shrug and made a wary grin. Still, even then, she was able to fill up all 90 seconds of her allotted response time. "Um, your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq," she told Biden in a playground taunt. "You guys opposed the 'surge.' "
Smiling through entire sentences, she was relentlessly folksy and unafraid of the trite. The credit squeeze, she said, is "affecting Main Streeters like me." On Middle East policy: "I'm so encouraged to know that we both love Israel."
Predatory mortgages a problem? "Darn right," she said. Tax relief? "Darn right."
Ifill asked Palin if there were any campaign promises she would have to scale back because of the financial crisis. "How long have I been at this?" Palin shot back. "Like, five weeks?"
When backed into uncomfortable terrain, such as defending the Bush administration's economic record, she exploded into cliche and non sequitur: "Say it ain't so, Joe. There you go again pointing backwards again. . . . Now doggone it, let's look ahead." Before finishing her answer, she mentioned her "brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third-graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate."
"Everybody gets extra credit tonight," the moderator assured Sarah Six-Pack. "We're going to move on to the next question."
I’ve finally found a positive quality Sarah Palin might bring to the vice presidency: She would be the first veep guaranteed to be witchcraft-free, thanks to Rev. Thomas Muthee.
This would be a refreshing change from Dick Cheney who clearly is a warlock; it’s one of the few things that can explain adequately his darker-than-the-night eight years in office.
A video went up on YouTube yesterday showing Muthee “laying hands” on Palin, imploring Jesus to protect her from "the spirit of witchcraft." It would be hysterically funny if it weren’t so scary.
Best of all, Palin gave her own personal testimony to the power of Muthee’s prayers, saying publicly after she was elected governor what a dramatic effect he had on her election.
While maybe it’s time we have a vice president we know is free of witches and witchcraft, there’s a serious point being made here.
After the broadcast and cable network newscasts pelted us for days with the same 14 second clip of Rev. Jeremiah Wright giving a vitriolic sermon when Barack Obama wasn’t even in the church, why is it that we’ve barely seen Rev. Muthee laying his hands on Palin to protect her from witches – or her “testimony” in the Wasilla church to his purported power?
Why isn’t the footage leading every cable news segment, the way the Wright video did? Where are the bloviators speculating that this might end her chance of being elected, as they did with Obama? Why isn’t she giving a major speech to discuss witchcraft in American politics the way Obama responded to the Wright controversy by talking about race in America? How come no one is calling the video a “bombshell,” and wondering “what might come next?”
When the Rev. Wright controversy broke, somber publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post gave it front page prominence. I’ve yet to see any coverage of the Muthee-Palin nonsense anywhere in either paper, not even a few column inches way in the back, wedged between wedding announcements and the obits.
Maybe it’s because the Muthee business is so ridiculous the video almost comes across like a Saturday Night Live sketch. Or a parody of an SNL bit. Maybe it’s because the news media doesn’t poke fun at the mentally unbalanced.
But, still, this is noteworthy stuff.
It can’t be that newspapers, magazines and networks “got religion” – pardon the expression – and turned serious in the months since the Wright tempest in a teapot bubbled and boiled. Rather, I suspect it’s because we’re seeing a prime time, front page, living, breathing, spell-casting example of just how frightened much of the media is of the right, and the religious right in particular. We’re also seeing the myth of the “liberal media bias” laid bare.
Mary Todd Lincoln and Nancy Reagan communed with the spirit world when their husbands were president, but neither woman ever ran for office. Sarah Palin wants to be Vice President of the United States.
Come to think of it, if she and McCain happen to win it might just be because there are witches and warlocks flying around on broomsticks after all. Still, I can’t help but wonder if religious "re-education" centers are waiting in the wings.
A new ABC/Washington Post poll is reporting this morning that Barack Obama has seized the reins of economic discontent, vaulting over John McCain's convention gains by persuading voters he both better understands their economic troubles and can better address them.
Economic concerns, plus an Obama lead among those worried about their well-being, spells a lead for the Democrat: In a head-to-head-match-up he's now supported 52% to 43% among likely voters, the first significant advantage for either candidate among likely voters in ABC/Post polls.
The contest has shifted from a 49%-47% McCain-Obama race Immediately after the Republican convention, McCain led Obama by 49%-42%. But the bounce, on individual issues and attributes as well as in overall preference, is gone.
Fully 53% of registered voters in the ABC /WaPo study call the economy the single most important issue in the election, up 12 points in two weeks to an extraordinary level of agreement.
The public is cool to the bailout itself, underscoring economic uncertainty.
Eight in 10 are worried about the economy's future, with 50% saying they’re “very worried.” Personal concern runs high as well: 60% are worried about their family's finances. And 83% say the country is seriously off on the wrong track, back within a point of its record high – set just this June – in polls dating to early 1970s.
All these work for Obama.
He's recovered to a 14% lead over McCain in trust to handle the economy, and leads by 13% specifically in trust to deal with the meltdown of major financial institutions.
Obama leads by more, 57%-33%, in better understanding the public's economic problems.
Tellingly, after trailing by 17 points, he's pulled even with McCain in trust to handle a major crisis. And Obama holds wide margins in preference among likely voters most concerned about the economy.
Attention to the contest, meanwhile, is remarkable. Fully 91% of registered voters are following it closely and 55% "very" closely – both highs in ABC/Post polls dating to the 1988 presidential election.
The number of McCain supporters who describe themselves as "very enthusiastic" about his candidacy plunged to 34%, down from 46% after the Republican convention. A steady and far greater number of Obama's supporters remain very enthusiastic about their candidate, 62%.
In a related challenge, concern about the candidates' age is up: 48%, a new high, call it an important factor in their vote, and it hurts McCain: Those who call it important favor Obama by 2-1, 63%-32%.
Then there are white women. They're back to a dead heat now, precisely where they were in mid-July and a dramatic turnaround from June when they backed McCain by 16-points.
Shifts in other key swing groups are also striking.
· Independents, likewise, went from +10 for McCain two weeks ago to +14 for Obama now. And married women, +11 for McCain on Sept. 7, are +5 for Obama now.
The shift toward Obama is not limited to economic issues: While he's gained the upper hand on the pre-eminent factor, others have moved along as well. McCain had led by 10 points in trust to handle the Iraq war; now Obama is +4. McCain's 20-point lead on terrorism is now an insignificant 4 points, the closest of the campaign.
And they're now even in trust to handle international affairs, back to July's result.
On personal attributes, Obama's turned a scant 6-point deficit on honesty and trustworthiness into an 11-point advantage.
Data and facts from ABC News.
So, everytime I talk to someone who is undecided or is for the Republican side/John McCain, and we get to taxes, it's always the same old story:
Them: "Dems raise taxes and Republicans lower them!"
Us: "Dems raise taxes for those who can afford them, the wealthiest, and Republicans lower them for the wealthiest!"
And we are deadlocked. But now, there is simple and effective proof through a source everyone trusts...
I am voting for Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States. For the first time in my life I am actively participating in a campaign. I have volunteered in my local precinct offic, made phone calls and knocked on doors. I have given what I can afford even though I am not working right now. I would hope campaign HQ has a staff as dedicated to Senator Obama's success as I am. I would assume that even if no one there is reading the blogs someone at HQ is reading major newspapers, like the Washington Post.
The story my link references was published in the Washington Post on Tuesday, September 2. I originally posted the story below with the link the Next morning, before the Sarah Palin speech. Had I been running the campaign I would have had it investigated and commented onb before McCain had a chance to give his. Almost every other piece of information has been released. For some reason this has not. Had it been reported on time, Sarah Palin would have been neutralized and no longer an issue by last Friday. McCain would be on the defensive instead of us.
Timing is everything. It will be harder to shed more light on this issue now because the campaign is on the defensive. It could run as an ad in retaliation to the viscious ad misconstruing the Senator's vote on age appropriate sex education. Please, someone up there, take advantage of this opportunity before the Republican attack machine makes you the laughing stock of the season. I know Barack wants to make his stand in the debates. An honorable strategy, but it is just not enough. McCain must be on his heels when he comes through the door. Below is the original post and link.
Sarah Palin is proving herself to be heartless. Now, I don't have a vendetta agains her. If you read my first blog on her I was complimentary. But the more I find out about her the more I believe she needs not simply a vetting, but a reaming.
There are things people will never forgive you for. One is speeding up in your car to run over a senior citizen crossing the street. Another is child abuse. Can you guess which one Sarah Palin is guilty of? Of course, child abuse. While exercising her line item veto power in her august wisdom as Governor of Alaska, she cut the budget for the agency that helps unwed and teen mothers by 1.1 million dollars. You know why? The same reason McCain would do it -- to discourage teen pregnancy.
Her decision was not even about a lack of budgetary funding. The hoot is all those good conservative christians who say they support Bristol and Sarah because they believe in supporting young mothers so they can keep their babies. Did Sarah Palin just spit in their faces?
I'm not going to say any more. You've just got to read the article.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/02/palin_slashed_funding_to_help.html?hpid=artslot
Sarah Palin and John McCain campaigning. (Photo: Getty Images)
From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she had opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.
"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,'" Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."
Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for - then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.
As the presidential campaign moves into a final, heated stretch, untrue accusations and rumors have started to swirl at a pace so quick that they become regarded as fact before they can be disproved. A number of fabrications about Palin's policies and personal life, for instance, have circulated on the Internet since she joined the Republican ticket.
Palin and John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee, have been more aggressive in recent days in repeating what their opponents say are outright lies. Almost every day, for instance, McCain says rival Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes, even though the Democrat's tax plan exempts families that earn less than $250,000.
Fed up, the Obama campaign broke a taboo on Monday and used the "L-word" of politics to say that the McCain campaign was lying about the Bridge to Nowhere.
Nevertheless, with McCain's standing in the polls surging, aides say he is not about to back down from statements he believes are fundamentally true, such as the anecdote about the bridge.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers noted an Obama advertisement released yesterday that says, with no citation, that McCain's economic plan would take money away from public schools. "Absolutely, it's a lie," Rogers said.
Quoting the National Education Association, Obama aides said McCain's plan to freeze discretionary spending would cut funding for local education agencies, Head Start, teacher quality grants and special education.
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.
"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."
For now, there appears to be little political reason to back down. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.
McCain's pitch as a reformer - especially as an opponent of pork-barrel spending - does not seem to have been damaged by media reports of his running mate's pursuit of earmarks, first for her home town of Wasilla and then for Alaska. Obama's once-sizable 32-point advantage on which candidate would do more to change government is down to 12 points.
"We have created a system where there is not a lot of shame in stretching the truth," said Charlie Cook, editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.
A slew of distortions that have spread through e-mail and on the Internet has also put Palin on the receiving end of some of that truth-stretching - so much so that the campaign dispatched a group of supporters yesterday to act as a "truth-squadding team." The unfounded charges include that Palin cut special-needs funding in Alaska and that she was a member of the Alaska Independence Party.
Palin actually increased special-needs funding and has never been a member of the Alaska Independence Party, according to FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Aside from the dispute over the Bridge to Nowhere, the Obama campaign has also complained about a McCain advertisement that says the Democrat called Iran a "tiny" threat, even though a chorus of media critics noted that Obama had listed Iran with Cuba and Venezuela as countries whose menace was tiny compared with that of the former Soviet Union. On Friday, in Cedarburg, Wis., McCain repeated that Palin had sold Alaska's state jet on eBay, although Palin herself was careful during her vice presidential acceptance speech to say she merely "put it on eBay." It did not sell on the online auction site.
McCain aides said yesterday that nothing they have said about the bridge is untrue.
Palin did at one time support the Bridge to Nowhere, and the $223 million earmarked for the project was sent to Alaska. Some of it was used for other state projects, about $40 million was used to build an access road to the now-scrapped bridge project and $73 million is sitting in an account, awaiting some other proposal to link the tiny towns of Ketchikan and Gravina, according to the Alaska Department of Transportation.
But, McCain aides said, Palin indisputably turned on a project championed by two of her state's Republican legends, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young. Even Alaska Democrats gave her credit for finally ending it.
"We're not relitigating the 2006 gubernatorial campaign and everything that was said," Rogers said. "We're not talking about that campaign. Were talking about when she got into office and what she did."
The claim that Obama will raise taxes is based on his support this year of a Democratic budget resolution that envisions all of President Bush's cuts expiring on schedule in 2011, a move that would indeed raise rates for everyone who pays income taxes. Such resolutions are nonbinding and irrelevant in future years, such as 2011, because budgets are passed annually. Moreover, this year's budget runs counter to Obama's tax plan, which would extend all of Bush's tax cuts for families earning less than $250,000 and provide new tax breaks for low-income workers.
Obama and the Democratic National Committee asserted for months that McCain wanted to keep U.S. troops fighting in Iraq for 100 years, when, in fact, the context of McCain's 100-year statement was a comparison to U.S. bases in Japan and Germany. McCain explicitly said the troops would be there only if the country was at peace and there were no casualties associated with their presence.
A McCain quote Obama has often used - that the economy is fundamentally sound - is months old. Since he said that, McCain has said almost daily that the economy is struggling. As for exaggerations, Obama said yesterday that he had supported a measure in the Illinois Senate to double the number of charter schools in Chicago. In fact, he was one of 14 state senators co-sponsoring a non-controversial measure that passed unanimously.
--------
Staff writer Michael D. Shear, traveling with the McCain campaign, contributed to this report.
I just read a GREAT speech by Barack, made last night. Here's the email I just sent to friends about it:
Obama to Palin: 'Don't Mock the Constitution'
