Stop the Socialism for the Big Banks

I don’t envy President Obama. While I can take issue with some of his strategies – I believe we should get out of Afghanistan, for example, and he should stop compromising away real health care reform – I can appreciate just how monumental the task of turning this country around is.

Reforming health care? It’s only been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first campaigned in 1912 for it. As Obama told Congress on September 9th of this year, “I may not be the first president to tackle health care reform, but I intend to be the last.” A bold statement, to be sure, something Mr. Obama is very good at. But accomplishing that goal, even with majorities in both houses – as we are seeing – is something else altogether.

Add to that the job of recovering from the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression, and you’ve already got a Herculean task. And we haven’t even mentioned all the other sticky issues, like averting a climate crisis, nuclear proliferation, environmental challenges, etc.

One could say that dealing with health care reform just now might have been taking on too much, although it is urgently needed and with Democratic majorities, it seemed like a good time to take it on. But averting financial disaster was not a voluntary task, it was thrust upon the new president. Unfortunately, out of ignorance on the subject, or a blind faith in those in the top echelons of the financial industry, or for whatever reason, Obama chose to trust the wrong team to help him. Now he must recognize his error, and find a new team, and a new strategy. The country’s long term financial health, and even our democracy, depend on it.

In a October 9th interview on PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal with Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur, she said, “What they’re doing is they’re taking their mistakes and they’re dumping them on the taxpayer... It’s all at risk because of their behavior. We aren’t reigning them in. The laws of Congress passed last year in terms of housing, were hollow... It’s socialism for the big banks.”

Referring to the president, she said, “I think some of the people that he trusted haven’t delivered. I urge him to get new [financial] generals. It’s time.”

I have to agree, and I’m very sorry Obama couldn’t see from the start that you can’t fix a broken system by hiring the people who broke it, and who are invested in bailing it out. But now that it’s completely obvious, it is time to get a new team in there. Don’t be afraid to admit your mistakes, Mr. President, otherwise you’ll be just like the failed president before you.

Unfortunately, the opportunity inherent in the original crisis may have already slipped away. It may, in fact, be a nearly impossible task, but we’ve got to try. The financial sector needs fundamental reform, and it needs it now.

Tell your reps: Support the public health care option!

To my mind, it is critical to do all we can right now to pressure Congress to support the public health care option.

MoveOn.org says:

Exciting news on health care: The New York Times editorial page joined Paul Krugman, Dr. Howard Dean, and 77 progressives in Congress in support of President Obama's public health insurance option. This option is the key to finally covering everyone and lowering premiums by as much as 30 percent.

All this momentum means the right-wing fear mongering about "socialized medicine," is only going to get louder. And the insurance industry is ramping up its campaign to stop this critical reform as we speak. That means we'll need to work hard to make sure others in Congress are demanding a public health insurance option too.

I agree. This is the first real opportunity we've had in decades to get real health care reform, and the public health care option in particular will give people the option of bypassing the greedy insurance industry.
Please take a few minutes to call your representatives and sign this petition.

It's a small effort to make for a healthier future for our country. Thanks.

Dean campaigning for public health insurance option (Medicare-type option for all)

Good news!

Gov. Howard Dean (an M.D., remember), has declared he's hitting the road to campaign for a health care plan that will give people the right to choose a Medicare-type option.

In his announcement, he said:

During the election, President Obama proposed a health care plan that would give every American the freedom to choose between keeping their private insurance—if they have any—and choosing a universally available public health insurance option like Medicare.

But for-profit insurance companies and HMOs are already working hard to strip this public health insurance option from any upcoming health care bill. They don't want us to have a choice, and they'll stop at nothing to kill real reform. Trouble is, some in Congress are siding with the insurance companies—and against what's best for the rest of us.

Today, we draw a line in the sand. A public health insurance option is the only way to guarantee health care for all Americans. And to show that we mean business, we all need to tell Congress we won't settle for less.

We need a single-payer system for the most efficient, humane system overall, but at the minimum, people should be able to choose a medicare-for-all type option. Gov. Dean's rhetoric suggests Obama would sign such a health care bill, which surprised me, as I thought he was not open to that when he said single-payer was off the table.

I believe providing this sort of choice is the way to real, needed change in the way we provide health care coverage in this country. I think it will end up proving that most people already want single-payer, and many more will figure out it's the best way to go when they see the choice.

Please go here to sign Dean's petition, and please agitate as strongly as you can for a public health insurance option!

Change We Just Can't Believe In: HR 875 Could Make Organic Farming Illegal

According to reports coming out from food activists, HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 would criminalize organic farming and the backyard gardener.

They say that Big Ag corporations like Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, Sodexo and Tyson are pushing HR 875, which would effectively create a food police department within the Department of Health and Human Services, to be called the “Food Safety Administration.”

This bill is currently sitting in committee, and knowing how Congress does its business, most representatives will probably not bother to even read it, depending instead on what lobbyists from their largest campaign donors have to say. This is what passes for “representative democracy” these days.

According to cryptogon.com:

What this will do is force anyone who produces food of any kind, and then transports it to a different location for sale, to register with a new federal agency called the “Food Safety Administration.” Even growers who sell just fruit and/or vegetables at farmers markets would not only have to register, but they would be subject inspections by federal agents of their property and all records related to food production. The frequency of these inspections will be determined by the whim of the Food Safety Administration. Mandatory “safety” records would have to be kept. Anyone who fails to register and comply with all of this nonsense could be facing a fine of up to $1,000,000 per violation.

Activists are urging citizens to contact their representatives at 202-224-3121 and ask them to oppose HR 875 and the Senate bill, S 425.

I guess this is what happens when Obama, trying to appear “centrist,” appoints people like Tom “I Fly with Monsanto” Vilsack to Secretary of Agriculture, instead of looking for people with alternative points of view.

Obama so far - mixed reviews

Sorry I haven't posted in a while -- I've been mesmerized by the Obama phenomenon, waiting and watching, holding my breath -- like a huge number of Americans, I think.

I've been thoroughly unimpressed by some of Obama's cabinet picks, but enthusiastic about most of his initial actions in office. I love it that he made dramatic moves right away on Guantanamo, government transparency, shutting down the lobbyist revolving door syndrome, re-elevating the role of science, etc. etc.

I was very impressed, too, with his interview on Al-Arabiya, a Dubai-based network. Giving his first formal television interview as president to an Arabic cable TV network shows he means business in working toward peace in the middle east, and that he's not afraid -- neither of them, nor the reactionary right-wing in the U.S. that will surely accuse him of all manner of treason for doing such a thing. (How dare he talk to them furriners!)

The interview was a grand gesture toward the entire Muslim world, and he presented himself as a bridge between the West and the East, appealing to the majority of moderate Muslims. His solid performance could be a substantial first step in isolating the extremists in those countries, and he deserves high praise for having the courage and intelligence to pull it off.

As everyone knows, it is a tricky balancing act, politically, to even talk about the Israeli-Palestine conflict in evenhanded terms. Unfortunately, it is political suicide in this country to give the impression you don't fully back Israel, due to the overly-powerful AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) lobby's influence over Congress.

Some will say Obama's words were not strong enough regarding Israel's treatment of Palestinians, but I thought he was masterful, given that he is constrained politically in how forceful he can be on this issue.

"Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people, and that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table," he said.

And the best part: "I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state - I'm not going to put a time frame on it - that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

"And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress."

By putting the attention on the children, he appeals to Israelis in a way nothing else could. Who can deny they are suffering, and that it is wrong? That the children deserve better.

He also talks about the obligation of Palestinians, of course, to get a hold of the situation and stop the extremists who lob rockets into Israel. But he recognizes, publicly, in front of the world, that it is the extremists who are the problem -- not all Palestinians. And as simple as that is, it is extremely important.

So, let's hope President Obama can continue to keep his trademark level-headedness in the face of what is sure to be mounting criticism on the right.

And, please, don't cave in regarding the stimulus package! Job creation, NOT tax breaks, is what is needed, although the Republicans are trying to water it down with more tax breaks for their business supporters. But that's a subject for another post.

Same ol' "change"?

I gotta say, I'm very disappointed so far by Obama's transition team. "Change"? What change?

It's nothing but the same old crowd -- this team for "change."

Take Hillary Clinton, for example. It seems pretty obvious he wants to tap her for Secretary of State. But this is a perplexing choice for many reasons. Naturally, you wouldn't want her in charge of health care, because the bad taste from her first attempts at that -- way back in '92 as the first lady -- still lingers. But Secretary of State? Foreign affairs is the area where he most disagreed with her during the campaign! I understand the desire to emulate Lincoln with a "team of rivals," but does he have to pick people for posts where they are diametrically opposed to his views? You're just making it even harder on yourself, Obama -- as if it weren't going to be difficult enough!

Then there's his main economic advisers, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, both of whom are waist deep in the mortgage debacle. Both have served as CEO of Fannie Mae, with Raines taking over from Johnson. Why choose two of the architects of our financial implosion as your advisers? This makes me really nervous about who he'll pick for Treasury Secretary. We're looking for change, remember? That means something different. There are plenty of top economists who have some very good ideas and don't have their hands dirty. Let's give some new blood a try!

Then of course, there's his pick for chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, an old center-right Clintonite, and the persistent talk of retaining Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. If the first few picks go this way, what does it say about all his promises of "change"? I just don't get it.

Not much is set in stone yet, however. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I certainly hope so.

My letter from the president

I got a letter from the president -- you know, still-president George W. The letter thanked me for my "kind words." Didn't know what the heck he was talking about, of course. I figured it must've been some auto-response to some letter that got sent via some email thingy I signed. But it was snail-mailed to me. And it was in a big 9x11 envelope, with cardboard inside, and had an embossed presidential seal on it and everything! I figured it must be important.

So, it went on to say, "For nearly 8 years, it has been an honor and a joyous experience to be the President of the greatest county on earth." And I thought, yeah, for YOU maybe. Then, "I will sprint to the finish line in the months ahead with confidence in our purpose and trust in the power of the American spirit." I'm not making this up... The next line read, "As a Nation, we will continue to defend freedom's cause..." Oh really, and how are you going to do that, George? Because all you've done so far is trash our economy and world standing -- all for a lie. But go ahead, you were saying? "...build a more prosperous future..." OMG! I'm DYING here! "and make our society more peaceful..." SERIOUSLY? "and hopeful for every individual." Yeah, uh huh, riiiiiiite.

*Sigh*

Ok, King W's rein is almost over, I must keep reminding myself. But then, I think... another two and a half months? Anything could happen. He could yet trash the rest of this tattered, embattled, saddened, bankrupt and frightened America. That's just too much time! G.W., please, we beg of you -- don't do anything else! Just... STAND there. Ok? Really. I mean it. Right there. Don't move.

Obama is on his way. And he can't take the reins too soon.

The White Man Won

Hey, Obama is half white, after all. We call him black, but the fact is, he's just as white as he is black, genetically speaking. Which is perfect.

Some people think Abraham Lincoln had some African blood in him. Whether or not he did, two skinny tall guys from Illinois, both lawyers and state legislators, both coming from humble beginnings, went on to reach the presidency of the United States of America. The first one freed the black slaves, the second became the first black president.

Though he is half white, we call him black. And yet we elected him, overwhelmingly. And, while that is certainly a victory for the black man in America, it is also a victory for the white man in America. For the simple reason that he has overcome his sordid history of racism. In that sense, it is a victory for us all. Even the racists that are presently seething in their hatred as they witness a history they never saw coming may eventually be changed.

Why? Because, familiarity brings understanding. Although Mr. & Ms. Bigot may not see it today, eventually, they will have to admit that, hey, this guy is doing a pretty good job. (Because we know he'll do a great job.) And they'll see him everyday in the news, conducting their nation's business. The country will not turn communist. Obama will not invite Al Qaeda for dinner. They sky will not fall. They will, eventually, see that they were lied to, by their own party... this man is no terrorist, he is a true, red, white and blue American.

And like the prejudiced person living in a formerly all-white neighborhood, when the black family moves in next door, after some time passes and they get to know them a bit, the prejudice subsides. So will the inbred racism of a whole generation begin to subside, as even people who remain isolated from other races where they live begin to become familiar with this new black president. They will see good things happening, their own lot improving, as we move from an economics geared toward the rich to one geared toward the people. Then they may begin to see.

The blacks and the whites won. In the words of Martin Luther King, "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" Hallelujah.

Beware of Socialism! For the rich, that is...

All this talk of Barack Obama wanting to "redistribute the wealth" is hilarious. That's what taxes do -- redistribute the wealth -- always have. The question is, do we redistribute it to the poor and middle class, or to the rich? Teddy Roosevelt, John McCain's hero, instituted the progressive income tax, where the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor. It only makes sense -- our culture and society created the infrastructure for some people to make it rich, and they should pay back into that society.

We've always had elements of "socialism" in our society, as do all societies. You don't have to pay the fireman to put out the fire in your house before he acts, do you? That's because we've all agreed to put something in the kitty so that the fireman is paid, can buy the equipment he needs, and is ready to put out fires, wherever they occur (on the rich OR poor man's property). Same with police, school, roads and infrastructure. Same with health care -- in every industrialized country but our own, that is.

Meanwhile, since Reagan, those with the biggest incomes have been benefiting from a kind of "socialism" for the rich. The wealth has been getting redistributed UPWARDS! Tax cut after tax cut for the rich over the last eight years have been put in place by Bush and the Republican congress, up until two years ago, when the Dems took over congress. Obama merely wants to rescind those cuts, and make the tax code more fair again. He also wants to stop rewarding corporations for outsourcing jobs, by eliminating their tax loopholes, which makes sense to nearly everyone who isn't stinking rich -- except for a few nearsighted middle class Republicans, who seem to like voting against their own economic self-interests.

90% of gains in recent years went to the top 10%, 40% of the top gains went to the top 1%. Talk about redistribution of wealth! That's our middle class wealth that's been getting redistributed to the top 1% of the wealthiest people!

I say, it's time to stop subsidizing the rich, time to stop the downward slide of the rest of the population. No more welfare for the rich! Vote Obama!

Letter to Republican friends and family

Don’t worry, the country will not collapse, nor become anti-Christian, nor turn socialist if Barack Obama gets elected.

Really now – take a deep breath. That’s right, still your fears for just a minute. Think. Don’t you see the pattern here? This has been the GOP campaign strategy since Karl Rove took it over. My God, they did it to John McCain himself, in 2000.

Don’t you remember? How, in South Carolina, when it became apparent that McCain’s momentum was growing and that he might take the Republican nomination, they started the whisper and email campaigns about him? They said his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually a black “love child” of his and that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife. No, seriously, it’s true. You don’t remember? They spread lies, vicious rumor after vicious rumor, just like they always do. Bush supporters even circulated church fliers that labeled McCain “the fag candidate.” Look it up. Unlike the emails going around about Obama, these are facts, this really happened.


Now John McCain has allowed those same elements in the party to take over his campaign, eight years later. What kind of character does that show, anyway? To knowingly use scummy tactics, after they were used on you and your family, because you’re so desperate to win office.

Any way, the point is, they do this election after election. They did it to John Kerry, they did it even in congressional races, such as the despicable attacks on the character of Max Cleland, a man who sacrificed three limbs – three limbs! – in service to our country. But that didn’t stop these slime-dwellers from questioning his patriotism in the 2002 race, trying to link him with Saddam Hussein, of all things.

Invariably, once these baseless charges, rumors, lies and deceptions are investigated, they are found to be untrue. Quotes are taken completely out of context, records are distorted by playing numbers games, lies are created to “explain” events and associations, racial tensions are fanned, and the smears are repeated ad nauseam. And it’s all aimed at making you afraid.

Yes, it happens every four years, and yet you keep falling for it. Wake up! See the pattern, don’t let yourself get played so easily! They are trying to scare you, and like third graders at a summer camp, you’re letting the scout master scare the bejeezes out of you by the campfire with his monster stories!

And the farther they fall behind in the polls, the more vicious they get – and the more shrill you sound when you try to explain why you just hate the other candidate. It can’t just be that you disagree with his point of view or his policies or his record, even, no – he’s evil!

Wow. Listen to yourself! Don’t you feel silly? Evil? Come on.

Do you really think he could fool this many people if Obama were as wicked as Ms. Palin seems to be saying he is? Could he really fool all those admirals and generals if he was secretly a terrorist? Ya think? Really?


C’mon, let’s stop the pretense. Yeah, I know it must be hard. You were riding high for years, the Republican banner held proudly aloft, as the stock market soared and we went off to spread democracy and freedom. How deflating it must be to realize how badly you had been fooled. The war was based on lies, and the prosperity turned out to be an illusion. Worse, an illusion that got some greedy people stinking rich, while leaving you with deteriorating portfolios, home values and egos.

Life can be a bitch. You know what? I don’t feel sorry for you. You laughed at us when we tried to show you these people were not acting in your best interests. We tried to get your attention, to warn you the country was being sold a bill of goods, and the bill would come due. And it has. Now we’re left with a stinking rubble pile of an economy, and shriveled net worths.

Somebody made off like bandits, but it wasn’t you. So why do you continue to stick up for these clowns? They’re either clowns, or they’re in with the thieves, you decide. The only people they were working for all this time were the rich slobs who ended up profiting from the war and the economic upheaval. So why continue to listen to them? They did you wrong. They continue to do you wrong. And they are lying to you – again – this time about Barack Obama.


Hey, you bet on the wrong horse. The horse has now gone limp. You’re not going to bet on it again, are you? Whaddaya say we try another team – nobody can possibly screw it up any worse than the last team. Maybe we can try using nimble smarts rather than arrogant brawn, just for a while. Who knows, the new guys might even be able to improve things. For you, and for me – rather than for the fat cats this time. Wouldn’t that be nice, for a change?

Dems disappoint in political use of bailout

I'm deeply disappointed in the Democrats for passing the bailout bill in the form that they did. Once again, the majority party in Congress makes an important decision -- actually a momentous and hugely consequential decision, in this case -- and resorts to the politically expedient path instead of the correct one.

They did this mainly, I believe, because the Republicans initially voted against it, and by taking the opposite side, the Democrats could leverage their already strong advantage in the economic arena, and hammer the opposition with the criticism that they are hurting Americans by delaying the "rescue."

But the plan is a faulty one. It is a little better than what Treasury Secretary Paulson first proposed, but so what? Of course the Bush administration is going to take an extreme position, so that in the inevitable "compromise" they'll get more of what they want. Republicans are very good at that game. They've been doing it forever. However, compromising with an extremely bad bill results in just a very bad bill.

The "safeguards" that this celebrated "compromise" resulted in are not in any way sufficient. They rely on an oversight board picked by the president, for one thing. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said it best, in his speech on the floor regarding the final draft of the bailout bill:

"In the midst of all of this, we have a bailout package which says to the middle class that you are being asked to place at risk $700 billion, which is $2,200 for every man, woman, and child in this country. You're being asked to do that in order to undo the damage caused by this excessive Wall Street greed. In other words, the “Masters of the Universe,” those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse. Now, as the American and world financial systems teeter on the edge of a meltdown, these multimillionaires are demanding that the middle class, which has already suffered under Bush's disastrous economic policies, pick up the pieces that they broke. That is wrong, and that is something that I will not support.

"If we are going to bail out Wall Street, it should be those people who have caused the problem, those people who have benefited from Bush's tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, those people who have taken advantage of deregulation, those people are the people who should pick up the tab, and not ordinary working people. I introduced an amendment which gave the Senate a very clear choice. We can pay for this bailout of Wall Street by asking people all across this country, small businesses on Main Street, homeowners on Maple Street, elderly couples on Oak Street, college students on Campus Avenue, working families on Sunrise Lane, we can ask them to pay for this bailout. That is one way we can go. Or, we can ask the people who have gained the most from the spasm of greed, the people whose incomes have been soaring under president bush, to pick up the tab.

"I proposed to raise the tax rate on any individual earning $500,000 a year or more or any family earning $1 million a year or more by 10 percent. That increase in the tax rate, from 35 percent to 45 percent, would raise more than $300 billion in the next five years, almost half the cost of the bailout. If what all the supporters of this legislation say is correct, that the government will get back some of its money when the market calms down and the government sells some of the assets it has purchased, then $300 billion should be sufficient to make sure that 99.7 percent of taxpayers do not have to pay one nickel for this bailout."

The Ronald Reagan era is over, and if it's not, it's a shriveled up, slimy grotesque bottom-feeding swamp thing that deserves to be, to turn Grover Norquist's meaning around, "drowned in a bathtub." The only "trickling down" that's been happening is the rich pissing on the poor (and the middle class). What we need now is some "trickle UP" economics.

We need a new New Deal. That's "trickle-up" economics, and it has already proven itself. By creating programs to foster the type of economic growth we really need, we can at once solve many pressing problems AND put people to work. Right away, the economy would get back on its feet. For what IS the economy, if not fundamentally a function of how the population is doing in it's exchange of goods and labor?

Right away, people would have more to spend, as neighbors and relatives get work in the new green industries which would flourish with a little boost from the government. Right-wingers can no longer frighten people with the charge of "socialism" when it comes to these types of programs -- sorry, not after you cried so hard for $700 billion for your big-buck buddies. No, investing in our infrastructure will not "socialize" the country into a bunch of mindless commie reds -- it will simply be an investment -- remember that word? -- in ourselves, in our nation.

Now that the bill has passed, Congress must not allow our $700 billion to be squandered away by Paulson and his Wall Street money "experts." We must hold most of it back, until we get some sane leadership back in the White House, by electing Barack Obama. At that point, Obama must, I repeat, must, free himself from the old economic policies still held by his unfortunate pick of economic advisers, and, in his own words, "do the right thing" with our money.

Maybe then, we can finally, for real, "get the country back on track."

Railing on the Candidates

If you were The Boss, which team would you hire?

I received this in an email recently, I thought it was pretty pertinent. What do you think?

If You were The Boss... Which team would you hire?

With America facing historic debt, multiple war fronts, stumbling health care, a weakened dollar, all-time high prison population, skyrocketing Federal spending, mortgage crisis, bank foreclosures, etc. etc., this is an unusually critical election year.

Let's look at the educational background of the candidates and see what they bring to the job:

Barack Obama:
Punahou School - Grades 5 to 12, Hawaii's most prestigious private school
Occidental College - Two years of undergraduate study.
Columbia University - B.A. political science majoring in international relations.
Harvard University - Juris Doctor (J.D.) (Attorney), (Magna Cum Laude), first African-American editor of the most prestigious law school publication, "Harvard Law Review."

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in history and B.A. in political science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.) (Attorney)
U.S. Senate, first elected at age 29, continuous service since

VS.

John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank 894 out of 899 (meaning that, like George Bush, McCain was at the bottom of his class)

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in journalism

Now, which team are you going to hire? THINK FUTURE!

As a side note, Matt Damon's opinion is pretty entertaining (short video).

What the Democrats need to do: Interview with Drew Westen, author of "The Political Brain"

This is a really GREAT interview with Drew Westen, the author of The Political Brain, on what Democrats need to do in their campaign to connect with the emotional side of voters. It also should be taken in by everyone who wants to be able to convince those on the fence, and maybe even open-minded Republicans, that Bush, McCain, Palin & Co don't own a patent on "American values."

It's only 9 minutes long, and you can watch it on your computer.

Obama in Danger?
NOW: "Are tactical mistakes by Obama going to cost him the election? Psychologist and Democratic political consultant Drew Westen talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about how appealing to voters' emotions reaps bigger electoral rewards than hammering home policy proposals."

Close race might actually be good for Dems

Conventional wisdom says Obama will need a big lead come election time, because as was shown in the Democratic primary polling months ago, his actual vote tallies tended to be lower than the polls predicted. The reason given for this is that some people say they plan to vote for Obama, ashamed to admit their racial bias, but actually vote the other way. This is extrapolated to the presidential election by some folks, and there may be some truth to that, to be sure.

But on the other hand, I could see it working this way come election time: If Obama has a big lead in the polls, disgruntled Clinton backers may want to register their protest by voting for McCain, figuring the Dems will get the White House anyway. In this case, the polls could be off, and the protest votes could tip the election to McCain.

But if polls show a neck-and-neck race, those same people might be more motivated by the fear of the reality of a McCain presidency. They might still tell pollsters they won't vote for Obama, but when they get in that booth, visions of Roe v Wade overturned, far-right Supreme Court justices on the bench for a generation, extended war and more of the Bush years should be enough to bring them to their senses.

The same could be true for people who normally vote Republican. Many professed Republicans are angry with their party, and rightly see that traditional conservative values are not being well-represented by the GOP of late. Therefore, many have said they will vote for Obama. There may be many more that feel this way, but don't want to be seen as disloyal to their party, and are keeping mum about it. Come election time, if the polls are close, they might secretly vote for Obama, knowing the Dems will be better for working people like themselves. However, if polls show Obama with a comfortable lead, they might feel they should vote GOP out of loyalty.

I've got no hard data to back this theory up, but hey, this is blogger-land, where everyone can spout their little predictions and possible scenarios - we don't need no stinkin' data! But seriously, I could see this effect panning out. What do you think? Leave a comment!

Wright is Wrong

At first I, like many progressives, thought Wright was ok. His 'g.d. America' comments, taken in context, were not the treasonous rants Fox Snooz analysts like to portray them as. But now the Rev. Wright seems to be intentionally sabotaging Obama's campaign. Why would a black preacher try to bring down one of his own flock, another black man who could make history for his own race?

The only reason I can see is that he was offended by Obama distancing himself. If that is the reason, it is an extremely shallow, self-centered one, and therefore, Wright is showing his true colors -- an egomaniac, like so many other "charismatic" preachers.