Just started watching the MSNBC Debate from last night. First Topic is Healthcare. They spent a bunch of time on it. They both want universal healthcare, the specifics of their plans differ slightly. But I realize that the nitty gritty details will be worked out as the bill moves through the House and Senate.
The question in my mind, is who can get the job done, who can go beyond the smear politics of "socialized medicine" and convince the 100 senators and 435 house members to move on, and finally get down to business. Americans have been demanding Healthcare for years, it is literally embarrassing that this wealthy and educated nation cannot provide this basic need for its people. The process in Washington has gone nowhere. Which candidate can get the congress and the people to move past the turf wars and smear tactics and get results?
Watch the video for yourself, you'll see Hillary slander her opponent, call him stupid, misrepresent his remarks, and mock his approach. This may be par for the course in Washington, but you're not going to get people to agree with you. Obama is better at getting people to see where he's coming from and see eye to eye. You need to reach agreement with other people to get things done. Especially if you want to transcend buzz words like "socialized medicine" and "Islamofascism". Hillary is divisive, and Obama can get people to move beyond petty politics.
Watch It
Ralph Nader
I guess I'm one of the few, who don't blame Ralph.
Our election system is broken. We call ourselves a democracy, but we can Only have Two choices. And most of the time, one candidate has 5x-10x more money and airtime as the other candidate. In fact, the battle is so difficult over 90% of US House races only have one choice. It's not Ralph's fault.
Here's a quote I hear all the time, but this really bothers and amazes me. "This election is too important to have a third party." Stop, think about it. You're really saying, "This election is too important, we need fewer choices, fewer ideas, less diversity of opinion, fewer solutions, fewer voices, less discussion, less involvement, please... only two." This is our problem. Important decisions deserve robust discussion, and important elections inspire many candidates and voters to voice their opinion. That is a good thing, why do we think it's ok to limit the debate? Why do we think it's ok to throw out candidates with passion and ambition? Someone decides to run for office because they are so moved and inspired and determined to make a difference in their community. But we think it's ok to get rid of them as quick as possible, just to make the election fit nicely into an ancient and broken electoral system.
So, Ralph, go on with your bad self. And if it pisses off the Democratic Party good!! Change the system to allow more than two candidates, without "spoiling" the election or "Stealing" votes from the better candidate. There is a nonviolent way to keep Nader, and Bloomberg, and Steve Calvenesso, and every third party candidate in history from ever "Spoiling" another election, change the system. If the Democratic party is pissed off and scared of Ralph, they had better do something about it.
Solution. In the constitution, States decide independently how they award their electoral votes. They can split them up or do winner take all. Also the vting process is up to them, as long as it is an open fair election.
Get all the Democratic Governors together, and have each state agree to do Instant Runoff Voting (aka. Ranked Choice Voting). In this method we voters rank our candidates in order of preference, (Nader first, Kerry Second). If nobody gets 50% you get rid of the loser (Nader), and his votes are redistributed to the voters second choice (Kerry). Bingo, no constitutional amendment, everyone's vote counts, there is no spoiler candidate, and we don't have to blame people for voting for the person they actually believe in. And we get to rank our choices, which is what we do in our head all the time. (Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd)
IRV Explained
We can speculate about 2000 and 2004 elections, What if, Ralph didn't run, what if black areas had adequate voting machines, what if Jeb Bush wasn't the Governor of Florida...
Let's think about a different set of What ifs. What if this year, we had a stage full of candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Edwards, Blomberg, Lieberman, Nader, McCain, and Obama. There are a lot of Republicans who will be staying home, if Ron Paul was out there taking the party back from the neo-cons, you know he would get a couple hundred-thousand votes. And you'd have Kucinich calling out hypocrites and sticking to real progressive values as always.
You'd have a real discussion of critical issues. The most public discussion of ideas in the nation is the presidential election, let it be a marketplace of ideas, where people present real and diverse solutions to problems. We'd have near 75% voter turnout, and an informed electorate. If this is truely an important year, and a crossroads for the country, let's have democracy. Government would once again be more engaging than sports and Hollywood.
My Guess, Nader gets at least a few people out to vote who would stay home otherwise, so do Kucinich and Edwards and Ron Paul. Let them participate. I hope Nader Scares the crap out of Democrats, go fix the system, you have the power. I am loyal to no party, I only seek what is best for the American people in the long run.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
02/27/2008 12:46 #43479
Healthcare Candidates, and RalphCategory: politics
02/12/2008 12:17 #43295
How The Election is Saving Our DemocracyCategory: political
(Disclaimer, I am not loyal to any party, in fact I think the 2 party system is one of Americas biggest problems. I am a patriot, not a party loyalist. But the democratic party is on the verge of something important.)
The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.
Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.
Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.
Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.
The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.
I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.
There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.
Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.
Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.
I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.
Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.
One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.
Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.
Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11( ). Maybe you believed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, like Hillary Clinton who spoke on the senate floor about her vote, and specifically mentioned ties to Al Qaeda. If you know anything about the Middle East, you know Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies, that the terrorist group had tried to overthrow Saddam, If he gave them any WMDs they would bomb Baghdad, not NYC.
In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.
Obama on War
Clinton on War
PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama
The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.
Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.
Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.
Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.
The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.
I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.
There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.
Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.
Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.
I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.
Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.
One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.
Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.
Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11( ). Maybe you believed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, like Hillary Clinton who spoke on the senate floor about her vote, and specifically mentioned ties to Al Qaeda. If you know anything about the Middle East, you know Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies, that the terrorist group had tried to overthrow Saddam, If he gave them any WMDs they would bomb Baghdad, not NYC.
In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.
Obama on War
Clinton on War
PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama
jason - 02/12/08 16:36
Cool, DCoffee. To be fair to you, I haven't been able to view the Obama video yet. I'll do that later on. Now, it may or may not make me feel better about his sincerity, (I really don't trust politicians) but I think there is still room for "Yeah, it's easy to say it without putting your vote down" - although let me make this very clear, it is still preferable to what the others do, which is to pretty much absolve themselves of all guilt and responsibility.
Me, I'm easy to lie to. Just ask my exes. *drums*
I'll be watching you buddy!! =) Your skepticism has always been healthy, and so I hope you keep it up. I think we all want a new brand of politician, and Obama represents a very exciting possibility, even if I don't agree with the guy on X, Y or Z policy. It's really easy to get excited, and it isn't my intention to discourage that, only to reinforce the point that politicians lie easier than they breathe, so the skepticism should always stay strong.
Cool, DCoffee. To be fair to you, I haven't been able to view the Obama video yet. I'll do that later on. Now, it may or may not make me feel better about his sincerity, (I really don't trust politicians) but I think there is still room for "Yeah, it's easy to say it without putting your vote down" - although let me make this very clear, it is still preferable to what the others do, which is to pretty much absolve themselves of all guilt and responsibility.
Me, I'm easy to lie to. Just ask my exes. *drums*
I'll be watching you buddy!! =) Your skepticism has always been healthy, and so I hope you keep it up. I think we all want a new brand of politician, and Obama represents a very exciting possibility, even if I don't agree with the guy on X, Y or Z policy. It's really easy to get excited, and it isn't my intention to discourage that, only to reinforce the point that politicians lie easier than they breathe, so the skepticism should always stay strong.
dcoffee - 02/12/08 14:39
Jason, always love your comments. I know you usually check out my sources and such, but I think you didn't watch the video before writing, not that it will change your mind, but the Obama video has excerpts from back to 2002, and you can tell me if you think he was speaking from his heart or just politicking. His statements could have been transcripts of mine from the students for peace meetings back in Fredonia. He did vote to fund the war, and I think that is politicking (probably smart politicking to deal with John McCain on national security), but that does not make him a hypocrite (see his statements in the video),
I know it seems like I'm giving him a blank check, but I am a skeptical person, and I know that campaign season is full of empty promises. I'll be watching his ass, and if he screws around I'll be out of the democratic party again. But I think, if he is elected he will continue to involve the public, he will respect the facts, and disregard ideological pipe-dreams, unlike the current whitehouse occupier.
Jason, always love your comments. I know you usually check out my sources and such, but I think you didn't watch the video before writing, not that it will change your mind, but the Obama video has excerpts from back to 2002, and you can tell me if you think he was speaking from his heart or just politicking. His statements could have been transcripts of mine from the students for peace meetings back in Fredonia. He did vote to fund the war, and I think that is politicking (probably smart politicking to deal with John McCain on national security), but that does not make him a hypocrite (see his statements in the video),
I know it seems like I'm giving him a blank check, but I am a skeptical person, and I know that campaign season is full of empty promises. I'll be watching his ass, and if he screws around I'll be out of the democratic party again. But I think, if he is elected he will continue to involve the public, he will respect the facts, and disregard ideological pipe-dreams, unlike the current whitehouse occupier.
jason - 02/12/08 13:41
Hey there, another interesting post.
First of all, I don't think it's any kind of surprise that The Nation is endorsing Obama. He's definitely the most Liberal of all the viable candidates. If Kucinich had a shot in hell, and had say Hillary's numbers, they would be backing him. They LOVE his ass. Maybe it's me just being cynical, but I don't really trust the press (especially partisan rags of any kind) to be any more honest than the politicians. I just don't.
I remember 2002 very clearly indeed, my friend, and it is definitely "easy" for a politician (that's exactly what he is) who didn't actually have to put their name to a vote to claim the moral high ground. It may or may not come from the heart. He is first and foremost a politician, and he would be an idiot to not take advantage of how Hillary, etc. are flaming hypocrites (who, by the way, inexplicably still to this day get off scot free with their shitty excuses for their war votes).
I don't even really think it's cynical to point that stuff out. If you don't agree you need to have a counter argument. The guy has voted to fund the war in the past, which outs him as at least a part time enabler, if not a full blown hypocrite himself, depending on your level of ideological purity in terms of being anti war. I agree he has plenty of promise, and could be the kind of politician we all hope for - and I hope he is sincere - but please don't give him your trust cheaply.
Hey there, another interesting post.
First of all, I don't think it's any kind of surprise that The Nation is endorsing Obama. He's definitely the most Liberal of all the viable candidates. If Kucinich had a shot in hell, and had say Hillary's numbers, they would be backing him. They LOVE his ass. Maybe it's me just being cynical, but I don't really trust the press (especially partisan rags of any kind) to be any more honest than the politicians. I just don't.
I remember 2002 very clearly indeed, my friend, and it is definitely "easy" for a politician (that's exactly what he is) who didn't actually have to put their name to a vote to claim the moral high ground. It may or may not come from the heart. He is first and foremost a politician, and he would be an idiot to not take advantage of how Hillary, etc. are flaming hypocrites (who, by the way, inexplicably still to this day get off scot free with their shitty excuses for their war votes).
I don't even really think it's cynical to point that stuff out. If you don't agree you need to have a counter argument. The guy has voted to fund the war in the past, which outs him as at least a part time enabler, if not a full blown hypocrite himself, depending on your level of ideological purity in terms of being anti war. I agree he has plenty of promise, and could be the kind of politician we all hope for - and I hope he is sincere - but please don't give him your trust cheaply.
02/07/2008 00:37 #43224
Campaigns Candidates and LettermanCategory: politics
Holly crap, I just found a video of Hillary Clinton on Dave Letterman''s show, from like 2 days ago,
And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.
Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.
One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.
Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.
____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.
PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________
And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.
Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.
One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.
Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.
____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.
PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________
02/05/2008 17:55 #43195
VotingCategory: politics
Time to share voting stories,
I went to my polling place on Rhode Island at about 1:30, I go a little late so I can see how many people voted before me. I was voter #148 But the interesting thing is that about 120 of those voters were Democrats. I know I'm on the West Side, and there are more democrats around, but I thought that was an interesting contrast. Nationally far more Democratic voters are showing up to the polls. And I'm glad the democratic candidates are keeping the dialogue relatively civil, unlike the Republicans.
I like voting, I vote every year. Even when the 2 party candidates are lame, I proudly vote third party, and get great satisfaction from it. Voting third party is definitely not a wasted vote, especially in NYS which is not a swing state. I feel like my 3rd party vote means more than voting for some Democrat. and even if I do vote for a Democrat, I vote on the Working Families line.
Anyway this year, I voted in my first primary, and I dig it.
PS, my firefox spellcheck never heard of Rhode Island, WTF?
I went to my polling place on Rhode Island at about 1:30, I go a little late so I can see how many people voted before me. I was voter #148 But the interesting thing is that about 120 of those voters were Democrats. I know I'm on the West Side, and there are more democrats around, but I thought that was an interesting contrast. Nationally far more Democratic voters are showing up to the polls. And I'm glad the democratic candidates are keeping the dialogue relatively civil, unlike the Republicans.
I like voting, I vote every year. Even when the 2 party candidates are lame, I proudly vote third party, and get great satisfaction from it. Voting third party is definitely not a wasted vote, especially in NYS which is not a swing state. I feel like my 3rd party vote means more than voting for some Democrat. and even if I do vote for a Democrat, I vote on the Working Families line.
Anyway this year, I voted in my first primary, and I dig it.
PS, my firefox spellcheck never heard of Rhode Island, WTF?
drew - 02/05/08 21:53
I share your polling place, but I was #34
I share your polling place, but I was #34
joshua - 02/05/08 20:08
PS - Don't feel bad, most Americans haven't heard of Rhode Island so I think your spellcheck is off the hook. And I don't mean that in the "off the heezy" sense.
PS - Don't feel bad, most Americans haven't heard of Rhode Island so I think your spellcheck is off the hook. And I don't mean that in the "off the heezy" sense.
dcoffee - 02/05/08 20:07
Another bonus about voting in a Democratic primary, the electoral votes are NOT winner take all. So if one candidate gets 56% of the vote, they also get 56% of the electoral votes, wow imagine that, what a crazy idea. Not like the general election where the person with the most votes gets the whole state. Republicans still do winner take all though, sorry guys.
Another bonus about voting in a Democratic primary, the electoral votes are NOT winner take all. So if one candidate gets 56% of the vote, they also get 56% of the electoral votes, wow imagine that, what a crazy idea. Not like the general election where the person with the most votes gets the whole state. Republicans still do winner take all though, sorry guys.
janelle - 02/05/08 18:24
Yeah, I heard on the radio that several polling places have been relocated and people don't know where to go. That's kind of shady.
Yeah, I heard on the radio that several polling places have been relocated and people don't know where to go. That's kind of shady.
joshua - 02/05/08 18:12
My first polling place was the fire station on Rhode Island. I wonder why they thought it was incredibly important to relocate me.
My first polling place was the fire station on Rhode Island. I wonder why they thought it was incredibly important to relocate me.
02/05/2008 00:25 #43185
My Obama EndorsementCategory: politics
Obama, Clinton, and The Election
Why Vote:
This is the first time I'm voting in a primary. I have always been registered as a Green, but I switched to Democrat just for this primary election. The government has not been serving the people. We have been taken advantage of by those with power and money, and the government let it happen.
I'm tired of politicians who don't stand up and challenge the corrupt system in Washington. Many people are fed up and that's why we don't vote. The politicians don't represent us, they represent corporations and the people who fund their campaigns.
But in the end, they need our vote. We still hold that power over the government. Sometimes candidates aren't that different. It's usually down to two, which is not much of a choice for a democracy. But sometimes you get a candidate with vision, leadership and the will to rock the boat. I think there are big differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why Obama
One thing about Obama, he gets young people out to vote in record numbers. We need to stop letting Washington run itself, and realize our power to determine our own future. Social Security, Healthcare, Student Loans, Job Security, the Environment, we have a lot of work to do. My generation is starting to realize that politics affects our lives, now we need to have the confidence to go and change politics.
On the Iraq War, Obama has been right from the beginning. In 2002, it was very unpopular to speak negatively about Bush, and despite the risk, Obama spoke publicly and candidly in opposition to the war. Solid judgment led him to speak out and put his career on the line to oppose a policy doomed to failure.
The problem with politicians, is that they have a hidden agenda. They are thinking of campaign contributions instead of doing what is right for the public. They think that deceiving the voters, and obeying wealthy corporate interests, will get them elected. Obama however, believes in honesty, democracy, and openness.
Obama relies more on voters and small donations, than he does on corporate contributions. He doesn't have to promise as many favors to his corporate connections. Clinton is part of the old system, the system that got us here. Sure nobody's perfect, and any democrat would be better than a republican, but I want this president to make real changes. Not just changes in policy, but changes in the Washington system of secrecy, power, and corruption.
My issues are Campaign Finance, the Electoral System, Inequality, Poverty, Diplomatic Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Political Corruption, crumbling cities and infrastructure, and our loss of community. I think these issues are best handled by a political outsider with confidence, vision, and a working class background, who can lead.
I liked a lot of the democratic candidates. Our election system forces us to narrow it down before we even get a chance to vote, and that's a problem. There are more than two types of people in this country. And we should be able to rank our choices so that there are no more 'spoiler' candidates who 'steal votes'. Here we are again with two, but if we vote for Obama now the decision in November will really mean something. And voter turnout will be record breaking.
If there is any election where you don't have a candidate you believe in, show up and vote third party as a protest. Voting third party is a strong statement, staying home is not.
I am a skeptic, who believes in Barack Obama, I think he is a good candidate who is very different than Clinton and the past 30 years of problems in this country. And I think it's so important to vote and participate, that I wrote this letter, and urging you to go out and participate.
Thanks
Here's Obama on the War, starting in 2002
more Obama Videos on YouTube
Why Vote:
This is the first time I'm voting in a primary. I have always been registered as a Green, but I switched to Democrat just for this primary election. The government has not been serving the people. We have been taken advantage of by those with power and money, and the government let it happen.
I'm tired of politicians who don't stand up and challenge the corrupt system in Washington. Many people are fed up and that's why we don't vote. The politicians don't represent us, they represent corporations and the people who fund their campaigns.
But in the end, they need our vote. We still hold that power over the government. Sometimes candidates aren't that different. It's usually down to two, which is not much of a choice for a democracy. But sometimes you get a candidate with vision, leadership and the will to rock the boat. I think there are big differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Why Obama
One thing about Obama, he gets young people out to vote in record numbers. We need to stop letting Washington run itself, and realize our power to determine our own future. Social Security, Healthcare, Student Loans, Job Security, the Environment, we have a lot of work to do. My generation is starting to realize that politics affects our lives, now we need to have the confidence to go and change politics.
On the Iraq War, Obama has been right from the beginning. In 2002, it was very unpopular to speak negatively about Bush, and despite the risk, Obama spoke publicly and candidly in opposition to the war. Solid judgment led him to speak out and put his career on the line to oppose a policy doomed to failure.
The problem with politicians, is that they have a hidden agenda. They are thinking of campaign contributions instead of doing what is right for the public. They think that deceiving the voters, and obeying wealthy corporate interests, will get them elected. Obama however, believes in honesty, democracy, and openness.
Obama relies more on voters and small donations, than he does on corporate contributions. He doesn't have to promise as many favors to his corporate connections. Clinton is part of the old system, the system that got us here. Sure nobody's perfect, and any democrat would be better than a republican, but I want this president to make real changes. Not just changes in policy, but changes in the Washington system of secrecy, power, and corruption.
My issues are Campaign Finance, the Electoral System, Inequality, Poverty, Diplomatic Foreign Policy, Healthcare, Political Corruption, crumbling cities and infrastructure, and our loss of community. I think these issues are best handled by a political outsider with confidence, vision, and a working class background, who can lead.
I liked a lot of the democratic candidates. Our election system forces us to narrow it down before we even get a chance to vote, and that's a problem. There are more than two types of people in this country. And we should be able to rank our choices so that there are no more 'spoiler' candidates who 'steal votes'. Here we are again with two, but if we vote for Obama now the decision in November will really mean something. And voter turnout will be record breaking.
If there is any election where you don't have a candidate you believe in, show up and vote third party as a protest. Voting third party is a strong statement, staying home is not.
I am a skeptic, who believes in Barack Obama, I think he is a good candidate who is very different than Clinton and the past 30 years of problems in this country. And I think it's so important to vote and participate, that I wrote this letter, and urging you to go out and participate.
Thanks
Here's Obama on the War, starting in 2002
more Obama Videos on YouTube
mrdeadlier - 02/05/08 12:49
I voted for Paul today since I lean more towards the Republican side of things, but I'm pretty sure Obama has my vote in November if he ends up against McCain or Romney.
I voted for Paul today since I lean more towards the Republican side of things, but I'm pretty sure Obama has my vote in November if he ends up against McCain or Romney.
NADAR AND 3RD PARTY:
My problem with Nadar is simple really. He doesn't represent a real 3rd party if he did he would have been part of debates or at least ran against someone else in some form and he didn't he waited till it is almost decided who will run. To me that is kinda cheap. I think it is great to have a real 3rd party but with the current political voting process it doesn't really work. One of the reasons for that is that currently 3rd party is just that it is some party that no one really cares about and doesn't have a chance even being close to winning. If the Green party or the party that wants to make weed legal was a strong party and you had 3 equal parties then it would be great. But the way the system is set up all the 3rd party does is take votes away from one of the major parties and that could cause them to lose that state. I think there is an easy way to fix the problem. I think that both parties like the Electoral college because it keeps out 3rd parties because if you don't win the state you get nothing and that helps them keep their power. But maybe it could be altered. If I get 90% of the vote why do I get the same amount of points as if I get 51% of the vote. I say take every state and double there points (or you could not) then Each person who runs in a said state gets the percentage of votes that they get in the state. That would be much fairer. You could even add that for your votes to count you have to be in a certain number of states at least the majority of them I would say take out 3 states cause you shouldn't be forced to go to Texas, Alaska and Hawaii if you don't want to. Then who ever gets the most points at the end wins (sorry for long written form).
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE:
I know people use the term universal health care to mean socailised medicine. But they are not the same. Universal health care means that everyone in the country (not sure about illegal aliens or people here legaly but not a citizen) would be able to get health care who doesn't have it or that everyone has it. For example I work and have health care but not all jobs have it. Companies could be forced to either have it or give vouchers to help pay for it. Universal just means that people who don't have it would have a way to get it and laws could be made so more people get it with out going on and trying to get it.
"Socialised Medicine" When you are born you are given a card. Anytime you need anything you use your card at a Doctor or Hospital.
I have heard that one of the problems with this is that there isn't as much money in it so doctors go to countries where there is more money to be made. I have also heard that since it is government run that often waits to get not life saving (maybe life saving stuff) can be longer.
With Universal everyone would have health care but people have different plans and different coverages and "The Rich" would have better plans then "The Poor" . With socailised everyone would be the same. Besides do you really trust the people who didn't show up for Katrina to run Medical stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want Obama to get fucked either, he's the best chance we've had in a long time. and even though I live in NYS and my vote doesn't count because of the electoral college, Obama still has my support, especially if his name is on the Working Families Line.
But the way I see it, no candidate will save America, not Kucinich, or Gore, or Obama. Only if they change the election system, the electoral college, Instant Runoff Voting, Proportional Representation in the Senate, and Publicly financed campaigns, then they can have credit for saving America.
But I don't blame James or Jim, or anyone else for being pissed at Nader. In fact it makes me nuts to think about what the world would have been like if we had a President Gore in 2000. Honestly I don't go there, cause it kinda makes me want to move to Canada. But if Obama fights to keep liberals behind him, that's not so bad, and I still think he'll win.
I think you're off on America being conservative though, only 20% call themselves liberal, but on most issues the majority position is the Liberal position, only on Abortion and somewhat national security does it even come close.
Republicans have done a great job of demonizing liberals, and I am worried about Obama creeping toward the center and trying to act conservative to avoid criticism. I think he has the ability, more than any other candidate, to persuade people that the liberal position is the right one, but it will be a struggle, and I hope he keeps his nerve.
Healthcare, per capita we spend twice as much as any other country, so even if the government raises our taxes, it will still be cheaper for us. I don't think Hillary or Obama's plan go far enough, it should be _more_ like Social Security, everyone pays out of their taxes. And with a single payer system you have a lot of purchasing and bargaining power (like Wal-Mart) even without price mandates. Social security doesn't buy anything, they just give individuals a check, so it has no parallel there. But I understand you have to phaise out Health Insurance companies instead of just putting them out of businesses.
On social security, minor changes could save it, especially if we act soon, but conservatives have hated this program since it started, they want to see it die.
Shucks, now mine is long too!
The Youth Vote (under 30), has huge significance, I love it, nothing says "Fuck the System" like doubling and tripling the youth vote. the game of politics is full of formulas, cohorts, and other BS, all that crap is moot when the internet browsing, college going youth show up. Love it.
James is a hater! =D
I'm not surprised by the comment about the third party. When someone says "this election is too important to have a third party" what is obviously REALLY being said is "this election is too important for Obama to get fucked." The pretense that these people care about fair elections and what is best for the voters has long since been laughed off. You don't get fucked if your ideas are more palatable to the voters! This lesson has *never* been learned because of one main reason. Liberal Democrats never blame themselves for their ideas not being popular on a national scale; someone else is always to blame and plenty of hilarious conspiracy theories come to light. Every election they lose brings another round of bizarre queries about the integrity of our voting system, which coincidentally is never a problem or is never questioned when "their" guy does win. I'm still waiting for the cries of voter disenfranchisement after the incredibly narrow sweep in '06. Think I'll be waiting long? If the system is broken this year it was more than certainly broken in '06. The bottom line - Democrats do not give ONE FLYING FUCK about the integrity of the system because if its not good enough when you lose, how is the same system good enough when you win?
I'd respectfully disagree with an earlier assessment you've made regarding the palatability of progressive values on a large scale in America. Do not confuse wild-eyed, cultish fervor in the Democratic camp for Barack Obama for a widespread acceptance of progressive values across all lines in America. I believe this will be more than amply illustrated when the general election hits. Even if Barack Obama wins, which I see as completely plausible, any suggestion of a mandate could only exist if he wins in a landslide... which I see as completely implausible. The notion of an impending progressive wave in America is completely unfounded! Progressives better start winning in big numbers and by big margins if they want to make that claim.
What is next - liberals claiming that Nader voters are racist?
If its done correctly national healthcare would be nice. I simply don't believe that it will ever be viable because of our problem with Social Security going bankrupt - which if nothing changes will almost certainly occur in our lifetime. We may have to raise taxes and cut spending drastically merely to protect that program. Negative returns start in 9 years and NO politician is touching this issue. Anybody that says that Social Security is and will be solvent is either lying or misinformed.
Now you must be thinking, "but Josh, this has no effect on how much money is already being spent on healthcare!" True enough. But who is actually spending the money? Here is part of the answer - the government accounts only for less than half. 45% in fact. :::link::: In the UK's utterly flawed system total government expenditure as a measure of total expenditure is 86%. In Canada the expenditure percentage is about 70%. Where is the other 25-40% going to come from at all, let alone with our problems with Social Security?
Medical costs are outrageous in this country - before we talk about national healthcare I think we need to talk about how to control healthcare costs first, because without doing so we'll simply have another failed but well intended initiative. The only way this will happen is for the private sector to be compelled to keep costs lower. The only way this is done is competition. Trust me, if the government attempts some sort of cost mandate that makes risking billions of dollars in drug research impractical, you will see the end of medical innovation in America and a drastic cut in the number of drugs and vaccines that the companies manufacture. For that matter, in the United States I can't envision any kind of national healthcare without the cooperation of the private sector.
Lastly (god this is long) - you've brought up runoff voting again! I completely agree with you in spirit and in principle. There should be a better way. However, I don't think that having Democratic politicians collude to subvert the system as implemented is correct either. Simply, the system itself has to improve and THAT is the responsibility of Howard Dean and the DNC. Even with the introduction of an improved system I remain skeptical that the complaints would cease.
Sorry for being long man. I like your journal and talking about civic issues. Its our generation that is going to have to solve these problems so we need to be having a dialogue. I also think we need to tell the self-absorbed generation that continues to believe they are always right (remember - the ones who said 'never trust anyone older than 30'?) that we've taken their advice and aren't listening to them anymore.
Ahh, good point, I forgot to mention that. Ralph has not tried to build the green party, or any other party, and that's a problem, he definitely looses points in my book. But beyond that our system should be open to more parties and more candidates.
Ralph doesn't bring a third party to the table. He brings his own ego to it. He used to do good work with the green party and it could have really amounted to something. But since his falling out with them after the 2000 election it has become apparent that his interest has nothing to do with a viable third party.
The Green Party has not elected someone to national office. Green's litter city governments and school boards, but have not built a national party. Which is a shame.
So, I think it is reasonable to complain about both Nader entering the race and the lack of a viable third party.