dems will win

Obama's Big Advantage: He's Black.

By breaking the color barrier for the Presidency, like Louis Armstrong, Sammy Davis, Jackie Robinson, Sidney Poitier and Martin Luther King, Obama becomes a Folk Hero.

This makes him the darling of the Press and gives him a strong Teflon coating. In addition, by breaking the biggest color barrier on Earth, the Presidency of the United States, Obama goes beyond mere Folk Hero status and attains Super Folk Hero.

27% say they will never vote for a black, 24% for a woman, I think it was 35% for a Mormon and 53% for an atheist.

Fortunately, Obama is NOT a black woman Mormon atheist. Because he is just a black man, he has an excellent chance to romp over the Republicans, who will be cast as the Folk Villians in 2008 against Super Folk Hero.  The Dems have not had a Super-Powered Folk Hero run for President since maybe Andrew Jackson.  JFK and FDR were great candidates but they became Folk Heroes AFTER they were elected.  Obama is a Super-Powered Folk Hero before the first vote has been cast.

This Folk Hero Status would also be granted to the female or Hispanic in the race if they had the charisma and skills to pull it off. But clearly they do not.

So besides the incredible skills and charisma of Obama, he has another terrific advantage:

He's black.

Continue Reading...

Another Clinton Campaign Problem: Surrogate Strickland Says Iowa Caucus "Hugely Undemocratic", more

 

Clinton Endorser and Iowa Campaigner Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio says “Iowa Unattractive in the Wintertime” and that the Caucuses are “Hugely Undemocratic” and “Must Be Brought To An End”.

This is going to help Edwards and Obama, there is no doubt.

Voters in Iowa (and New Hampshire) are a defensive bunch when it comes to their “first-in-the-nation” status. It's one reason why candidates were so willing to pledge to avoid campaigning in Michigan and Florida when both states jumped ahead in the primary calendar.

So a few eyebrows were probably raised when one of Hillary Clinton's most prominent backers, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, lashed out against not only Iowa's spot on the calendar, but also its arcane caucus process – something of which the state's Democrats are very proud.

According to the Associated Press, Strickland called the caucuses “hugely undemocratic” and, because they require attendance at a certain time, intentionally exclude those who might be working or are too old or too sick to get to the caucus venue.

“I'd like to see both parties say, 'We're going to bring this to an end,'” Strickland told The Columbus Dispatch for a story Monday. His comments came only days after campaigning for Clinton in Iowa over the weekend.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/31/politics/horser…

This story already has big coverage:

Key Clinton Backer Slams Iowa Caucuses As “Undemocratic”
CBS News, NY – 19 hours ago
Voters in Iowa (and New Hampshire) are a defensive bunch when it comes to their “first-in-the-nation” status. It's one reason why candidates were so willing …

Clinton Surrogate Veers Off Script
New York Times, United States – 22 hours ago
By Jeff Zeleny JEFFERSON, Iowa – Over the weekend, Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio was traveling alongside Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton here, asking voters to …

Prominent Clinton backer criticizes Iowa caucuses
CNN International – Dec 31, 2007
CEDAR FALLS, Iowa (CNN) — Days before the Iowa caucuses, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter criticized the state's privileged role in the presidential …

Oh-eight (D): Channeling Howard Dean?
MSNBC – Dec 31, 2007
CLINTON: Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland's critique of Iowa's role in the nominating process didn't go over well with some Iowans. “In an interview with The …

Ohio governor and Clinton backer criticizes Iowa caucuses
Toledo Blade, OH – Dec 31, 2007
AP COLUMBUS, Ohio — The governor of Ohio, a must-win state for presidential candidates, is criticizing the Iowa caucuses. Gov. …

Ohio governor and Clinton backer criticizes Iowa caucuses
WDTN, OH – Dec 31, 2007
AP – December 31, 2007 9:15 AM ET COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) – Governor Ted Strickland is criticizing the Iowa caucuses, saying the process is undemocratic because …

Strickland gets a chilly reception in Iowa
Columbus Dispatch, OH – Dec 31, 2007

Continue Reading...

DES MOINES REGISTER CHANGES ARTICLE ON BIG CLINTON BLUNDER! PHILIPPI CHAIR, AGAINST LOCAL CONTROL

 

This is a Bleeding Heartland ALERT.  The Des Moines Register has SCRUBBED and cleaned up the article about Hillary appointing AgBiz Exec Philippi of the NPPC to be her rural co-chair for the nation.  This article was blogged on by the mighty DesMoinesDem.  NOW THE SAME LINK FROM DesMoinesDem's diary, given below, leads to a heavily redacted and revised article that is not so ruinous for Clinton. 

 IN THE INTEREST OF SEEING HOW YOUR IOWA NEWS IS BEING MANIPULATED, HERE IS THE ARTICLE AND THEN I WILL GIVE YOU THE SCRUBBED QUOTES. THIS IS TRULY OUTRAGEOUS. HILLARY'S PROBLEM IS THAT THE BAD VERSION WAS PRINTED AND ALREADY READ BY THE STATE. THIS AFTER HILLARY HOLDING HER "RURAL CONFERENCE" IN THE OFFICES OF MONSANTO'S LOBBYIST!

This is a national story right here on this blog, DMD did a diary on it, as did DailyKos, AND NOW THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN SCRUBBED AND REVISED.

Here's the rewritten article:

Farmer Garry Klicker and some other family-farm advocates say Democrat Hillary Clinton's choice of a leader of her rural campaign committee casts doubt on her credibility on small-farm issues.

Clinton picked the owner of a large-scale livestock operation who has promoted national corporate agriculture interests to be co-chairwoman of "Rural Americans for Hillary."

That's Joy Philippi, who owns a fourth-generation Nebraska family farm with 2,000 hogs. Philippi is a recent past president of the National Pork Producers Council.

"That's the poster organization for corporate agriculture," said Klicker, who owns about 120 acres in rural Bloomfield and raises about 130 cows and calves.

Klicker said that because Clinton picked Philippi, he doesn't believe the candidate when she says she will champion small farms if she is elected president.

"I'm just very disappointed that Hillary would turn her back on us like this," said Klicker, who said he is unsure whom he will caucus for but is leaning toward Democrat Joe Biden. "She says she'll do one thing, yet when you surround yourself with people who are against the rest of us, we can't expect anything good to happen on family farm issues."

The pork producers council has lobbied against some environmental standards for the hog industry. Its members have fought efforts to give local authorities control over where livestock facilities are built, how owners must control odor, and where or how they dispose of byproducts.

Clinton, however, has called for tightening control over confined-animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, and says she supports "local control over CAFO-siting decisions." She has said she would seek more federal control over air and water pollution from corporate factory farms.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, which advocates for small farmers, also questioned Clinton's choice to pick Philippi.

"Independent, sustainable hog farmers know NPPC does not stand up for their interests," said Lisa Whelan of the community improvement organization.

Reached by telephone Thursday night after her farm chores, Philippi said: "I think people may be blending the policy of a national organization with my personal opinions."

The Clinton campaign asked state Rep. Mark Kuhn, a Charles City Democrat who has pushed for local control, to respond on its behalf. Kuhn said he trusts Clinton to be true to her word in bringing prosperity to rural America.

This was scrubbed from the rewrite of this article (in bold):

Klicker said that because Clinton picked Philippi, he doesn't believe the candidate when she says she will champion small farms if she is elected president.

"I'm just very disappointed that Hillary would turn her back on us like this," said Klicker, who said he is unsure whom he will caucus for but is leaning toward Democrat Joe Biden. "She says she'll do one thing, yet when you surround yourself with people who are against the rest of us, we can't expect anything good to happen on family farm issues."

The pork producers council has lobbied against some environmental standards for the hog industry. Its members have fought what's known as local control, which would give local authorities control over where livestock facility construction, how owners must control odor, or where or how they dispose of bi-products.

That"s the opposite of Clinton's stance. Clinton has called for tightening control over confined-animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, and says she supports local local control over CAFO siting decisions. She has said she would seek more federal government control over air and water pollution from corporate factory farms.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, which advocates for small farmers, also questions Clinton's choice to pick Philippi, who was the mouthpiece for the hog factory industry during her time as National Pork Producers Council president.

"Independent, sustainable hog farmers know NPPC does not stand up for their interests", said Lisa Whelan of the community improvement organization.

When Philippi was asked Thursday if she is personally opposed to local control efforts and government regulations of CAFOs, she said: "That's the opinion of some. I think that"s probably one of the misconceptions I don't mean to avoid your answer, but I don't want something that's going to be adversarial for the campaign. "

As council president, Philippi testified against requiring fruit, vegetables and meat producers to label the food's untry of origin so that consumers could make better decisions about what to buy. Clinton often hails this as a much-needed idea.

In October, Philippi publicly criticized the federal farm bill, saying the legislation would make the U.S. pork industry less competitive globally.

And she has been vocal in her opposition of ethanol subsidies, records show. She explained Thursday that her personal opinion is that the subsidies are not necessary, partly because they raise the price of feed corn for her animals.

Klicker remains unconvinced. "It' inconsistent for a pro-small farm politician to choose a confined-animal feeding operation owner like Philippi to be the face on her rural campaign, and to possibly influence policy in the future," he said.

Confined-animal feeding operation owners well-run facilities are a safe, efficient way to raise livestock and compete in the world market. But some Iowans like Klicker believe the facilities foul the air and the water, reduce neighbors' property values, and drive small farmers out of business.

"It' a terrible example for Hillary to set. It' politics at its worst," he said. "You pick someone to get a few more votes, someone who is actually the enemy of those who have been supporting you all along."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?…

I especially loved this scrubbed quote from the Agribusiness exec Philippi:

I don't mean to avoid your answer, but I don't want something that's going to be adversarial for the campaign.

How stupid does Hillary's new co-Chair think farmers are??

Please email the newspaper if you think it is wrong for the Des Moines Register to revise history by cleaning up this campaign report of a huge Clinton betrayal/blunder in this way.

This really could hurt Hillary in second choices and might even peel some first choices off. And please email to media, thanks. We bloggers don't like scrubbing and stealing elections like this!

Here is the link to DesMoineDem’s original diary:

http://www.bleedingheartland.c…

Continue Reading...

Hillary was on the Board of WALMART and did NOTHING to change its stance on UNIONS

Hillary is hoping no one brings this up… 

Mrs. Clinton largely sat on the sidelines when it came to Wal-Mart and unions, according to board members. Since its founding in 1962, Wal-Mart has aggressively fought unionization efforts at its stores and warehouses, employing hard-nosed tactics — like firing union supporters and allegedly spying on employees — that have become the subject of legal complaints against the company.

A special team at Wal-Mart handled those activities, but Mr. Walton was vocal in his opposition to unions. Indeed, he appointed the lawyer who oversaw the company’s union monitoring, Mr. Tate, to the board, where he served with Mrs. Clinton.

During their meetings and private conversations, Mrs. Clinton never voiced objections to Wal-Mart’s stance on unions, according to Mr. Tate and John A. Cooper, another board member.

“She was not an outspoken person on labor, because I think she was smart enough to know that if she favored labor, she was the only one,” Mr. Tate said. “It would only lesson her own position on the board if she took that position.”

Mr. Tate, a prominent management lawyer who helped stop union drives at many major companies, said he worked closely with Mr. Walton to convince workers that a union would be bad for the company, personally telling employees when he visited stores that “the only people who need unions are those who do not work hard.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/19/us/politics/19cnd-walmart.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

I never really thought about her time at WALMART.  She was on the board from 1986 to 1992.

Continue Reading...

Clintons' NAFTA will cause 500,000 additional unauthorized border crossings from Mexico in 2008

NAFTA caused much of the New Poor in Mexico

For those who don't know, the Clintons' NAFTA not only impoverished American farmers and textile workers and their families, but also wiped out the Mexican corn-growing economy and the lives of 15 million people. About 5 million of those have illegally crossed into the US — just because of NAFTA allowing cheap subsidized corn from the US into Mexico, dropping the corn price there 70%.

Next year NAFTA fully kicks in, meaning an additional 500,000 economic refugees that we ourselves caused. The former corn farmers and unemployed workers don't come because we are great, they come because the policies of both governments is starving their children.

And the Clintons pushed NAFTA through without the safeguards wanted by the Democrats. Remember Hillary chuckled and said it didn't work out the way we wanted!

NAFTA Will Boost Mexican Emigration to US

Mexico, Dec 16 (Prensa Latina) Mexican emigration to the United States will increase as of January 2008, when the tariffs on corn and beans will be lifted within the framework of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), expert Steve Suppan said on Saturday.

In statements to Prensa Latina, the experts from the Institute of Agricultural and Commercial Policies, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the United States, described rural migrations caused by NAFTA as the migration crisis that broke out in 1994, when the first NAFTA adjustments were made.

“There are many Mexican workers with little options and they resort to the hard march to the North seeking higher wages to help their families in their communities of origin,” he noted.

Suppan noted that the situation will worsen as 300,000 farmers and 200,000 people from Mexican cities are expected to emigrate, due to the lack of development opportunities.

Experts are concerned at a forced economic exodus to the United States, a situation that will increase food insecurity in Mexico, he said.

The big economy will flood the small economy with its products and tragedy will mostly affect indigenous groups who had guarded their basic resources for humankind but are starving at present.

The governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico could renegotiate the NAFTA if they took into account the harm they are causing to the disposed, because only the big private consortiums will benefit instead of farmers and small businesspeople.

Suppan referred to the world campaign in favor of preserving food resources, especially corn, as a human right of economic use, and pointed out that the campaign could even be taken to the United Nations if there were political will.

http://www.plenglish.com:80/article.asp?ID=%7B1DB4A700-…

Clinton Is New to Nafta Criticism, Obama Says

By Jeff Zeleny

MARION, Iowa — Senator Barack Obama is accusing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of waiting until she was a presidential candidate to suggest that the North American Free Trade Agreement -– enacted during her husband’s administration -– was a mistake.

“I think it’s important to note that Senator Clinton was a cheerleader for Nafta for more than a decade. As of a year ago, she was calling it a boon to the economy,” Mr. Obama told reporters here today. “It seems to me that the only thing that has changed in the last year is that it’s now election time.”

Mr. Obama opened a two-day Iowa campaign swing in this city outside of Cedar Rapids. As he delivered his criticism, he glanced down to his printed notes, which rested on a podium.

“As some of you probably heard at the debate the other night, Senator Clinton called Nafta a mistake,” Mr. Obama said. “I was pleased to hear her say that because, as more than 10,000 jobless Iowans know, that’s exactly what Nafta has been.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/clinton-n… /

Continue Reading...

Mandates are Political Suicide in '08? That's why Obama's health plan is better

Why are mandates for health insurance coverage such a big issue at this point in the campaign? It's the biggest difference in health policy between the top 3 candidates.

Yet despite these differences, most experts agree that the plans are similar in their most striking elements. Both Clinton and Obama advocate creating a new federal group insurance program. Anyone happy with their current health insurance could keep it. Otherwise, they could join the national insurance pool, which, the candidates like to point out, offers the same benefits that members of Congress enjoy. Edwards has a similar national public insurance plan, but would also create regional pools of private insurance companies, increasing the number of choices available.

Seddon Savage, president of the New Hampshire Medical Society, noted that all three plans believe health care should be part of the “social contract of society.” All three emphasize cost controls and cost savings, and focus on disease prevention.

“The details of the programs have some minor and some significant differences, but what all the plans are trying to do is set a direction, set basic principles,” she said. “I suspect if any one of these candidates is elected, we'll have a commitment to addressing these issues. We'll have a national dialogue, and details may change.”

John Thyng, campaign director for the advocacy group New Hampshire for Health Care, said with the exception of the mandate, the three plans are virtually the same.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID…

 

Robert Reich and others state that mandates will not ensure universal coverage, that at least 15% will still be uninsured becasue they cannot afford it.

in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves.

Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so.

HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.

I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.”

So all three will leave millions uninsured.

The big difference is mandates and polls are showing Clinton's and Edwards' mandates to be political suicide. The Republicans will use mandates like a club and could even defeat the Democrat with that as one of their top issues. Why give them that club?

One aspect of the healthcare debate that has divided Democratic candidates is whether individuals should be required to purchase coverage – Clinton and Edwards favor a mandate, while Obama does not. A slight majority of Democratic voters who were polled – including pluralities of Clinton and Edwards supporters – opposed such a requirement.

Opposition to the notion of an individual health insurance mandate — “should individuals be required to buy health insurance” — is greatest among the less well-educated and downscale voters that are the core of Clinton's base in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2007/1…

 

Continue Reading...
View More...