"Obamawitz"

one more day until the primary ... paul was interviewed on NPR's the brian lehrer show this morning. he handled the tough questions brilliantly ... listen here and rally for paul! go paul!


Nonviolence is an orphan among democratic ideas. It has nearly vanished from public discourse even though the most basic element of free government -the vote-has no other meaning. Every ballot is a piece of nonviolence, signifying hard won consent to raise politics above firepower and bloody conquest. -Taylor Branch-

Assembly Candidate Paul Newell is beginning to make waves in his longshot bid (an understatement) to unseat none other than the most powerful person in New York, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver of the infamous three men in a room. Now with Spitzer gone, he may be the most powerful of the three men. But, Newell is not deterred and the blogosphere as well as the progressive community in New York City is beginning to take notice.

An event is scheduled this Tuesday night - June 24th, 7 - 10 PM, a fundraiser that sends a message with every contribution.

You can donate $77 for how many days until Newell unseats Silver; or

$149 for the amount of Assemblyman that will get a voice other than Silver; or

$500 (which gets you on the finance committee by the way) which is the amount of signatures Paul needs to get on the ballot.

He even has the attention of Ben Smith of Politico with the creative 'Obamawitz' image. This whole scenario makes me proud because once progressives (nationally for Obama and Edwards for that matter) realize they have power we can do just about anything.

There are some downsides to taking on the powerful, however. Paul told me when he began this quest that it wouldn't be easy and he would probably face another challenger funded by Silver. In pops Luke Henry. As Newell's candidacy began to pick up steam Henry announced. Suddenly, he moved back to the 64th from the West Village to challenge Silver, suspiciously in September. Doubly suspicious to Newell was that Henry has also worked for Wilson Elser (the lobbyist giant where Kenneth Shapiro works), which reps several firms with ties to Silver and the Assembly, such as the Dolans (Henry says he didn’t do political work there). Newell is concerned that Henry might be a sort of spoiler, an unserious candidate designed to split the non-Silver vote.

Paul, on the other hand, has lived in Chinatown for ten years, he is an Obama delegate and has been working for non-profits, including Ubuntu, an organization dedicated to the AIDS crisis in South Africa. Newell also speaks fluent Spanish, an important caveat in his constituency in the 64th. It is time the progressive blogosphere got behind a progressive candidate in New York City. NYC should be run by progressives, not old school democrats who we cannot tell from moderate Republicans, who we would rather have a conversation with - say Bloomberg than Sheldon Silver. It is ridiculous. Come to the fundraiser.

My favorite endorsement that Paul has received, however is the following from the Cougars of America: We the Cougars of America would like to endorse Paul Newell for New York State Assembly. We think he's just what we need in our government, a good lookin' young, single, and bold (bald) progressive. Not only is he the Bialystock of the Bowery, Paul has the right kind of touch (caress) and nearsighted vision that will bring a wave of fresh idea to Albany. It is time for change.

Another Sweep for Obama

The Patomac primaries go big for Obama. Virginia right now is at about 63% - 36% in Virginia. As I write Obama is speaking and is now 8-0 since Super Tuesday. And is projected to win in Hawaii and Wisconsin in a week:

A new Public Policy Polling survey in Wisconsin shows Sen. Barack Obama leading Sen. Hillary Clinton, 50% to 39%. His support cuts across all racial and gender lines.Key findings: "Obama actually barely leads Clinton among self identified Democrats, 46% to 44%. But there are a lot of independent voters in Wisconsin, who can vote in the state's open primary, and Obama's lead with that group is 63% to 25%."In the GOP race, Sen. John McCain leads Mike Huckabee, 53% to 32%.Wisconsin's primaries will be held on February 19. Is the Clinton campaign relenting on Wisconsin too? It seems a mini Rudy strategy.

However, will Ohio and Texas be the "firewall" Mrs. Clinton is looking for. Right now, though it is slipping, her lead in Ohio is substantial. It is double digit right now. Then, on to Pennsylvania and North Carolina. My question is will this lead shrink and Obama will move Ohio and Texas into race or will she trounce him there, thus creating a deadlock that will not be broken until Denver? I DON'T KNOW.

Questioning Health Care Mandates

Paul Krugman has been very harsh on Barack Obama on healthcare mandates. I am not going to rehash the arguments fully here. This is a personal piece on how they work. Health care mandates are a "way" of covering universally all the people in our system. Certainly, a lofty goal. Clinton and Edwards have attacked Obama because his plan does not universally cover everyone. Fair criticism in my opinion, but the substance of his argument gets lost I think. Mandates are essentially a pay-off to insurance companies. It is a public - private partnership to have everyone covered and the money goes to who else - insurance companies. Now mandates are better than nothing certainly, but what Obama argues for is lowering health care costs to make it easier on all of us and that when health care costs are lowered those left behind will be able to buy health insurance.

My brother is a single dad with three children. He does not make much money, somewhere in the range of $30,000 per year. He pays child support for 2 children and has custody of one. He was unemployed for a while and his youngest child was covered under SCHIP and he was also covered by the Massachusetts plan. He acquired employment, just enough to pay his bills. Massachusetts summarily cut him and his child off the plan. He lobbied for an exemption for his child and received one, now his child is covered. But, because he now makes too much money ($30,000 for a household of four), he no longer qualifies for the health insurance from the state. He is left to get that insurance from his job at a price of over $200 per pay period (approximately) which he cannot afford. He is in fact, now uninsured and a fine of $500 will be levied against him because he does not have insurance, i.e. the mandate.

Does this sound fair? Krugman argues that the mandate is not the problem & that the Clinton and Edwards plans (unlike Massachusetts) have subsidies to low-income families that will alleviate this problem. Though, I must say he leaves out how that occurs (his criticism of Obama) and how this enables lower income families to afford coverage. For example, why does Massachusetts not do this?

I think the criticism of Obama's plan is a policy debate as he has said and we can discuss that, but criticizing him for not wanting health care for all is really a misnomer and unfair because as is evident above there are problems with mandates, serious problems.

As someone who had a near fatal car accident with no health insurance, I know that tragedy lurks around the corner for all of us without health insurance or what really matters - free and affordable health care. When we are, at the same time, trying to please corporations while providing health care we will inevitably run into trouble. When the priority shifts so that everyone is covered no matter what the circumstance or job, is as large a priority as keeping corporations happy, then we will have a plan that works for all of us.

Mandates are not the end all to be all that we have been told they are by Krugman, by Clinton and by Edwards. On this point I am squarely in the Obama camp.

Bob Johnson on Obama

We don't need anything else than this video to tell us what the Clinton campaign is about. To use Bob Johnson, a shrill for the Republicans. For instance: Bob Johnson, the Black Entertainment Television founder with a personal net worth of $1.3 billion, is a Trojan Horse, an aggressive political operative of the Bush White House posing as a Democrat. He has used his high profile status as one-half of all African American billionaires (the determinedly non-partisan Oprah Winfrey is the other half) to advance the most politically perilous item on the GOP agenda: privatization of Social Security.

To use this guy and then have him attack Obama on drug use. Don't believe me - watch for yourself. Will we really get anything different from the Clinton Campaing then what we have right now?

Brave New Films: Fox Attacks Obama

We know the sexism Hillary has been through by the mainstream media. But, lost in this shuffle is what Barack has been through. I fear this election will become about the personalities and not the issues.

A Big Night for Obama?

From Political wire:

Iowa Independent: "Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability."

The last Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby tracking poll before today's caucuses shows Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards gaining ground overnight with Sen. Hillary Clinton faling four points to third place -- "a finish that, if it held, would deal a dramatic setback to the one-time Democratic front-runner."Obama leads with 31%, followed by Edwards at 27% and Clinton 24%.Said pollster John Zogby: "There is a clear Clinton fade. None of it has been dramatic, but it has been steady."

I have also thought about the progressive campaigns of Obama and Edwards. Why people are so adamantly for one or the other. I think it is one thing and one thing only. With Obama it is about the messenger and with Edwards it is about the message.

In Obama, supporters (which I am one) feel he is a once in a life time candidate, Kennedyesque or even Abraham Lincoln qualities. After all Lincoln was a one term failed congressman who lost almost every election until becoming the greatest American President. Obama stands out in his thoughtfulness, his kindness and his imaginative oratory skills. He also stood against the war and stands for change. Some Edwards supporters might say change in what? Is it the politics of derision or division or is it going to be a progressive agenda? Obama supporters are for him and for him alone.

In Edwards, supporters see a message that they have been looking for in a top tier candidate. The economic populism that he is so eloquently speaking about, reforming a system that is all about corporate greed (this to me is the #1 problem in this country). It spills into the war with contractors, FEMA with New Orleans, and just about everywhere in the business sector. Giving health care to all, and taking a real stand on the issues such as the war (albeit a bit late).

So, the question is are you about the messenger or the message?

The Clintons are Exactly What is Wrong with Politics: Update

Bill Shaheen co-chair of the New Hampshire Hillary Clinton campaign resigned today. Shaheen announced he will step down from that position today. His resignation comes in the wake of remarks he made concerning Clinton rival Barack Obama's past drug use, and his insinuation Obama not only used, but also dealt drugs.

This is Rovian style politics right out of his handbook and it stinks of Mark Penn, the Clinton Campaign manger. This is similar to the insinuation that John McCain fathered a black child in the 2000 South Carolina campaign. The Clintons are the entrenched politicians who believe they have a divine right to the Presidency and it matters not how you get there. A means to an end. It doesn't matter who you screw or who you step on as long as you get there.

I have heard voices that we need Clinton as the nominee because she can sling it like the Republicans. But, is that really what we want? Do we really want people who treat others this way? Insinuate drug use and drug dealing and then have someone step down and say I am sorry, knowing full well the rumor sticks and you have provided cover for yourself. Do we really believe this is how campaigns work? That the obviously brilliant Hillary Clinton just didn't know what her campaing was doing. The record of the Bill Clinton campaign is filled with stories of Hillary Clinton as the real brains behind the operation. See George Stephanopolous. Are we to believe she would allow someone to step out and say such a thing without the campaign's knowledge.

I watched Hardball today and they had all the campaign managers from the big three and Mark Penn said the word cocaine three times in a sentence referring to Barack Obama, all the while "apologizing" for the transgression and blaming Obama for negative attack ads. David Axelrod just shook his head, but Joe Trippi stuck it to him saying "there he goes again." Mark Penn has the same shit eating grin that Rove has as well.

This campaign is Bush in democratic clothing and I want no part of it. I hope it backfires on her, but I am not so sure it will. She knows she is in trouble, but if she attacks enough and Obama's numbers go down just enough she can come out of New Hampshire in tact and go on and win the nomination. If Obama continues this meteoric rise there may be no stopping him. So, they hit and they hit low.

Just for the record I have no problem with attacking policies of each candidate. That is politics, Obama's health policy quite frankly leaves a little bit to be desired. It is a middle of the road policy and he deserves scrutiny, but past drug use, which Obama has come clean on to his credit, smells of the politics that turns people off, which may be the exact intended response.

The real beneficiary of this just might be John Edwards.

Here is the video I am talking about regarding the three campaign managers. It is truly informative.


Update: This is a strategy, not a mistake.

Obama's 'surprises'?

Clinton didn't mention specifics in the taping of an interview on "Iowa Press" this morning, but drew a contrast with unnamed rivals that echoes Bill Shaheen's now-notorious claim that unexplored elements of Obama's candidacy will make him an easy Republican target.

"I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted," she said. "There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, 'I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that going to mean?'"

This appears to be the emerging core of the electability case against Obama: that elements of his public record and -- unspoken -- his private past, could scuttle what should be a Democratic sure thing, and that he is untested by real partisan combat.

"Whoever we nominate will be subjected to the full force of the Republican attack machine, and I know that they know I know that and I have no illusions about what this race will entail," she said.

UPDATE: Asked to elaborate on what she's suggesting about Obama, Clinton has an answer ready: "I’m only talking about myself."

Hillary or Obama: Who Do you Think Has the Better Ad?

Obama Takes it to the Hatemongers: "America is Not a Christian Nation"

In a recent speech Obama criticized the right for "hijacking faith" and using faith to divide us rather than unite us. He has received large criticism in the media regarding his statements especially the Christian Broadcasting Network and Fox, like there is a difference (I italicize these networks because I won't link to them).

Obama defended his criticism of the right hijacking of faith. He said: "When you have pastors and television pundits who appear to explicitly coordinate with one political party; when you're implying that your fellow Americans are traitors, terrorist sympathizers or akin to the devil himself; then I think you're attempting to hijack the faith of those who follow you for your own personal or political ends."

Brody, a CBN reporter asked Obama about his critique of Christian right leaders given in a June 23 address to a convention of the United Church of Christ, the senator's denomination.

The Senator also argued to Brody that America is not a 'Christian nation.

"For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also our religious practice," Obama wrote to Brody, pointing to early American leaders who fought to include the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers."

If Obama continues this approach of telling the truth honestly and forthrightly (which in my opinion he must do to separate himself from Clinton) I will be on board quick. He must be more adamant about the war of course, but I think it may be coming. There is much to like about Edwards of course, but I just do not see it happening (sorry Nicole).