Thank You, Sen. Hillary Clinton

"[I]t's time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish and the country we love."

Thank you, Sen. Clinton, for these kind words. My only hope is that it will reach as many ears, and as many hearts, as if it had been said on Tuesday.

Let us come together as a family and begin the healing we so desperately need before November.

What stands between us and unity

Yesterday, my wife, son and I went to an Obama party to watch the final primary results. Originally it had been scheduled for a restaurant, but the level of response from area Obama supporters was so great, they had to move it to an art gallery at the last minute. When we got there just after six, there were easily fifty people around the room and (horrors) a giant Lou Dobbs on the projector (fortunately, the room was loud enough that his drivel was drowned out).

As the evening wore on toward the time the South Dakota primaries closed, more people crowded in. Eventually, McCain took the stage to a small smattering of "boo"s, but he was largely ignored similar to Dobbs. Every so often, the CNN delegate ticker would roll over as a new super delegate would pledge for Obama, bringing cheers from the whole room. There his counter was at 2114 when the head of the Missouri Democratic Committee took the stage. He and three other Missouri super delegates were still unpledged and had said that they would vote as a block. He told us, five minutes before the SD polls closed, that all four of them had decided to pledge their support to Obama. The applause of the couple hundred people was deafening.

With this enthusiasm we welcomed even Republican pundits calling McCain's just finished speech "the worst ever." We watched as South Dakota was projected for Clinton, but our spirits weren't dampened because we knew this nomination battle was finally won.

Then Senator Clinton took the stage. We applauded her; proud of the fight she had fought; respectful of the enormous effort that her supporters had put out for her as we had for Sen. Obama; glad to have such a strong leader on our side.

Then she began her speech: "I want to start tonight by congratulating Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run." "Uh oh," I said to my wife, "this doesn't sound too conciliatory..." In fact, to me it sounded like the sort of thing she would say to the loser of a contest. But we were still optimistic and applauded her praise of Obama.

"Nearly 18 million of you cast your votes for our campaign, carrying the popular vote with more votes than any primary candidate in history." Yup, there it was, the knife in the back. The glaringly misleading half-truth designed to divide the party. The tone in our room immediately changed. We knew that more than 18 million people also cast their vote, as best they could, for Obama. In fact, by all counts except one, Obama won more votes than any primary candidate. Even on that one in which he didn't, more people voted against Clinton than have ever voted against a primary candidate in history.

"And I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November." Ok, we thought, after what she has just said, how does she intend to do that?

"You know, I understand that that a lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want? What does she want?'" We are, Mrs. Clinton. We do want to know what you intend to gain by drawing this out with more divisive politics. What do you want?

"I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential." So do we all. Work with us, help us get Barack Obama elected the next president of the United States and you will see all these things and more. "And I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected. " Ah, there it is, 'I want to use those people that voted for me as bargaining chips." It couldn't have been said more clearly.

The problem with this is manifold. She herself showed in this speech that she doesn't hold respect for those voters beyond the power it will give her. She has also, with this stance shown that she does not have even that level of respect for the 18 million people who voted for someone else. And she has shown that she doesn't respect her opponent enough to even admit when he has had a clear victory. Even this morning, her communications director couldn't answer when asked whether Obama had won the majority of the delegates needed to become the nominee.

Senator Hillary Clinton, I do not know what drove you to take this stance on the day your own metrics for victory were met by your opponent. What I do know is that you threw away your best remaining chance to bring this party together, not as Clinton or Obama supporters, but as Democrats. Instead, for whatever reason, you have chosen to drive that stake into the heart of this party. You had the opportunity to leave with the strength of a leader, instead you have encouraged the idea that your due was stolen from you.

You, of all political leaders, know what this image means to so many. And yet, rather than leading your supporters past that, you chose to relish in it. You know better than most, that none of those things you hope for will be accomplished under a McCain presidency. You also know that without the support of your followers, we may be doomed to four years of McCain. But still, rather than securing a central role as a Democratic leader, you chose to hold your own party hostage.

I do know that your campaign has said you will concede the nomination this Saturday. My only hope is that such belated words will be strong enough to bring us all back together.

A Time for Unity

Yesterday, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee ruled on Florida and Michigan's delegations to the Democratic National Committee Convention. The final ruling gave Florida and Michigan their full delegation, but reduced each delegate's vote to 1/2. Also, in order to more fairly seat Michigan's delegation after Sen. Obama removed his name from the ballot according to his view of the oath he gave following Michigan's early primary, Hillary Clinton was given 69 delegates, and Obama was given 59. These numbers reflect not only the actual primary ballots, but also the exit polling that showed many of Obama's supporters voted for Clinton because only her name was on the ballot. This wound up giving Obama an extra 4 delegates out of Clinton's total. This was worked out as a compromise to Clinton's request that Obama receive no delegates from Michigan and the rules, as laid out last year, that no Michigan delegates would be seated.

This now gives Obama a delegate total of 2052 to Clinton's 1877, with the goal post set (firmly I hope) at 2118. Obama now needs 66 of the remaining 280 unpledged delegates (24%) and Clinton needs 241 (86%). Switching those four delegates would mean Clinton would need 239 (86%) and Obama would need 68 (24%). Unfortunately, as Sen. Clinton made clear beforehand, any seating of Michigan's delegation that gave Obama any votes would be completely unacceptable to her, and as such Harold Ickies, her representative at the meeting, has stated he will fight this ruling to the Convention.

What follows is part of a comment I left over at BAC's blog:

...[T]he votes by this committee could have no effect on [party unity], no matter how they voted. The only way we will see unity is if Sen. Clinton, and her ardent supporters, stop vilifying Sen. Obama as the devil re-incarnate and work to bring unity themselves. The people have spoken; Obama has won more states, more pledged delegates, more "super" delegates, more caucuses, more primaries, and more popular vote.

Sen. Clinton has fought an incredible campaign, but she has lost fairly. If she continues to drive wedges between her supporters and the DNC and the Democratic presidential nominee, not just women, not just Americans, but the whole world will be forced, by her, to suffer under a third George W. Bush term.

As much as we might wish (the more salient of us at least), nothing Sen. Obama could say, nor anything any of his supporters could say, can prevent Hillary Clinton from driving that wedge in if she so wishes. There is no magical speech Obama could make; sometimes the ball is just in the other person's court and there is nothing one can do about it. Insults have been bandied, feelings hurt, but we are willing to lay those aside and apologize for any we have delivered. But we cannot take that step without Sen. Clinton and her supporters.

Unity can only be brought by both sides working together.

May 31

Unless you have been hiding in a cave, or just plain ignoring the political season as much as possible (not really a bad idea), you know that this Saturday the DNC Rules Committee is meeting to discuss Florida and Michigan. Almost a year ago, the Committee ruled that any state that moved their primary elections before February 5, other than the four chosen early primary states, would lose all their delegates. The Florida and Michigan state legislatures didn't think they were serious and decided to start a game of political chicken. The head of the Florida state party went so far as to threaten the DNC with law suits and protests if they enforced these rules.

The state legislatures wound up moving the primaries forward, Florida's legislature voted 118 to 0 on the bill and Michigan, at the behest of Carl Levin, voted to move theirs up in a 67 to 34 vote (at least here 1/3 of the Dems voted against it). In order to prevent a complete collapse of the primary schedule, with the risk of some states holding primaries as early as November or December of 2007, the rules committee gave them an ultimatum to move their primaries back or lose all their delegates.

As late as March 6, Sen. Clinton opposed re-votes in both states, with a blanket opposition to any Florida re-vote, "I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida." It wasn't until she was significantly behind in pledged delegate count in mid-March that she began calling for re-votes in both states.

The first proposals by Florida were mail in primaries similar to what is held in Oregon. However, according to Florida state law, mail in elections are illegal for nominations like this. Another thorn in the re-vote plan was that the Floridian representatives to Congress were against the plan. By the time Clinton supported a Michigan re-vote, it was nearly too late to set one up, and her plan was to disenfranchise anyone that voted in the Republican primary, a restriction made impossible by the fact that voter rolls aren't taken at the primaries and such a system would then be completely an honor system. Due to this, the respective legislatures were unable to pass new plans.

That brings us forward to May 31. At the committee meeting, Clinton wants all 368 delegates seated. This would add about 192 delegates to her total, and, depending on how the Michigan uncommitted delegates are divided, 70 to 132 delegates to Obama's total (with a few also going to Edwards in Florida). At best, this would give her 122 delegates to cut into her 199 delegate deficit. More likely it would get her 60 delegates. This would bring the current delegate counts to 1974 for Clinton and 2051 or 2113 for Obama. The new goal line would be about 2210. With only 280 delegates remaining available, Clinton would still need 85% of them. Obama would only need 56 - 35%.

Personally, I don't think they should be seated fully. At the very least, all of the super delegates from these states need to have their delegate status removed. These are the ones like Carl Levin and the Florida state chairwoman who said the DNC "wouldn't dare" remove their delegates. These short-sighted representatives caused this mess in the first place and they should not be rewarded for this attempted party-cide by being given exactly what they wanted. Further, I don't think the full pledged delegation should be seated. At most, half should be seated; it wasn't the voters' fault (beyond choosing bad representatives) so removing all state delegates may have been too hasty a decision. Also, the 40% uncommitted should be given to Obama (according to exit polls, most of the uncommitted voters were Obama supporters).

Any way you slice it though, Clinton has no mathematical path to victory. It is long past time for this divisive figure to stop praising the Republican candidate at the detriment of the eventual Democratic nominee. It is time for her to unify the party, not compare it to Mugabe, those against civil rights, or anti-suffragists. It is time for her to set aside her self-importance and join the fight against those who would roll back Roe v. Wade; those who are against the Lilly Ledbetter Act; those who support torture; those who would kill off Social Security; those who would continue the quagmire in Iraq.

Pandering

You know, it's one thing when a Republican proposes a tax cut that will only help large corporations and hurt the rest of the country. But when a leading Democratic presidential hopeful echoes him, that really just takes the cake. I don't know if she just doesn't understand the economics of supply and demand, fails to understand what this tax will save/cost, or is just being naive, but this is just ridiculous.

At current gas prices, about $3.50 per gallon, the average American will spend $420 for gas over the three months being proposed (1000 miles per month, 25 mpg vehicle). Of that, a total of $7.36 $22.08 (over three months) goes to the government in tax. That isn't even half a tank of gas saved should the tax be revoked for a few months. And that is at current prices; gas is expected to reach $4 per gallon or more by the time this "holiday" is proposed to go into effect. That $7 $22 won't cover a quarter tank of gas. I might be able to get to work and back on that, but I live a mile or two from work.

Then there is what that tax pays for. $7 isn't much for you or me when it comes to gas, but $7 from all of us over those three months is several hundred million dollars that go to maintain roads and bridges. McCain doesn't have any idea of how to make that up, so at least Clinton does improve on that plan by also proposing a "windfall" tax on the gas companies. The thing is, that tax is just going to be passed on to us the consumers in the form of raised gas prices. So, if you're following all this, Clinton is proposing to lower front end gas taxes for three months, but raise taxes on the gas companies that will then raise the cost of gas to compensate.

All of this completely ignores the fact that gas prices are (largely) determined by the amount of gasoline available. Now, I expect that, largely, supplies are being kept lower by these companies in order to help push prices up slightly, but there are a number of things entering into this.

One is the supply of raw oil. Much of this comes to us from the Middle East, where Clinton is doing some saber rattling of her own to match Bush's and McCain's. This heightens the instability in the region and causes crude costs to go up.

Next is refining capacity. This is where, I think, oil corporations are doing the most to keep prices up. Oil companies would like you to think that they aren't being allowed to build new refineries. This is completely untrue. In 25 years, 1975 to 2000, there was one application to the EPA for a permit to build a refinery. There are environmental requirements that must be met to build a new refinery, as well there should be. But there is nothing creating a blanket ban on building new refineries. Instead, oil companies are holding out for a tax break ransom, holding these high gas prices over our heads and threatening to move them higher unless they get paid to make new refineries instead of paying to do it themselves.

I say we don't negotiate with these economic terrorists and instead encourage lower consumption through higher CAFE standards and increased development of alternative energy sources. These are the proposals that Sen. Obama has voted for and supports expansion of.

EDIT: Fixed amount saved in the tax holiday. Originally I had calculated it for only one month.

Pennsylvania Round-up

First of all, let me congratulate Sen. Clinton on a fight successfully fought. She got the double digit win that gives her an excuse to continue what many believe will turn out to be a debacle. Not to steal too much from my wife's secret lover, "I CALLED IT!" (I would run around the office, but people might look at me oddly).

Unfortunately for Hillary, even with this victory her odds just got even slimmer. As I said in that previous post, since Ohio, etc. Clinton needed to win by 65% or better to tie in pledged delegates. Getting 10% less than that has raised that margin to just over 68% (she needs 279 of the remaining 408 pledged to catch up to Obama's total.) If she loses even one of the remaining contests, or even just ties in North Carolina, she will need upwards of 75% in the few contests left.

A counterbalance to this is that Sen. Obama's chances of reaching the 2024 delegates without any new super delegate votes is much slimmer now also. He needs somewhere around 299 of the remaining delegates, 73%. However, the most relevant numbers - popular vote, pledged delegates, total delegates, and contests won - are at the very least mathematically impossible if not completely impossible to overcome.

As for the question I hear time and again "Why can't Obama 'close the deal'?" there are two valid responses. One, turn the question on its head - Why can't Clinton beat this 'rookie' senator from Illinois? Two, really a corollary of the first, Obama has to go against 60 to 40 polls against him in all of these states, he has to compete against 16 or more years of popular inertia Clinton has behind her, and he has to compete against not just Hillary Clinton, but also Bill Clinton and his incumbency and John McCain and the Republican party (which has already realized what the Clintons won't admit). Having to fight against the "silly season politics" coming from all three fronts is a bit much for anyone and it's amazing that he has done as well as he has.

Good luck to both candidates and PLEASE STOP WITH THE NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNS. If you want to criticize the other's policies, that's one thing; give us the strengths of your policies vs. the other's. I could care less about someone who served on the same board for three months, or who was pardoned by a spouse. Talk about your differences on the economy, on health care, on globalization, and the United State's position in the world.

GIVE VOTERS SOMEONE TO VOTE FOR FOR A CHANGE. The only choice I have had since I reached voting age is to vote against someone and pick someone less bad (the reason I didn't even bother voting in 2000). Let's make this election different.

"And I would have gotten away with it too...

... if it weren't for you pesky voters"

Hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings pointed me to this comment by Clinton at a fundraiser in February:

We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And they turn out in great numbers. And you know they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them.

Yes Clinton, it's so dismaying that voters are actually voting on issues. And how dare they turn out in droves for elections. I mean, the nerve of those voters.

BTW, Move On never opposed the war in Afghanistan. Now, she could have just been confusing Afghanistan and Iraq, which they did oppose, but that doesn't speak well for her either.

Road to the nomination

I recently put up a post with my prediction for the general election to answer the electability question for the two Democratic candidates (I have been updating it slightly as new primary results come in). Basically, it showed both are equally likely to be elected come November, but Obama had a lead in states that could be brought back into play.

Now I would like to turn those numbers to something a little more immediate, the Democratic nomination. I will be leaving currently unpledged super delegates out of the equation for now. My general idea on them is that both candidates are correct - Clinton is correct that technically they can vote however they want; Obama is correct that if they are seen to overturn the will of the people, there will be hell to pay.

They delegates, as they stand today (I'm not sure if they include the recent changes in Iowa and California) Obama is in the lead with 1,618 (1,411 pledged) against Clinton's 1,479 (1,242 pledged) - a healthy 169 pledged delegate lead - only 139 total. In order to catch up to Obama, Clinton will need to win about 65% of the delegates (there are 566 pledged delegates still open) from the remaining contests. Even so, Obama would need to win almost 72% of the remaining non-super delegates to make it to the 2,024 needed to clinch the nomination.

I don't see either of these things happening. Instead, this is the break down I see, based on current polls and similar states won (play with the delegate counts as you see fit on CNN):

State	Percent	Delegates
PA	Clinton - 55%	87
	Obama - 45%	71
IN	Clinton - 55%	40
	Obama - 45%	32
WV	Clinton - 53%	15
	Obama - 47%	13
OR	Clinton - 45%	23
	Obama - 55%	29
SD	Clinton - 40%	6
	Obama - 60%	9
GU	Clinton - 35%	1
	Obama - 65%	3
NC	Clinton - 48%	55
	Obama - 52%	60
KY	Clinton - 55%	28
	Obama - 45%	23
MT	Clinton - 44%	7
	Obama - 56%	9
PR	Clinton - 55%	30
	Obama - 45%	25

This will give Obama 1,685 pledged, plus his current 207 super delegates is 1,892. Clinton would have 1,532 pledged (a 16 delegate gain), plus her current 237 super delegates giving her 1,769 total. There are only 351 super delegates that haven't pledged their support yet - Clinton would need about 73% of them to support her, Obama would need about 38%.

Oh, but wait! Clinton has also been asking that the Florida and Michigan delegates be seated. This would add 210 delegates from Florida and 156 delegates from Michigan (I couldn't find a break down of regular and super here). If we seat them as they voted already, that would add 191 delegates to Clinton's total and (if we give the Michigan undecideds to Obama) 132 delegates to Obama - pushing their totals to 2,024 for Obama and 1,723 for Clinton. Obama would win without any more super delegates. If they re-voted those totals would be greatly different, especially as Michigan may even switch to Obama (he would at least get better than the 40% "undecided" got almost two months ago).

Be careful what you wish for.

A Week of the Mighty Falling

This has been quite a week. From the Elliot Spitzer mess, to Geraldine Ferraro, to Clinton losing more ground in both the popular vote and delegates.

The Spitzer stuff has been much better covered by other bloggers, so I will leave it to them to discuss. I'm not from NY anyway, so my knowledge of him and everything else is limited. Suffice it to say it is sad to see someone who has been a fighter against corporate America fall and give those same corporate leaders a chance to dance with glee...

Where do I start with Ferraro? I can't think of any way she could have said what she did worse (at least not before she responded this morning). Anytime someone tells a minority that "the only reason you got to where you are is because you are a _____" you are asking to be labeled with an -ist. If I were to say to any woman CEO, legislator, or anything else that the only reason she was where she is is because she is a woman, I would deserve whatever she would dish out. The same goes for Ferraro. Do I think that she is a racist? No, I sincerely doubt it, but her comments were.

And I wish I could say that was where it ended, but it got worse. When Clinton was asked about the comments, her response was "I didn't say it." She went on to say she regretted that those words were said, but I still haven't caught any hint of a rejection or denunciation that she demanded so strongly of Obama after Farrakhan's endorsement. Then Ferraro responded by saying "They're attacking me because I'm white." My mind still can't wrap around what sort of mind set went behind that statement.

I also wanted to address the actual content of her statement. I do not believe that Obama got where he is now just because of his race, any more than Clinton got where she is because of her gender. Has identity politics entered into this race? Yes, for both of them. But the effect of that would favor Clinton by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Women make up 51% of the population at last estimate, African Americans are about 30%. The glass ceiling argument has also been used similarly, but again that favors Clinton over Obama, this time with 4:1 or better odds. Just a few numbers: there are 8 female governors currently, 29 historically - there are now (after Spitzer resigned) 2 black governors, 4 historically; 16 (80 in both houses) women Senators, 35 (251 in both houses) historically - 1 (42 in both houses) black Senator, 5 (121 in both houses) historically; 10 women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, 4 black. Worldwide (outside of Africa) there have been (historically) 39 women elected heads of state; not one black (that I could find, updates are welcome).

Barack Obama is leading the presidential race not because he is black, that's been a negative in a number of votes. He is leading because his message and his vision for the future of the nation has resonated with more people. More people believe his policies are better than Clinton's. More people prefer the campaign Obama is running. These are not white/black issues; these are not male/female issues. These are the candidates themselves, and they have no one to blame for where they are in the race except themselves.

As for the elections themselves, Obama now leads the state count 28 1/2 to 14 1/2 (including FL and MI), delegate count 1404 to 1243 (pledged), and popular vote 12.5 million to 12.1 million (without FL and MI). If you include FL and MI, with Obama getting 0 votes in MI, Clinton gets a 146,956 vote lead, but if you give Obama the 40% undecided votes from MI, it swings back in his favor by 90,806 votes. The popular vote also ignores (dare I say, disenfranchises?) the voters in 14 caucuses, 13 of which went for Obama. This week also raised the number of states won by 20% or better to 18 to 1 in favor of Obama. (all stats via CNN's election center)

Note to self

When running a political campaign, make sure I know who the actors/actresses are.

Apparently, not only does she support Obama, she is a precinct captain and a delegate on her way to the state convention...

Emblematic of the campaigns

These are the two campaign chants that you hear most often in rallies for the two Democratic candidates and I believe show the heart of the actual campaigns and what they want to accomplish.

Yes WE can!

Yes SHE will!

The presidency isn't about ego. A democratic (small "d") leader works for the people.

Say it isn't so...

Democratic supporters in 2004 remember the spurious 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. This group formed during the presidential campaign between Kerry and Bush for the purpose (it claimed) of standing up for veterans' affairs. The group had to claim such a purpose because election law restricted organizations like this to only talk about a policy issue, not about any candidate. The reasons for this and other restrictions are because donations to these political organizations are effectively unrestricted. One person could donate $5 million dollars to such an organization if so desired. We all know how well those rules and restrictions turned out.

It worried me slightly then, when I heard that such an organization might be forming during the Democratic primary. This organization, the American Leadership Project, is fully financed by Hillary Clinton supporters who have maxed out the donations they can make to her campaign. They are asking for 100 donors to fill their coffers with $10 million. In and of itself, this should not be an issue; after all in supporting free speech I need to support all speech. But this organization goes beyond 527 rules, potentially breaking some of them.

The first thing is that such organizations need to be established lobbying organizations focused on policies in Washington. This group is brand new, first formed on Feb. 15, not even a week ago.

These organizations also cannot be for the advancement of any single candidate, but for a policy. This group is only advertising in states Clinton is campaigning in and is echoing her talking points.

These two things, coupled with who the financiers are, show that this organization is at best walking the line of the law, and potentially have crossed over this line.

Please, Sen. Clinton, separate yourself from this group or call them off. Actions like these tarnish everything we have stood for. We cannot become the monster we are fighting against, not for ANYTHING.

Integrity and Courage

A lot of noise has been made in the past year about Barack Obama's "present" votes in the Illinois state Senate. The Illinois chapter of NOW has recently joined the Clinton campaign in implying that Obama's present votes on certain bills while in the Illinois state legislature mean he is weak on women's rights; on the contrary, Barack Obama received a 100% positive rating from Planned Parenthood during his state senate career, and has consistently received 100% positive ratings from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL since being elected to the national Senate. Anyone who knows how the state Senate works in Illinois, however, realizes that Present votes are merely procedural votes, and are usually actually a sign of support for the bill . These assertions that Obama is weak on women's rights were so fallacious that former Chicago NOW president (1995 - 1999) and strong Hillary Clinton supporter, Lorna Brett Howard, publicly changed her affiliation and now supports Obama and is now being slimed by NOW and the Clinton campaign.

These tactics are bad enough on their own, but something that happened today in the Senate slams home the irony. Many of you know I have been supporting Sen. Dodd's fight against retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted the government in illegally wiretapping American citizens. This fight has been delayed time and again through numerous procedural tactics, even though Democratic Majority Leader Reid fought hard to bring it to a vote. A civil rights betrayal succeeded today in the Senate when a version of the FISA bill including immunity provisions passed despite Senator Dodd's objections (fortunately the House did not pass the retroactive immunity clause so the fight does go on). In the vote for cloture (end the debate) only 29 people voted against, among them Sen. Obama. Also voted on at the same time was an amendment proposed by Sen. Dodd to remove the retroactive immunity; this vote failed 67 to 31, again with Sen. Obama voting to remove the immunity.

Sen. Clinton on the other hand didn't even have the political courage to vote "present"; she chose not to be there at all.

It doesn't take much integrity to twist your opponent's votes in such a way as to make him appear weak on women's rights. It takes a complete lack of integrity to launch such attacks when you aren't willing to put your voice on either side of the debate for everyone's rights. Sen. Obama has fought for 26 years, from the beginning of his public career for women's, minority, and everyone else's rights - from his time as a community organizer in Chicago, through his time as a civil rights lawyer to his state and federal Senate positions. It takes true political courage to stand up for what is right when it is not popular.

As a side note, my local Senator, Claire McCaskill (also an Obama supporter), voted to bring cloture and against the anti-immunity amendment, a vote which seriously lessens the likelihood of my voting for her again two years from now. We'll have to see.

The EFF has much more information on what the FISA provisions mean for you; check it out and while you are at it throw them some support.

On Redefining "Universal"

As can be seen throughout the media and on a growing number of blogs, the Democratic candidates' health plans is drawing a lot of attention. There is, however, one word that is drawing this attention more than anything else - "Universal". The meaning of the word, in this usage, is to mean that everyone will be covered. However, both candidates miss that mark and instead redefine it in significantly different ways.

Going back over the basics of their plans they are very similar: Both want to offer plans similar to the Congressional insurance plan (no specific information found about the coverages). Both want to expand Medicaid and SCHIP. They will both give subsidies and tax credits to help people afford the premiums. And both will force the removal of "pre-existing condition" clauses. These plans are an attempt to make insurance coverage more affordable and available to everyone.

Unfortunately, because insurance companies are for-profit and beholden to their stock holders to keep increasing those profits, these plans will never push the citizen payout to zero (at least not without bankrupting the government [further] and making it a short lived program). This means that there will be those who: can't afford one more bill, don't believe that the insurance companies that have screwed so many people over time and time again deserve their hard earned money, or are healthy and never see a doctor anyway who don't think they need to pay for health care when they can buy something they want/need. These people will not automatically be covered under the cores of these candidates' plans.

This is where Barack Obama has chosen to redefine "universal" to mean "universally available". He has said that he will make it affordable enough that anyone who wants insurance can get it easily. To make it even easier, he intends to set up a national institution to allow people to compare coverage side by side and get the plan that best suits their needs, if any. But he does not provide insurance to everyone. He has said in debates, speeches, and interviews that he doesn't want to fine people who can't afford it. And when someone uninsured does show up at a hospital or doctor's office needing care, they will likely face fines or have to pay back premiums - to keep everyone else's premiums down.

Hillary Clinton, however, does go another step. She believes that in order for her plan to be "universal", everyone has to pay for an insurance plan. This is how she changes "universal" to "universally enforced". She as yet has not explained how this will be enforced, but if her interview with George Stephanopoulos is any indication, if someone doesn't choose their own plan, one that matches the premium the government believes they can afford will be chosen for them and they will have to pay for it (either through garnished wages as former Senator Edwards proposed or fines/taxes - again, a very vague, dodgy answer).

Unfortunately, both candidates miss the real problem - although Obama comes closer in some of his related proposals (see the Providers heading on my previously linked chart). The problem isn't just getting insurance. I have insurance, and half the time I feel I would be better off without it. The problem is quality of insurance. It's all well and good for me to be able to say I have insurance, but if my deductible is $2,000+, I'm still bankrupt at my first medical emergency.

Just to throw some real numbers in here, lets say my premium is $200 per month (lower than what I expect the lowest rate they will get for middle income earners) and the limit of my health care needs is going to see a doctor once a year for an annual physical. I just wrote a check for $2,400 to an insurance provider (plus $20 to my doctor, who gets maybe $50-$100 more from the insurance company). Now, taking the long view, that $2,300+ is supposed to go to help Joe down the street when he is diagnosed with cancer and has to get treatment, but 1) there are, roughly 250 more "me"s than there are Joes (otherwise this would be an idiotic business model), and 2) Joe's coverage has an upper limit of (for the sake of argument) $500,000, even though his treatment is going to cost $1,000,000.

No matter which candidate wins the debate over this, who do you think is the real winner?

P.S. Don't even get me started on the Republicans' "plans"

Break Down of the Issues - Part 8

Domestic Policy

Well it looks like I made it before whatever you want to call next Tuesday. This is the last major topic I intend to do a break down on, but if anyone has more areas they would like me to dig into to compare, please feel free to ask in the comments or email me. Once the Republican field has thinned a bit (maybe after today?) I will try to compare them on the same topics.

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Civil Liberties
Link Link Link Link	Link Link Link Link Link Link Link	Link Link Link Link(PDF)
Women
Support equal pay for women and men Expand access to family planning services	Require businesses to offer seven paid sick days a year Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover more workers and help states offer paid leave Protect women's right to choose Support the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the remedies for sex discrimination	Work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination Pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work Make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority
LGBT
Ensure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits End Don't Ask Don't Tell	Support civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples Repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act Allow LGBT to serve openly in the military Allow gay and lesbian parents to adopt children equally to strait couples	Support civil unions that give same-sex couples equal legal rights and privileges as married couples Repeal Defence of Marriage Act Expand federal benefits to same sex couples Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell
Government and Elections
Ban cabinet officials from lobbying a Hillary Clinton administration Strengthen whistle blower protections End abuse of no-bid government contracts and post all contracts online Cut 500,000 government contractors Restore the Office of Technology Assessment Publish budgets for every government agency Push the passage of the Count Every Vote Act Provides a paper trail for every vote cast Designates Election Day as a national holiday Allows same-day registration Makes sure that impartial officials administer our elections Allows the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting	Require the use of paper ballots verified by voters and mandatory audits Allow same-day voter registration Support the right of Washington, D.C. residents to have voting representation in Congress Enact a new law making intentional interference with the right to vote a federal offense Prohibit Chief of State election officials from publicly supporting federal candidates Create a federal matching funds program to do an 8:1 match on campaign donations, up to a maximum $800 (donations over $100 still get $800 matched); limit donations to $1,000 Provide for public matching funding for Congressional campaigns Require corporations to disclose all political spending and activity Create a line item veto restricted to one package of rescissions per bill that can be overruled by Congress Prohibit all federal candidates from accepting campaign contributions or bundled contributions from federal lobbyists Bar appointees from lobbying their former colleagues for five years Expand the definition of prohibited lobbying to include directing strategy for other lobbyists Ban corporate lobbyists and lobbyists for foreign governments from working in the White House Require lobbyists to disclose within 48 hours which federal officials they met with and what about Prohibit executive branch employees from accepting corporate gifts End the practice of issuing presidential "signing statements"	Create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings Ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients, or tax earmarks, are also publicly available for viewing online Require independent monitoring of lobbying laws and ethics rules Support public financing of campaigns Provide free television and radio time to campaigns Require that nearly all government contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded Require all non-emergency bills be available to the American public to review and comment for five days before signing Require disclosure of the name of the legislator who asks for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before it can be voted on Ensure that all communications about regulatory policymaking between third parties and White House staff are disclosed to the public No political appointees will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years No political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch during the remainder of the administration All new hires at the agencies to sign a form affirming that no political appointee offered them the job solely on the basis of political affiliation or contribution
First Amendment and Privacy
Unable to find specific information on her site	Prohibit surveillance of Americans’ phone calls and emails without a warrant Define robust public interest obligations for digital broadcasters	Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media Promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints Supports restrictions on how personal information may be used and create technology safeguards to verify how the information has actually been used Update surveillance laws to ensure that law enforcement investigations and intelligence-gathering relating to U.S. citizens are done only under the rule of law Appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer Ensure the safety of our communications networks Ensure that each arm of the federal government makes its records open Ensure technological interoperability of key government functions
Miscellaneous
N/A	Close down Guantanamo Bay Restore habeas corpus	Eliminate sentencing disparities Give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in drug rehabilitation programs

Break Down of the Issues - Part 7

Domestic Policy

Sadly, while the following issue is one dividing communities across our country, the candidates do not go very in depth on their immigration policies. Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 6. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Immigration
Link	Link Link	Link
Deploy new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants Create a new employer verification system Protect families in the immigration policy Opposes a general guest worker program supports an Ag Jobs program which will include fair wage and labor protections for the workers	Increase border patrol forces Keep family reunification as a core of our immigration laws Give illegal immigrants here the opportunity to pay a fine and learn English to earn American citizenship	Increase personnel and infrastructure along the border Crack down on employers hiring illegal immigrants Focus immigration reforms on family reunification and jobs Illegal immigrants may pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line to gain legal status Promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration

Break Down of the Issues - Part 6

Domestic Policy

Back on track. After a one week battle with our bathroom, we finally have a new floor in. My advice to anyone planning to do any work on ceramic tile, buy a wet saw. The other tools out there are important (tile scorer, tile nipper, etc.) but after fighting with these tools for three days to almost no avail, the wet saw let me cut everything and get it in mortar in about six to eight hours. And now on to the second most commonly discussed subject in this campaign - health care.

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Health Care
Link	Link (PDF)	Link
Insurance
Give people the choice of current insurance plans or allow them to select from the congressional health plans Strengthen Medicaid and CHIP Require large employers to provide insurance at least partially, give small business tax cuts to provide insurance Give individuals a tax credit for coverage designed to keep premiums to a fixed percent of income Remove hidden taxes to reduce premium cost for current civilian plans Include mental, physical, and, in some plans, dental coverage End unfair health insurance discrimination	Create regional health care markets allowing individuals and businesses in a region to pool their money to get lower premiums Expand Medicaid and SCHIP to cover families with children making 50k or less Require businesses to cover employees, at least partially Refundable tax credits to reduce insurance costs Cover mental health care as well as physical Reform insurance laws to ensure everyone is eligible Lower premium incentives for healthy lifestyle	Create a public benefit program similar to the Congressional one Expand Medicaid and SCHIP Employers will be required to provide at least partial coverage, or contribute to a national plan Individuals who aren't eligible for Medicaid/SCHIP can receive federal subsidies if needed Create the National Health Insurance Exchange - watchdog group that will monitor participating insurance companies and provide individuals with a way to compare them Dependant coverage through a parent's plan expanded up to the age of 25 Cover preventative, mental, and pregnancy health care Guaranteed eligibility, no matter pre-existing conditions Simplify public plan enrollment Regular audits of participating insurance companies Set minimum standards for state health initiatives, but will not overrule plans that meet/exceed this standard Reimburse insurance plans for catastrophic event coverage, if reimbursement is used to keep premiums down
Providers
No new provider initiatives provided on her site	Pay doctors based on results Easily available health care provider quality reports Push the use of electronic medical records Restrict direct to consumer drug advertising for new drugs Strengthen FDA monitoring policy	Reward providers who give better quality results Require health care providers to publish care reports Independent institute to review providers Invest 10 billion to move paper records to electronic records over 5 years Bring antitrust laws to bear against malpractice insurance providers that overcharge physicians Allow consumers to buy drugs from other developed countries
Mandates*
Require individuals to obtain insurance	Require all Americans to get insurance (special case exemptions)	All children must be covered

*A mandate is a requirement for each individual to purchase insurance. Candidates have not yet specified on their sites what penalties will be faced by those who do not.

Break Down of the Issues - Part 5

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Economy
Link Link	Link Link	Link
Taxes
Expand the child tax credit Provide marriage penalty relief Expand the earned income tax credit Expand the child care tax credit	Create a new "Get Ahead" tax credit to match up to $500 a year in savings for families earning up to $75,000 Expand the child care credit to pay up to 50 percent of child and dependent care expenses up to $5,000 Triple the earned income tax credit for single adults and cut the marriage penalty	Create a tax credit providing up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family Create a Universal Mortgage Credit that even tax payers who don't itemize are eligible for Triple the earned income tax credit; increase it six fold for people caring for a child or paying child support Eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 Simplify filing tax paperwork by allowing the IRS to supply pre-filled 1040EZ forms to people who request it Increase the child and dependent care tax credit and make it refundable Reduce the self employment tax Eliminate capital gains taxes on start-up companies Clean up the corporate tax code Create an International Tax Evasion Watch List to apply pressure on countries acting as tax havens
Mortgages and other debt
Develop strong licensing standards and require federal registration for mortgage brokers Eliminate prepayment penalties on mortgage products Expand Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's foreclosure prevention efforts	Pass a law that will strengthen underwriting standards to ensure that borrowers receive affordable loans suited to their means Create a new Family Savings and Credit Commission to protect consumers Cap interest rates on all payday loans at 36 percent	Push the STOP FRAUD act through Congress, strengthening the ability for the government to fight mortgage fraud Create a fund to help homeowners refinance mortgages Create a credit card rating system enforced by the FTC Establish a credit card bill of rights: CCs have to get consumer assent to change the agreement Interest rate changes only affect future debt Prohibit interest on fees Prohibit a change on interest rate based on failure to pay a third party Require CCs apply payments to highest interest debt first
Jobs
Nothing specific available on her site.	Raise the minimum wage to at least $9.50 an hour by 2012 and then index it to inflation Create a million short-term jobs to help individuals move into permanent work	Increase federal investments into transitional jobs Index minimum wage to inflation
Miscellaneous
Insist on a move back toward a balanced budget and surpluses by funding new expenditures with new revenues or cuts in other areas	Create a million vouchers over five years to help low-income families move to better neighborhoods	N/A

Break Down of the Issues - Part 4

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. See also Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 5, part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Environment
Link	Link	Link
Emissions
Initiate a cap and trade program All new federal buildings designed to produce zero emissions	Initiate cap and trade system, targets of 15% reduction by 2020, 80% by 2050	Initiate cap and trade system, target of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 Create Low Carbon Fuel Standard - fuels reduce carbon emission by 10% by 2020 All new buildings to be designed for zero emissions by 2030
Energy
Reduce projected 2020 energy usage by 20% 25% of electricity produced by renewable sources by 2025 60 billion gallons of biofuels in the system by 2030 Fuel efficiency of 55 mpg by 2030, automakers funded in this by $20 billion in bonds Retrofit 20 million low income houses to increase energy efficiency Invest in a smart grid	Meet demand for more energy through increased efficiency, not increased production	25% of energy from renewable sources by 2025 Increase research funding for clean coal Get the first 2 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol by 2013 Create incentives to fund locally owned biofuel refineries 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels in the system by 2022, 60 by 2030 Double fuel economy standards by 2026 New building energy efficiency to increase 50% by 2030, existing buildings by 25% Invest in a smart grid
Research
$150 billion extra funding over 10 years, $50 billion from a new Strategic Energy Fund, this partially funded by oil companies A new ARPA-E agency modeled on DARPA to manage this research	Create an Energy Economy Fund with $10 billion for environmental R&D, funded partially through green house gas permits (see cap and trade) and partially through repealing oil company subsidies	$150 billion over 10 years to fund green energy research Double research and energy funding $10 billion per year for 5 years to fund venture capital for clean technology start-ups Create a competitive grant to fund early adopters
Miscellaneous
Require all publicly traded corporations to report the threat posed to them by climate change	Forge a new global climate change treaty that will include requirements for developing nations	Create incentives to increase forestation Work through the UN to address global climate change

Break Down of the Issues - Part 3

Domestic Policy

Domestic policy will be broken up into numerous sections as the candidates go in depth on plans for numerous topics. Check out part 1, part 2, part 4, part 5 part 6 and part 7. Again, all of these policy statements are taken from the candidates' campaign websites.

In this post I also want to make a request. Science has been the 800 lb gorilla in the room for the past several years. The candidates and the debates, unfortunately, give only passing mention of the real issues in science today. This is why I support the call for a full science debate this presidential election cycle. Please join me and thousands of others in supporting this debate.

Hillary Clinton	John Edwards	Barack Obama
Science and Technology
Link	Link Link	Link
Research and Funding
Increase NSF, DOE's Office of Science, and DOD funding 50% over 10 years Increase NIH funding 50% in 5 years, 100% in 10 years Require 8% of federal research funding go to "high risk" studies Have agencies create innovation awards, along the lines of the X-Prize Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent Include diversity criteria when awarding grants to give women and minorities greater opportunities	Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent Increase NIH/NSF funding	Make the Research and Experimentation tax credit permanent Double research agency funding
Internet
Tax incentives to increase broadband deployment No clear net neutrality stance since starting her campaign, did co-sponsor legislation before the campaign with Senator Obama meant to enforce it.	100% broadband coverage by 2010 FCC must enforce net neutrality	Universal broadband coverage through the auspices of the Universal Service Fund Increase the minimum speed that qualifies as broadband from the current 200 kbps Supports net neutrality; co-sponsored a bill with Senator Clinton meant to enforce it Protect personal privacy through new regulations on surveillance and data collection Create "Public Media 2.0" to promote internet safety, etc. to children Require distribution of tools to allow parents to regulate internet content
Please see also my previous post on education as the candidates also intend to increase science and math education