Another major poll has confirmed that American voters across the political spectrum welcome clean energy development. It also found that when given the facts, the majority of Democrats and Independents oppose the Keystone XL pipeline for dirty tar sands oil.

The support for clean energy isn’t news—many pollsters have determined that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents embrace clean energy and want to develop more of it. But the timing of this latest poll is instructive.  

It should remind candidates that clean energy is a mobilizing issue. It offers a positive way to address voters’ biggest concerns right now: jobs, economic growth, and the health of our families.  

But as NRDC’s Action Fund mapped out in the report “Running Clean,” in order to win on clean energy, candidates can’t just name check the issue.  

They have to lead on it. They have to offer a vision for America’s clean energy future, and they have to do it before their opponents frame the issue for them.  

This latest poll, conducted by Geoff Garin and Allan Rivlin of Hart Research, focused on four swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. Those same four states have been bombarded with ads funded by oil companies attacking President Obama. And yet the poll found that 45 percent of voters trust the president more than the Republican Congress when it comes to energy issues. The GOP-led House only got 38 percent on energy.  

The poll also asked voters if they supported the president’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. At first, voters opposed his decision by 43 to 32 percent. But when pollsters offered more detailed arguments for and against the pipeline, things changed. More voters started to back the president and resist the pipeline.  

Of those, 79 percent of Democrats thought the president was right to deny the pipeline, while 9 percent did not. Forty-eight percent of Independents agreed with the president’s decision to reject it, compared to 33 percent who want it go forward. For Republicans, the split was 69 percent to 13 percent.  

GOP supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline have been out front with their message over the past few weeks. They have been using wildly inflated jobs numbers and downplaying the fact that much of the tar sands oil would be imported out of the U.S. to other markets. But their story seemed to break through.  

Media Matters released a survey analyzing coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline from August 1 to December 31, 2011. A full 79 percent of the time, broadcast news reporting on Keystone XL interviewed a pipeline proponent.  They interviewed a critic of the tar sands pipeline only 7 percent of the time.  

With coverage like that, it’s no wonder voters aren’t getting the whole story. But when they learn more—like that the pipeline will create as few as 2,500 jobs according to a Cornell University study, will increase gas prices in the Midwest, and send its dirty oil to the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, where companies get incentives to export around the world, then their opposition grows. The Hart Research poll confirms it.  

But leaders have to get their message out about why the dirty stuff hurts America and why clean energy helps it grow. Voters respond to the clean-versus-dirty message, but candidates have to deliver that message clearly and quickly. This isn’t just about the race in November; this is the race every day to frame the debate first.  

Obama has done a masterful job of framing the benefits of the clean energy economy. He consistently says clean energy can deliver more jobs, safer air, and a bigger competitive advantage for Americans businesses, and he enacts policies—from clean car standards to incentives for wind and solar power—that are delivering those benefits right now. He believes so strongly in the appeal of clean energy that he made it the topic of his first presidential campaign ad last month.  

In the end, this isn’t about campaign rhetoric. It’s about our country’s future. The polls show that Americans trust Obama on energy issues and support his clean energy plan. They are giving him permission to lead the nation into a cleaner future.  

The dirty tar sands pipeline has no place in that future. But if Obama continues to head down the cleaner path, voters will follow.

As Election Day nears, President Obama is regaining his populist mojo. His State of the Union speech was mostly pitch perfect, evoking core American themes of opportunity and optimism, and calling for “an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”

But the President has repeatedly hit a wrong note in talking about the foreclosure crisis. Not only is his story inaccurate, but he is promoting a harmful narrative that will make it harder to fix the problem.

The President said in his State of the Union address that “we’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them.” He repeated that theme a week later at a speech in Falls Church, VA, contending that people who did the “right and the responsible thing” were hurt by “lenders who sold loans to people who they knew couldn’t afford the mortgages; and buyers who bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford; and banks that packaged those mortgages up and traded them to reap phantom profits, knowing that they were building a house of cards.”

According to the President’s narrative, then, large numbers of Americans who are struggling beneath unsustainable mortgages willfully chose that fate and deserve roughly equal blame as do the lending and financial giants who cooked up the subprime scheme, targeted vulnerable communities, engaged in deceptive and discriminatory practices, chopped up and distributed faulty loans, and forced fraudulent foreclosures. A different class of “innocent, hard-working” people are the only ones paying the price in this narrative.

Let’s be clear. The foreclosure crisis was caused by reckless misconduct by the lending and financial industries, inadequate rules and enforcement, and staggering long-term unemployment. America’s long history of overwhelmingly successful homeownership went to pot because regulators looked the other way and unscrupulous corporations took advantage, not because working Americans suddenly became wildly irresponsible. Indeed, conscientious lenders like Self-Help Credit Union in North Carolina successfully made loans to the same group of working Americans over the same period with negligible default rates.

Am I saying that no American homeowner ever applied for a mortgage without a realistic plan to repay it? Of course not. A key purpose of proper underwriting standards and regulations is to help lenders and buyers determine what’s mutually sustainable. But to divide American homeowners into “responsible” ones who’ve managed to stay current on their payments and supposedly “irresponsible” ones who’ve fallen behind is inaccurate and harmful.

After confessing that he and the First Lady—two Harvard-trained lawyers—had trouble deciphering their own first mortgage, the President has nonetheless failed to convey how many Americans were victimized by deceptive and predatory practices; how many families sacrificed all to pay the mortgage after one or both parents lost a job; and how many people facing foreclosure today would be successful homeowners if fair rules and vigilant regulators had been in place. He also leaves out how much each of us benefits when we help our neighbors avoid foreclosure, even if we’ve personally managed to stay current on our own mortgages.

The President’s flawed story erodes the public will to aid struggling homeowners and bolsters those who say that the foreclosure crisis should be allowed to “run its course”—why rally to help people you’ve told us are irresponsible? Yet, without a more ambitious policy agenda than we have now, we’ll see millions more Americans lose their economic security, families uprooted from schools and communities, senior citizens thrown into uncertainty or destitution, and the economy in continued chaos.

The President’s current story is also deepening the feelings of shame that keep too many Americans from seeking the advice that could help them save their homes or, at least, make a successful transition. Housing counselors say the stigma attached to foreclosure keeps many people in the shadows instead of accessing the services that exist. It doesn’t help when the Commander in Chief labels them irresponsible.

It’s time for a new, accurate story about homeownership, opportunity, and the American Dream. It’s a story that places blame where it belongs while recognizing that we each have economic and moral responsibilities. It’s a story about the solutions to the crisis that exist, including many that the Administration can take without any action from Congress. And it’s a story about why, in this crisis as in so many others, we are all in it together. As communicator-in-chief, the President should take the lead in telling that story.

Read also:

• Compact for Home Opportunity: What America Can Do to Stop Foreclosures and Fulfill the American Dream

Actor and comedian Chris Rock is willing to pay higher taxes. Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur break it down on The Young Turks.

By: inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/

In an important world event that far too few Americans knew or probably cared about, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou was recently re-elected with 51.6% of the vote.

The election itself was quite interesting; there are several fascinating patterns that occur in Taiwanese politics. But this post will focus mainly on the travails of third-party candidate James Soong Chu-yu.

In America third-party candidates generally do terribly. Amazingly, there is not a single Congressman in the House of Representatives who is not a member of either the Democratic or Republican Party.

There is a very simple reason for this: American politics is based on a first-past-the-post system, rather than a proportional parliamentary system. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

This represents a tremendous hurdle to third-party candidates in the United States. Since the supporters of a third party would otherwise vote disproportionately for another major party candidate, third party candidates are constantly accused of “stealing” votes. A vote for Ralph Nader is a vote for George W. Bush, or so the saying goes (and, as it turned out, a vote for Ralph Nader was indeed a vote for George W. Bush). This is why a third-party candidate has never won a presidential election in the history of the United States.

In Taiwan, whoever gets the most votes also becomes president. Third party candidate James Soong Chu-yu’s positions generally leaned towards the Kuomintang. He was unsurprisingly accused of siphoning votes away from the Kuomintang candidate Ma Ying-jeou. Soong thus faced the same hurdle that all third-party presidential candidates in the United States have failed to overcome.

So how did James Soong Chu-yu do? Well, in the earliest summer 2011 polls Soong generally pulled in low double-digits, sometimes breaking the 15% barrier but never falling below 10% of the electorate’s support. As the campaign season wore on, however, his support steadily leaked away. The polls document this drip, drip, drip of support fleeing him quite well. By October Soong was dipping into the single-digits. By November he was struggling to break into the double-digits at all. The last five polls on Wikipedia’s list gave him 7%, 5.8%, 7.2%, 6%, and 6.8% of the vote. Due to Taiwanese laws, polling then ceased during the ten days prior to the election.

On election day James Soong Chu-yu got 2.8% of the vote.

In other words, a candidate who started regularly polling above 15% ended up with less than a million actual votes. James Soong Chu-yu essentially turned into a non-entity; as the possibility of him splitting the Pan-Blue coalition vote came closer and closer to reality, his support plummeted.

All in all, this result is a fascinating application of an electoral principle being applied to a country outside the United States (or outside of the Western world for that matter). When electorates in the United States and Taiwan are presented with the same situation, they react in the exact same way. This reveals that the effect of a first-past-the-post system is quite universal: the system destroys third party candidacies. Whether the third-party candidate is Ralph Nader or James Soong Chu-yu, the result is the same.

"Josh Fox, whose HBO documentary "Gasland" raised questions about the safety of the natural gas drilling technique known as horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was handcuffed and led away on Wednesday as he tried to film a House Science Committee hearing on the topic...".* The Young Turks host breaks it down.

Mitt Romney is to be commended for his honesty. This ranks right up there with “I like being able to fire people,” and “corporations are people, my friend.” Romney has shown that while he may have the golden touch for all of his personal investment choices, he has a tin ear for politics. Romney doesn’t even bother trying to mask his contempt for non-rich Americans. Once again, Mitt Romney shows he has the same compassion level for the non-rich that the Mel Brooks’ character King Louis did when he was using live peasants for skeet shooting practice.

Here is a new ad that we are in the process of buying national cable TV news for now.

There's more...

Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman got an angry response from Republican Congressman Ed Whitfield over the idea that the right wing billionaire Koch brothers should be subpoenaed over their financial interest in the Keystone XL Pipeline. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.

Newt Gingrich trounced Mitt Romney in South Carolina, ensuring that the race for the GOP nomination will likely continue for weeks to come. The Republican establishment may have settled on Romney, but voters keep throwing their support behind the anti-Romney -- whichever candidate of the moment sounds as different from the supposedly “moderate” Massachusetts governor as possible.

Right now, Gingrich is the one generating all the passion. But if one goes by their campaign statements, Gingrich differs from Romney more in style (and personal life) than in substance. Gingrich has more spit and fire in him, but he and Romney share many views, including their similarly outdated approach to energy development.

We’ve heard the same tired ideas during the primaries, and we will hear them again in the Republican response to the State of the Union Address on Tuesday night: candidates offer plenty of attacks on Obama, but no new vision for America’s energy future.

Gingrich may be the man who wrote the book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Solving Our Energy Crisis, but Romney is just as eager to rely on the same fossil fuels we’ve been using for the past 100 years. Romney’s energy blueprint, included in his “Believe in America” economic plan, calls for flinging open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy companies, sinking wells into the deepwater, and expanding fracking in the Marcellus Shale, despite a long list of environmental and public health concerns (not to mention small earthquakes).

Neither Romney nor Gingrich has a fresh plan for an energy future built on innovation and cutting-edge technology. Neither one talks about how better-performing cars are putting 150,000 Americans to work right now and helping slash our oil addiction at the same time. Neither one trumpets the fact that American engineers are already making breakthroughs in the next generation of solar technology. And neither one of them urges America to lead what has been estimated as the $243 billion global clean energy market.

Instead, both Romney and Gingrich seem to view renewable technologies as a wasteful distraction. This despite the fact that the Department of Defense—the nation’s largest consumer of energy—has pledged to get 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 because of national security concerns.

The candidates like to demagogue about energy independence, but they have no plan to achieve it besides doing more of the same—an approach that hasn’t worked so far. We saw it in Gingrich’s acceptance speech in South Carolina. “I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king.” That is a fine aspiration, but instead of encouraging Detroit to build more fuel-efficient engines or farmers to grow sustainable biofuels, he called for expanding offshore drilling and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.

When your home has 1.6 percent of the globe’s proven oil reserves and you consume 26 percent of the world’s supply, there is a limit to how much you can influence supply. That's not politics; it's geology.

And building a pipeline from a friendly ally won’t help much when the pipeline operators routinely say in the Canadian press that a primary goal of Keystone XL is to access Asian markets. The same operators have refused in Congressional testimony to commit to selling the majority of their oil to the United States. Instead, they are rerouting it out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, where companies get incentives to export from of the United States.

Approving a pipeline to help dirty tar sands oil get to Asia is not a long-term plan for America’s energy system. Opening more ocean waters to drilling won’t position us to lead the next generation of energy breakthroughs. But that doesn’t stop Gingrich and Romney from singing the same old song again and again.

President Obama recognizes that America’s energy leadership will be built on clean technologies. Last week he kicked off his presidential campaign advertising with an ad devoted to the economic power of clean energy. I expect he will highlight it again in the State of the Union.

Here is how I expect the GOP candidates to respond: They will criticize Obama’s clean energy programs and sprinkle in fossil fuel buzzwords like Keystone and drilling. But their complaints can’t cover the fact that they have no fresh ideas, no innovation, and no groundbreaking vision for America’s energy future.

by WALTER BRASCH 

“Ola, Amigo! Pack your bags, we’re going to Mexico!” bubbled Dr. Franklin Peterson Comstock III, faux physician and money-maker.

“Yeah, I could use a decent vacation,” I replied, figuring he’d pay for both of us since he had just set the world record for the most nose jobs in a 24-hour period.

“What vacation?” he said. “I’m setting up practice.”

“And give up catering to rich people with inflated bank accounts and deflated ethics?”

“Don’t have a choice. I’m getting laid off.”

Comstock had been a rainmaker for the Megabucks Happy Health Care Medical Center for the past decade. There was only one reason I could think of why he’d be laid off. “Megabucks tired of paying your malpractice insurance?” I asked.

“Not just me,” he said. “Hospital’s laying off most of the staff, making the rest work overtime, and hiring outside contractors. They said it was hard to survive when the profit was down to only 20 or so million a year.”

“I didn’t realize it was that serious,” I said. “You planning to set up private practice to help the poor in Mexico?” I asked admiringly.

“Not a chance! Gonna get rich working for Megabucks!”

“You just said you were laid off.”

“Been laid off in the U.S.,” said Comstock while putting a frozen burrito into the microwave. “Megabucks/Mexico just hired me. There’s cheaper labor down there.”

“You crazy?” I asked. “You’re the cheaper labor.”

“Obviously you don’t know American business,” said Comstock haughtily.

“Megabucks/U.S. closes its auxiliary operations, and then contracts with Mexican companies for a fifth of the cost in the U.S. They do the work, ship it back to the U.S., and Megabucks bills Blue Cross the full rate as if it was done locally.”

“So where do you fit in?” I asked.

“Just as before. Nose jobs. Breast augmentations. Tummy tucks. All the important medical procedures. But this time, I do it in Cancun.”

“To rich Mexicans,” I said disgusted.

“To rich Americans!” said Comstock. “If they want the best care, they’ll take their private jets to Mexico and then deduct the trip as a necessary business expense.”

“And what about the impoverished and middle-class Americans?”

“If they can sneak across the border, they can also get medical care.”

“What about prescriptions?”

“Megabucks contracted with some of the best drug dealers—I mean pharmacists and chemists—in Mexico. Quality is just as good and it’ll only be four or five times production costs. Unlike the U.S. there’s no TV advertising and six-figure MBAs and lawyers that require drugs to be 30 or 40 times production costs.”

“With prices that low, how do you know there won’t be mass rushes by Americans to grab everything they can?”

“Because there’s security! Every hospital and pharmacy has armed guards with the best automatic weapons smuggled through the God-fearing 2nd Amendment patriotic Southern states.”

“Is Megabucks outsourcing all its operations?”

“Keeping the ER. After tummy tucks and butt lifts, that’s the hospital’s ‘cash cow.’”

“So, then, it’ll have to keep some services like X-Ray and the lab,” I said. “Maybe even a doctor or two.”

“Too expensive,” said Comstock. “Megabucks will hire more residents and foreign-educated doctors, and work them 18 hours a day. More work, less time to complain. Residents will do anything to get experience to pass their boards. May even hire a couple of hospitalists. You know, the ones who graduated at the bottom of their class and can’t even get work in a Free Clinic.”

“I suppose they’ll also do the lab work?” I asked.

“Do you know some of those lab techs are making as much as $30,000 a year! Made sense to lay them off, too.”

“So how will the ER know a victim’s blood chemistry, or if there’s internal injuries?”

“Technology,” said Comstock. “They scan the blood here, and send digital X-Rays to Mexico. Mexican lab technicians—you know, the ones that don’t know about unions and will work for only a few bucks a day—will analyze everything, then text the results back to the U.S.”

“This sounds like it’s not only a way to maximize profits, but also a way to avoid dealing with the President’s health care reform program.”

“Obamacare!” spit out Comstock. “Nothing but socialized medicine.”

“Most countries have forms of socialized medicine,” I countered, “and they not only have good health care but affordable prices to their citizens.”

Comstock put his hands to his ears and began chanting, “We’re Number 1, We’re Number 1.”

“Number 37,” I corrected him. “The World Health Organization ranked the U.S. just below Costa Rico.”

“They’re all Commies,” replied Comstock. “Besides, that study is a decade old.”

“Last year, the independent Commonwealth Fund compared the nations of the United Kingdom against the U.S., and the U.S. ranked seventh of the seven.”

“Yeah, like Americans will go to Canada? It’s covered by snow and run by a queen who can’t even speak English.”

“You and Megabucks are crazy!”

“Possibly,” said Comstock, “but outsourcing is the American way. By the way, do you put ketchup or mustard on a burrito?”

[Dr. Walter Brasch isn’t licensed to practice medicine, but he goes to some excellent physicians who are—and they’re just as frustrated with the costs, insurance companies and myriad forms as anyone else. His current book is the critically-acclaimed mystery novel, Before the First Snow]

Global use of hydropower increased more than 5 percent between 2009 and 2010, according to new research published by the Worldwatch Institute for its Vital Signs Online publication. Hydropower use reached a record 3,427 terawatt-hours, or about 16.1 percent of global electricity consumption, by the end of 2010, continuing the rapid rate of increase experienced between 2003 and 2009.

The cost of hydropower is relatively low, making it a competitive source of renewable electricity. The average cost of electricity from a hydro plant larger than 10 megawatts is 3 to 5 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. Hydropower is also a flexible source of electricity since plants can be ramped up and down very quickly to adapt to changing energy demands. Yet there are many negative aspects associated with hydropower: for example, damming interrupts the flow of rivers and can harm local ecosystems, and building large dams and reservoirs often involves displacing people and wildlife and requires significant amounts of carbon-intensive cement.

China was the largest hydropower producer and is expected to continue to lead global hydro use in the coming years. The country produced 721 terawatt-hours in 2010, representing around 17 percent of domestic electricity use. China also had the highest installed hydropower capacity, with 213 gigawatts (GW) at the end of 2010. It added more hydro capacity than any other country, 16 GW in 2010, and plans to add 140 GW by 2015. This is equivalent to building about seven more dams the size of China’s Three Gorges Dam, currently the largest in the world.

Hydropower is produced in at least 150 countries but is concentrated in just a few countries and regions. The Asia-Pacific region generated roughly 32 percent of global hydropower in 2010. Africa produces the least hydropower, accounting for 3 percent of the world total, but is considered the region with the greatest potential for increased production.

In 2008, four countries—Albania, Bhutan, Lesotho, and Paraguay—generated all their electricity from hydropower, and 15 countries generated at least 90 percent of their electricity from hydro. Iceland, New Zealand, and Norway produce the most hydropower per capita.

Micro-hydropower, which is defined as a plant with an installed capacity of 100 kilowatt-hour (kWh) or less, has grown in importance over the last decade and can be an effective means of providing electricity to communities far from industrial centers. As of 2009, roughly 60 GW of small hydro was installed worldwide, accounting for less than 6 percent of the hydropower total. Small hydro is likely to expand, especially as populous countries like India continue to pursue rural electrification.

Further highlights from the study:

• Five countries—China, Brazil, the United States, Canada, and Russia—accounted for approximately 52 percent of the world’s installed hydropower capacity in 2010.
• There are now three hydropower plants larger than 10 GW: the Three Gorges Dam in China, Itaipu Hydroelectricity Power Plant in Brazil, and Guri Dam in Venezuela.
• A total of $40–45 billion was invested in large hydropower projects worldwide in 2010.

On January 3rd, America lost one of the greatest champions of equal opportunity and human rights that our nation has ever known. Judge Robert L. Carter, civil rights lawyer, jurist, and fierce defender of justice, passed away at age 94 after suffering a stroke.

Judge Carter was a primary architect behind the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision, crafting an innovative approach that blended constitutional scholarship, social science research, historical knowledge, and strategic litigation. After the victory, he pursued a strategy that helped bring desegregation to the North, where it had long been treated as an open secret. Over his career, he argued 22 cases before the Supreme Court, and won 21 of them.

As a federal judge, he held litigants to the highest standards, while rigorously guarding equal justice under law. Over four decades on the bench, he brought greater inclusion to the New York Police Department and to construction trades that had long excluded people of color and women. And he continued to speak out against injustice wherever he encountered it. That he chose me as one of his law clerks was a singular honor; I remain humbled by having been able to serve in that capacity.

In 2007, Judge Carter honored The Opportunity Agenda by authorizing us to create a Robert L. Carter Legal Fellowship for innovative lawyers to promote equal justice under law. Our three Carter Fellows since then have secured more equal health care for people of color in New York and Connecticut, expanded fair housing in Texas and at the national level, and ensured that federal economic recovery programs reached the hardest hit communities around the country. We are proud to continue Judge Carter’s legacy of excellence, innovation, and equal opportunity for all.

Thank you, Judge Carter, for your lifetime of service, for the transformative change you brought to our nation, and for the sterling example of leadership that you have given us all.

Read also:

• The Robert L. Carter Fellowship

The last few weeks we have seen FireDogLake gearing up in an effort to challenge and ultimately weaken Democratic incumbents who supported healthcare reform. This effort has included running surveys in swing and even quite red districts now represented by left-of-center moderate Democrats who stuck out their necks to advance the cause of near-universal healthcare reform, with one poll arguably forcing into retirement one such Democratic Congressman.

Now FDL is going after a bona fide progressive champion, Earl Blumenauer (for whom I did some consulting a few years ago). Blumenauer's apparent fault: Not pledging continuing to pledge* to kill the Senate bill, which would cover 30 million Americans who currently do not have health insurance. No matter, of course, that Blumenauer has been one of the leading progressives in the House for more than a decade, fighting for livable communities, clean energy, and other smart policies that all too often get short shrift on Capitol Hill, voting against measures ranging from the PATRIOT Act to the Iraq War. No matter that he spoke out on the need to reinforce the levies in New Orleans for fear that they might be breached during a hurricane -- in a speech delivered months before Hurricane Katrina hit -- that he had the prescience to submit legislation restricting primate sales long before the chimpanzee attack that seriously wounded a woman last year, and that he was one of the few in Congress willing to speak out and organize against the Tom DeLay-led effort to thrust the federal government in the middle of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. No, not pledging continuing to pledge* to kill the Senate bill is enough to place a target on the back of a member of Congress.

This all really has me wondering, what's the point? What are we doing in politics? Has the purpose of our involvement over the years been to prove an ideological point, to show how resolute we are in our beliefs? Or rather, has the point been to make tangible steps towards the betterment of the lives of those who so desperately need it?

Lest you think I am setting up a straw man argument, that this is not a binary set of choices, think about where we stand today. If the House is unwilling or unable to accept the legislation already passed by the Senate -- and that appears to be the case at present, though the situation remains, to a great extent, up in the air -- a significant portion of those 30 million who would be coverage will still have to go without health insurance (half, according to a reports, if the House and Senate can agree on a pared down bill; all if they can't).

And it's not like reform will be easier to come by in a later Congress with fewer Democrats. After Harry Truman tried and failed to enact universal healthcare legislation, it took another generation until Congress seriously moved again on a similar measure. Even then, Congress was unable to enact universal healthcare legislation, opting instead to cover senior citizens and the extremely poor. Though Congress debated legislation during the 1970s, it took another generation until such an effort moved forward again under the Clinton administration. Now, more than 15 years after the failure of the Congress and President Clinton to move forward on healthcare reform, we again stand at the precipice. Can we really afford to wait another decade or longer?

This is far from the first time that there has been disagreement over how best to forward progressive policy initiatives. One need not even think that far back to the candidacy of Ralph Nader, when promises were made that if the left cost Democrats enough votes to block the party's nominee from the Presidency, the liberals would be emboldened and thus progressive policy would be made easier to enact in the future. We all know how well those promises worked out -- a War in Iraq, a conservative activist Supreme Court, a Great Recession.

Simply put, I cannot see how killing healthcare reform today -- and, no, not just the Senate bill (which has its positives along with its negatives), but any meaningful healthcare reform -- will make it easier to pass a better bill in the future. And I can't fathom how attacking Democrats willing to risk their jobs to try to cover 30 million more Americans will do anything to forward the cause of universal healthcare.

There's more...

So.....

Where are these coattails? Virginia gone to the (R), New Jersey gone to the (R) and now Mass. Senate picked up by another (R).

Can't blame Bush tonight can we?

Let's go back two years to help remind the readers:

NYTIMES January 25, 2008  “The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.”

How he would govern...I have no idea...he is not standing up for anything....He is just letting Congress run his agenda.

Gitmo is still open, Health Care is going to fail, and what about Don't Ask Don't Tell....They didn't teach this on the campaign trail now did they Mr. President.

What would have Hillary would have done? We don't know...we wanted a nice speaker for President.

Oh and by the way...remember that promise to have open discussions on Health Care and deal making? All behind closed doors. Someone realized you can't make deals in front of the cameras. Hillary knew that.

Can't forget this now:

Chris Matthews, Night of the Potomac Primaries:

 “I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often. No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment.”

I HAVEN'T HEARD ONE SPEECH THAT SOUNDED LIKE ANYTHING FROM 2008. HE IS NOW A POLITICIAN LADIES AND GENTLEMAN.

At least Hillary would know how to work the system.

Let me end with this....Just proves how good she is.

Clinton named Al-Qaeda Yemen as terror group a month ago 

"

Here's one thing that didn't make the recent official or press chronologies of the Obama Administration's actions towards Al Qaeda in Yemen: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally designated the group as a terrorist organization back on December 14.

That's 11 days before the attempt to bring down a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day--an act believed to have been organized by Al Qaeda's Yemeni affiliate, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). However, no one seems to have made Clinton's action public until last Friday, January 15, when the paperwork (see here and here) was submitted for publication in Tuesday morning's Federal Register." Josh Gerstein, Politico.com

Ah what if, what if. But we will never know. Obama is no Bill Clinton. Obama is no Leader...Obama is only a good Speaker.

OBAMA = CARTER   ONE TERM

CLINTON 2012

Updated: And she just keeps rolling Ladies and Gentlemen. She keeps her on on the diplomatic ball and our current Speaker in Chief can't decide which agenda he wants this week:

Read on:

WASHINGTON - Major powers are united in working toward pressuring Iran over its nuclear program, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Thursday, despite many signals that China is reluctant to impose more sanctions.

Senior diplomats from Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States met in New York on Saturday to discuss the possibility of placing more international sanctions on Iran.

The West suspects that Iran's nuclear program is a cover for developing atomic weapons. Iran has said the program is designed to generate electricity so that it can export more of its valuable oil and gas.

"We are unified in our resolve to work toward pressure on Iran in the face of their continuing rejection of the overtures by the international community," Clinton said at a news conference, calling Saturday's meeting a "productive step."

Earlier this month China argued in public that now was not the right time to place further sanctions on Iran and it sent only a low level official to attend Saturday's meeting while the other powers sent senior foreign ministry officials.

"Let me be clear: we will not be waited out and we will not back down," Clinton said. "Iran has a very clear choice between continued isolation and living up to its international obligations."

Let's hear it for Annabel Park of Silver Spring, MD, who, when really upset by the Tea Party Movement and it's Fox News promoters, started a response movement in her living room: The Coffee Party Movement. And, wonder of wonders, it has caught on... enough so that I've added Coffee Party to my blog rolls. Here's the Coffee Party Mission Statement:

The Coffee Party Movement gives voice to Americans who want to see cooperation in government. We recognize that the federal government is not the enemy of the people, but the expression of our collective will, and that we must participate in the democratic process in order to address the challenges that we face as Americans. As voters and grassroots volunteers, we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.

And here is Annabel on how she started it all: Interested? Then go HERE and join the Coffee Party Movement. I did. Under The LobsterScope

The effort to bring the public option up for a vote continues to gather steam in the wake of the Bennet Letter written by Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado - and orginally co-signed by Senator Kristen Gillibrand of New York, Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon - to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging him to use the reconciliation process. Eighteen Democratic Senators have now signed the letter. Those who have signed on are Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Senator Pat Leahy of Vermont, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, Senator Roland Burris of Illinois and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York.

The other development overnight is a bit of a mixed bag. Appearing on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show last night, Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that the White House is willing to make a push for the public option if Senate Democrats decide to bring it up for a vote. 

"Certainly. If it's part of the decision of the Senate leadership to move forward, absolutely," she told Rachel Maddow.

While welcomed, it is not exactly the strongest display of leadership. This I will if you will is passing the buck to Harry Reid when it should be the President that leads. Still, it perhaps merits taking a wait and see approach. The New York Times reports this morning that the Administration will put forward comprehensive health care legislation intended to bridge differences between Senate and House Democrats ahead of a summit meeting with Republicans next week.

Democratic officials said the president’s proposal was being written so that it could be attached to a budget bill as a way of averting a Republican filibuster in the Senate. The procedure, known as budget reconciliation, would let Democrats advance the bill with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote supermajority.

Congressional Democrats, however, have not yet seen the proposal or signed on.

The House and the Senate each adopted a version of sweeping health care legislation late last year. But efforts to combine the measures stalled after a Republican, Scott Brown, won a special Senate election in Massachusetts on Jan. 19, effectively stripping the Democrats of the 60th vote they needed to overcome Republican filibusters.

“It will be a reconciliation bill,” one Democratic aide said. “If Republicans don’t come with any substantial offers, this is what we would do.”

Officials said that the White House would post the president’s plan on the Internet by Monday morning. But even as Mr. Obama tries to unite his party behind a single plan, it is unclear that Democrats can muster the needed votes in the House and the Senate given the tense political climate of a midterm election year.

Monday thus looms large. It may be a make or break day for the Administration and the progressive movement. Should the White House fail to show leadership on this, it may be time to take full stock of Administration that is long on rhetoric but short on delivery.

From the diaries, jerome.

In a way, the fact that a public option wasn't included in the health care reform law is a great opportunity for progressives. It would have been preferable to include the public option in the original law, without a doubt. And it would would certainly be nice to pass a public option during a second round of budget reconciliation in this session of Congress - but I'm not holding my breath. Nevertheless, defeat in this session may be a blessing in disguise, since progressive Democrats now have a clear and popular issue they can, and should, rally around for the mid-term elections.

The polling forecast for Democrats in the mid-term elections has been looking rather miserable for a while now, both in the House and in the Senate, and while there appears to be a health care bounce, it's too early to say whether that will be long-lived, or whether it will be enough to revive Democratic election prospects.

But whatever happens to Congressional Democrats, fighting for the public option in the mid-term elections is a good short-term strategy for progressives. What's more, it may yield significant long-term benefits as well. More in the extended entry.

There's more...

I've ended my hyper-partisan allegiance to the Democratic Party. In moving beyond the past decade's partisan affair with Democrats, I am ready for a real revolution to happen in this country.

It has got to happen over the next two years, and its going to take progressives, libertarians, tea partiers, coffee partiers, conservatives... everyone that is not part of the problem (the financial/political/military elite). Get radical, first by moving beyond attachment to a single party or a political identity. Radicalize them both, go independent; whatever, and if that's not you too, then get out of the way.

This is a good video, and explains where I have arrived politically.

It's quite liberating, actually. We'll see where it goes next.

(cross-posted from Daily Kos)

As a Pinellas County native, I have been waiting 25 years for the announcement heard today: $1.25 billion would be granted for construction of a Florida high speed rail link. Estimated to cost $3.5 billion total, this award covers a substantial portion (35%+). High Speed Rail is finally coming to the rest of America.

But many have asked: why Florida?

There's more...