Senator Obama,

As a constituent a multiple contributer, I am aware of your history of fighting for AFFORDABLE health insurance for illinois working families.

I know that as a former democratic chair of Health and Human services committee in the Illinois Legislature you have successfully worked to provide health insurance for working families. This is an issue that you have deep passion for; I'm aware that as a young state senator, one of your most ambitious goals was to make it CONSTITUTIONAL for every illinoisan to have health insurance as good as what Senator Lobbyists FreeRide got(lol). It failed because of a republican governor and republican majority in the Springfield. So when Paul Krugman spews untruths like "i suspect he's not serious about universal healthcare" I wonder if he's done his homework.

BUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!

You're making a big mistake!

This is a communication issue: Your approach to universal healthcare is distorted by a respected progressive economist, Mr. Krugman.

You have said that YOU ARE NOT OPPOSED TO MANDATES, but don't think MANDATES SHOULD come UPFRONT before there's assurance of lower cost, afterall, folks won't purchase until they know it's affordable.

You have also said that this is all about LEVERAGE: That if you can have proof that your insurance is CHEAPER than private options, THEN you are in a good position to enforce a mandate!

As Mr. Krugman's own reader said in a response to his highly critical review of mandates, the experience of California and Massachussets suggests carrots will be better than sticks at the beginning of a healthcare reform process.

Re "Mandates and Mudslinging" (column, Nov. 30):

Paul Krugman dismisses Senator Barack Obama's points about health insurance mandates as "echoing right-wing talking points" on health care. Really?

It was two pragmatic Republican governors, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, who proposed mandates as cornerstones of their respective health reform plans.

In California, resistance to that approach has come primarily from unions and Democrats. Although I have favored the mandate component of Mr. Schwarzenegger's plan, Mr. Obama raises valid points about the practicality of immediate mandates as the path to universality.

In California, there are real questions about whether the insurance that people would be required to buy and able to afford, even with subsidies, would be worth having. Massachusetts has already had to grant waivers to many.

In addressing this issue, carrots may prove more effective than heavy-handed sticks.

John Walkmeyer
San Ramon, Calif., Nov. 30, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/opinio n/lweb04krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogi n
It seems Mr. Krugman hasn't seen you say this despite you giving extensive interviews with New Hamsphire Editorial Boards about this.

http://www.nhelects.com/NHPrimaryVideos. asp?MultiID=70&HTitle=VLTitle

So In the INterest of neutral voters who want to get a better health care system,

I suggest that you PEN an open ed in the New York Times about your specific approach and how that will be a superior and pragmatic approach.

I know that you have emphasised that the president must allow a transparent process and that will be key to engaging americans who want affordable healthcare desperately.

Thank you for your service to our beloved country.

There's more...

Paul Krugman is a respected progressive.

On healthcare, he would want a single payer system.

None of the Leading candidates went there; all of them favor private-public mixture.

Edwards and Clinton have individual mandate for all; obama wants mandates for children.

Throughout this debate, obama has said that he will be in a POSITION to enforce a mandate if there's ample proof that the health insurance provided by the government is cheap for working families.

obama's premise is that enforcing a mandate upfront is unnecessary since folks won't buy it unless it is cheap.

AND SPECIFICALLY OBAMA has said that he'll be open to mandates when he has the leverage to impose it and that he is not against mandates.

Krugman's entire basis for his criticism of obama is that his language provides fodder for rethugs. that's ridiculous. If obama is president he'll have the bully pulpit. AND IN A TRANSPARENT PROCESS rethugs will not be able to distort stuff.

Besides most people will enroll in a reasonable plan if it is cheap.

ANY HEALTH REFORM PLAN that doesn't aknowledge the fact that people will not buy a cheap plan they don't trust is dishonest.

Finally,

I take exception to Krugman calling obama "not serious" about universal healthcare. What?

Obama tried to make health insurance a constitutional right of every Illinois citizen as a young state senator; he was TOO ambitious about and it didn't work with a republican governor and republican senate majority in the Illinois legislature.

He didn't give up though, in fact he went ahead and did the hard work of forming a group to study it and that group's recommendation formed the basis of the current illinois plan by Governor blagovevich(geez, this name is hard).

Obama must pen and open-editorial in teh new york times to answer krugman.

Here, in an interview with NH Sentinel, he elaborated on his approach to universal healthcare.

http://www.nhelects.com/NHPrimaryVideos. asp?MultiID=74&HTitle=VLTitle

There's more...

Democrats.

* Clinton: 39%; vs. 48% in the previous survey; and 50% before that. Her support has fallen 11 percentage points in a month.

• Sen. Barack Obama: 24%; vs. 21% in the previous survey; and 22% before that.
  
• John Edwards: 15%; vs. 12% in the previous survey; and 15% before that.
  

No other candidate was above 4%.

Poll was taken from Nov. 30th to Dec. 3rd.

She is also polling in the 37% and slipping in the Rasmussen daily polls. http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/national-suppor.html

Apparently Hillary Clinton can run for US Senate in New York despite not knowing where manhattan is on a US map, but Iowa college students who have lived in Iowa for more than 1semester can't vote in the state where they pay taxes in.

Remember the year 2000 when the first lady who had never lived in New York suddenly became a Yankee fan and run for an open seat? Conservatives scoffed that person; Guiliani had good humor lines about it until illness forced his joke into a frown. Well, that first lady now thinks that what she did was so wrong that she should be stripped of her seat. In fact she's willing to offend thousands of college students to do that. Why hasn't MSM called her out on her hypocrisy? Might that have something to do with our short attention span?

There's more...

When Barack Obama talks about lobbyists, he knows what he's talking about. He often chastises them on the campaign trail but admits that he swims in a system infected with them.

In Illinois, he swam with them, played poker with them, played basketball with them YET poked them in the eye when he got to the Springfield Capitol.

The AP has the details

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPP3m W7pH3yzkL_V06E5iACM9vqwD8T8OLS80

I like this part best:

There's more...

This is a pre-emptive strike against those clinton operatives on this blog who have started "filling in" on barack obama's life and career. A recent blog spewed disected lies and distortions about obama's time in college; i won't give anyone the benefit of the doubt. bloggers are now influencial part of the news cycle. When E.J. Dione, Washington Post's respected columnist was on Keith Olberman's show last night, he strongly defended Obama's rapid response to the shit from Bob Novak.Mind you, Dione been around Washington for a long time; he can see shit when he smells it.Some people think obama overreacted. I'm beginning to think he was more than right; he was prescient.When you are a new candidate in national office you have to be alert to the tricks to the machines in washington; the mark penn machine, karl rove machine, RNC. etc.obama has written extensively about himself. Unlike Bill clinton who lied about sexual relations with his intern, lied about smoking pot and had several affairs whiles a governor of arkansas and lied about it, obama has been proactive about his life. One of the things he talks about a lot is his political awakening in college after indulging in self-destructive behavior.At Occidental College, participation in the Anti-Apartheid Movement helped him discover a political voice that has marked his political career. Friends and classmates recall his activism in the Anti-apartheid movement at Occidental college.http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/3678 41.htmlAfter occidental he transferred to Columbia University and by his own admission spent those two years in the library; He said, "I was a monk" (dreams from my father). He said that he didn't have a life at columbia and by testament of his professors he was an A student, was 1 of 6 honor students in his senior year thesis class. Again, if you read the book, he doesn't talk about activism at columbia; his activism was at occidental college and there's enough evidence that he was active in that movement.Well, if you doubt his passion for social work you need not sweat; He was a community organiser(not peace corps or any establishment organised thingy), something he did in Harlem and then in Chicago full time for about 4yrs before going to law school. after law school he continued to train commmunity organiser until he came to washington.So the clinton folks have started spewing lies on this blog about him; those of us who know him will be watching you. you've been put on notice. Someone commented on Mr. Caufield's blog and said this: why are you guys doing this now? (none / 0) Can't you wait until next week to start filling in BO's bio, when more people are paying attention? Why do it now when most people are focused on thanksgiving celebration stuff? I hope you guys are just laying the groundwork for what's to come next week. I don't want the big bang until then when it can have more of an impact on the race and more people are paying attention.... http://mydd.com/story/2007/11/20/192417/07 Exactly what filling in are you talking about? Again, you've been put on notice.For neutral observers: if you ever doubted Novak, think twice.Mark Penn is too connected to too many insiders and lobbyists and operatives to be given the benefit of the doubt.I will be watching this. all obama supporters should be alert.

There's more...

The Novak story is very eerie, however unethical the dude is.

In fact, for some reason, I had just finished reading on some blog that the LA Times was sitting on a major presidential campaign sex scandal(The LA Times denies it).
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/ronrosenb aum/2007/10/29/shocking_inside_dc_scanda l_rum.php

Slate, portfolio.com and other blogs have speculated that that LA Times story must be about Obama since any other candidate won't be affected much by such a scandal.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/odd -numbers/2007/11/04/passing-along-a-rumo r

So when I read Novak's posted by a blogger on Obama's website, I thought, damn it, Obama must come clean or respond forcefully if he's not guilty.

So I was happy to see him respond himself.

Some people are already falsely saying that he accused the Clinton campaign of wrongdoing; he didn't.

He dismissed the story:

"The item did not identify these 'agents,' nor did it reveal the nature of the charge. It was devoid of facts, but heavy on innuendo and insinuation of the sort to which we've become all too accustomed in our politics these past two decades. If the purpose of this shameless item was to daunt or discourage me or supporters of our campaign from challenging and changing the politics of Washington, it will fail. In fact, it will only serve to steel our resolve.

Now, he has forced the Clinton campaign to deny it and hence cut off any legs the story might have.
Stories like these must be forcefully denounced before they get legs and though Bob Novak isn't ethical by any standard, he's been a source of lots of D.C. scandals and the campaign had to take the allegations seriously.

In 24hrs the so called "scandal" has been forcefully denounced and I doubt that any person in the media believes that obama has anything to hide. Even if he does, the strong response from the candidate himself suggests that it has nothing to do with a sex scandal.

Obama has passed this test because his forcefully response has put to rest any suspicions about his past. He is now on record saying he has nothing to hide. And that happened before the Sunday Talking Heads picked it up.

Good for him
Whew!!!

There's more...

Obama was feeling lucky yesterday @ Google.

The best part is the Q and A session; skip the 12min speech and go on to the Q and A. Update: I take up the challenge of one of the commenters. I was there and it was an opportunity for him to make a very compelling case for his candidacy. He spoke extensively about what would distinguish his approach to governance from the others and made a strong case for a government that adapts to technology. Most of the Questions were very pointed so we got clear responses out of him. See for yourself.

See for yourself, Tech-President Obama in Action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZ wo

The Embed code isn't working. don't know whyyyyyyyyyy.

code:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m4yVlPqeZwo&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&border=0"></param&gt<param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param&gt<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m4yVlPqeZwo&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed&gt</object&gt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4yVlPqeZ wo

There's more...

I am no expert on Foreign Policy, in fact, I'm a Civil Engineer. But Foreign Policy has always fascinated me.

New York Time's international columnist Roger Cohen has an article today that makes the argument that Obama's biography alone will potentially start a powerful new conversation between the world and the United States. I love it, but I have to say that I have even more compelling reason to entrust Barack with our foreign policy: more than five(5) powerful statesmen from across the ideological spectrum have come out for Obama's instincts/rhetoric on Foreign Policy.

There are
Newt Gingrich(R)
Roger Cohen(Journalist-IHT)
Zbigniew Brzezinski(D)
Lee Hamilton(D)
Seymour Hersh(Journalist-New Yorker)
Chuck Hagel(R)

Lee Hamilton(D)

On MSNBC's Nightly News, there was a report on obama policy toward Iran articulated in the NY Times last weekend in which Obama committed himself to personal involvement early in his administration w.r.t. Iran.

As always, the MSM did the story with the premise that somehow this was radical, but Andrea Mitchell's interview with Lee Hamilton(per Iraq Study Group Co-chair) revealed wisdom that comes with old age:

Lee Hamilton said (paraphrase with video attached), "if we continue on rhetorical fights we all know how it'd end : war".

http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-u s&vid=b3a7e0c5-b53a-4220-a4c3-ef0cd7 fd8feb

NEWT GINGRICH(R) SAYS OBAMA missed an opportunity to engage voters on antogonist countries:

As you'll recall, in a July 23 debate in Charleston, SC, Obama was asked if he would be "willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"
Obama's answer was:

   I would. And the reason is this: the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them--which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration--is ridiculous. Ronald Reagan constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when he called them an evil empire. He understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward. And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.

To which Hillary Clinton responded:

   I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy.

... At the time, most analysts (including yours truly) believed Hillary won the argument by accusing Obama of being "naive." Probably for this reason, Obama seems to have backed off using this issue against Hillary.

But a question posed in a new American Solutions survey (which will be available tomorrow) seems to argue that Obama was on to something.

When asked: "Do you believe it is possible to negotiate with individual countries that pose a threat to the safety of Americans, or not?," 68 percent of those polled said it was.  (A safe guess is that an even higher percentage of Democrat primary voters share this opinion).

In remarks this afternoon, Gingrich said the polling demonstrates that Obama missed an opportunity to score points against Hillary, and "should've stuck to his guns." 

(Note:  There was an interesting and clear disconnect between people's opinions regarding negotiating with hostile nations versus negotiating with terrorist groups.  In another question, 79 percent of those surveyed did not believe it was possible to negotiate with terrorist organizations).

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/2670c7ec- 85a6-438e-a31d-9f7d8cbb950c
Newt Gingrich, whatever you think of him, is a smart man, helped bill clinton a lot and is now on record saying the country is hungry for what dems have to offer but dems are SCARED of Republican Labels.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/11/14/clintons_advice_make_friends _n.html

There's more...

Make no mistake, this election cycle is about America's short/long term national security. The next president is gonna be given a mandate to lead the world again.

On CNBC, Chuck Hagel(R-Nebraska) strongly defended obama's rhethoric on Iran and had equally strong words for Hillary/Guilliani.

Here you Go.

Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were ``recklessly irresponsible'' and acting like ``cowboys'' for rejecting calls for direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, charged Senator Chuck Hagel, a top Republican lawmaker.

Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who supports talks, was critical of Giuliani, the top Republican contender, and Clinton, a New York senator and leader of the Democratic field, for lambasting presidential rival Barack Obama, who proposed such discussions.

When world leaders ``hear leading presidential candidates talk like cowboys with the lowest common denominator being `I can be tougher than you, I'll go to war before you or we aren't going to talk to anybody,' that's recklessly irresponsible,'' Hagel said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601070&sid=a0h8abc0d1tM&refer=h ome

There's more...