Do you have any race cards? Go Fish!

Still think the Clinton campaign isn’t playing the race card? Read this!

Recipe for disaster?

Republicans face an interesting challenge that could spell doom simultaneously for Democrats and the values conservatives clinging to the extreme right fringe. It has not gone unreported that the right wing of the Republican Party are less than thrilled with the idea of Senator John McCain as the GOP nominee. Rush Limbaugh has said that it will destroy the three legged platform that Ronald Reagan created. It should be noted that Limbaugh (should we call him gas bag?) has equal disdain for the former governor of Arkansas. Ann Coulter has said that if McCain gets the nomination, she’ll vote for Hillary Clinton (probably not an endorsement that the good Senator from New York wants). Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, the list goes on and on. Why do these people hate McCain (and Huckabee for that matter?). Liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call us would absolutely never call either of these guys liberal. These two politicians are conservatives. They are not ever moderates. Make no mistake about it. But I will tell you this much; I don’t hate these guys.

Rush, Ann, Sean, Laura and the rest of the angry heads dislike McCain and Huckabee for one simple reason; neither of them are political partisans. They are not rigidly dogmatic. They don’t accept that one has to kill the enemy to win.

In that regard, a President McCain or President Huckabee would be bad for business for these fear mongers. Imagine a conservative president that doesn’t want to destroy anyone or anything that presents an alternative approach. I can respect these guys even if I could never vote for them.

If either of these candidates gets the chance to run against Hillary Clinton in the general election they can and probably will win. Don’t get me wrong, Clinton’s policy positions are better, her policy platform is better thought out from an economic and public policy perspective. She will likely eat both of these guys for lunch on policy in the debates. Ever compare the issues section of a Democratic candidate to those of the GOP candidate pages? Take a look…

http://www.barackobama.com/
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

vs.

http://www.johnmccain.com/
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

On public policy: check Mate, Dems win!

So if she is better on policy, why would Clinton likely lose? Clinton could do the job on a day to day basis, if we put aside the fact that she is boring and inspires no one. It isn’t because she isn’t tough enough. Clinton is up to the fight. She is right, she won’t get Swift Boated by the right. But that won’t matter. What matters is that Senator McCain can run to the middle knowing that he doesn’t need to rally the Republican base. The opportunity to vote against her will be enough to turn out the base. Ann Coulter isn’t voting for Hillary, Rush isn’t sitting this out. Don’t be fooled. This is a carefully orchestrated effort to by these angry heads to promote McCain’s independent appeal. The heads realize that Supreme Court Justice appointments are at stake. As good for business as it will be for them, the base can’t wait 4-8 years to be back in the White House.

Clinton has very little appeal among independents. McCain will clean up the middle and even if the conservative right turnout is low, it won’t matter. I just don’t see how Hillary can win.

Does that mean Senator Obama can definitely win? No it doesn’t, but this post isn’t about him!

There is a potential perfect storm on the horizon. Can the Democrats avoid it?

Don’t forget the petition

We need to make it clear that the Superdelegates are secondary to the members of the Democratic Party.

Don’t forget to sign the petition. Please send the link to the petition to as many people as you can. We need this one to spread around.

The Lieberman-Warner "Global Warming" Bill

More proof that Joe Lieberman sucks! (Like we needed anymore)

McCain's answer to will.i.am

Very funny piece of satire!

Superdelegates Run Amok

This is a petition that I created today in anticipation of problems that are being anticipated in the nomination process for the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

Read and sign the Petition and e-mail the link to as many people as you can.

Been a while...

I had to write a ten line poem to enter into a contest to pick the most Beat of the Beatniks. The contest is in conjunction with the exhibition of One the Road With The Beats at the Harry Ransom Center from February 5^th until August 3^rd.

This is what I came up with. Not particularly beat. But I am wearing khakis, jack purcells and a black long sleeve. That is pretty beat, if it isn't Beat.

Am I a Beatnik?

The wind hits my face with an ice cubes smack.
I taste the city on the tip of my tongue.
I smell her sweet stench in my flaring nostrils.
I exhale her in a puff of steam.
The city, she looks good.
The bright sun tears screamingly my unshaded eyes.
Buses rumble past, but I don't hear.
My heart open to the possible.
The city, she looks good
to me.

Ouch and Mega Ouch!

From a reader J.C. on the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder Blog:

Barack Obama: "change we can believe in"

Hillary Clinton: needs a can to leave change in.

Another one bites the dust...

I guess the news is reporting that Mitt Romney is finally going to stop wasting his children's inheritance and quit the race. You have to love/hate Drudge. He really does get stuff first.

No Money Mo Problems!!!

Hillary and Bill Clinton have loaned her campaign $5 million of their own money. They have said that they would go up to $20 million. In addition, key Clinton staffers have decided to forgo salary. This is bad news, made worse by the fact that Obama raised $32 million in January and $5.8 million since Super Tuesday.

This is a horse race and one of the horses is running on three legs.

The Big "MO"

The results from California were surprising to see in light of Obama’s surging momentum. How did it happen that she won so big? It was a combination of winning the Latino vote handily, low African-American turnout and the strangeness of voting rules that combined to quell Obama’s “mo.”

Here is a good summary on the voting rules in California from a Slate blog called Trailhead:

“Most polls from the past few days showed Obama gaining on her, and one or two even projected he would win. But judging from the voting results, he was too late. The state of California allows voters—not just seniors and absentees, but anyone—to cast an absentee ballot by mail. As a result, more than 3 million Californians voted early this year (one elections official put the number at 4.1 million). And judging from polls in previous weeks, they voted largely for Clinton. If Obama was actually gaining in recent days, the vote totals may not reflect it.”

Early voting starting in California a few days after Hillary Clinton’s comeback win in New Hampshire (it is true, they can spin anything, including making the presumptive frontrunner a comeback story).

So here is my question: Who has the momentum coming out of Super Tuesday? I look at the states that they won.

Obama won in Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah and his home state of Illinois.

Clinton won Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee and her home state of New York.

When I look at these things I see something striking. Clinton won states that Democrats always win. You have to figure that Oklahoma is essentially off the table in November. Arkansas was a win because she used to deign to love amongst those people. Tennessee was a bit confusing, so we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she had some crossover appeal.

Otherwise she won New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts. Does anyone think that the eventual Democratic nominee won’t carry those states? Clinton won Arizona which is on the long march to solid blue state status. And yes, she won the Golden State, but I think that this victory is muted for reasons outlined above.

Obama, on the other hand won the south. These are states that Democrats have not counted on winning since LBJ put pen to paper and signed the Civil Rights Act over 40 years ago. I posit this. Does anyone think that these states should be off the table if the Republicans nominate John McCain?

In addition, Obama won the mountain west. Why does this matter? Well, the Dems have decided that this portion of the country is so important that they are holding their national convention in Denver this summer. Yes, Latino voters in California went to Hillary big time, but what about Hispanic voters in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. It seems entirely plausible that he will win New Mexico too, though the election officials needed a power nap there, so we won’t have a result until later today.

Lastly, Obama won Minnesota, North Dakota, Kansas and Missouri. Is there anyone who thinks that Dems have a chance if they can’t win the weathervane state of Harry Truman? Kansas? When was the last time Kansas voted for a progressive? The answer is 1976 when they voted for the “anybody but the guy who pardoned Nixon” Jimmy Carter. Minnesota used to be a safely Democratic state, but I believe Democrats ignore the state at their own peril. Obama apparently won the Scandinavian dairy farmer vote by winning Minnesota and North Dakota.

So, who has momentum? That is hard to say. It is probably the campaign with the better spinners. If I were Obama’s advisor (and contrary to my ranting, I am not) I would spin looking forward instead of backwards. Coming up this weekend is Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington (and the U.S.V.I.’s so as not to ignore the utterly irrelevant). I think Obama has a clear advantage in Louisiana and Nebraska and the educated and affluent Democratic population in Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia would seem to favor Obama.

We will have to wait and see though. Predictions are not all that useful. The best way forward is to keep on working. Nothing is decided. If you like Obama, if you like Clinton… get out and vote! If you like McCain, Romney or Huckabee… go ahead and take a nap.

On a side note, I love hearing Clinton supporters interviewed. It is not unlike hearing New York Giants fans interviewed. As some supporter spouts the talking points, trying hard to inject the word change into the stale prose as many times as possible, I wonder to myself if this is what Hubert Humphrey’s supporters were saying in 1960?

This gives me chills...

Ladies and gentlemen, the grass roots have spoken!

Is Rush Limbaugh right?

Is it possible that John McCain once considered joining the Democratic Party? According to an article in The Hill Senator McCain's advisor approached Democratic leaders on this subject.

Is this an attempt to torpedo McCain's run to the Republican nomination by Democrats who see Mitt Romney as an easier opponent? Possibly. A very smart move. Now the question is, are there enough Republicans that are skeptical of McCain to make a difference.

Credit where credit is due...

I don’t often say nice things about Hillary Clinton on this blog. As I have said before, I believe that she is an incredibly bright and capable woman who is on the same side of most issues as I am. I have also said that if she is the nominee of my Party, I will vote for her. That said, I do not want her to get the nomination. With the exit of John Edwards, it looks like I will have to vote for Barack Obama. I was likely going to vote for him anyways, but now the decision is easier.

That said, I must give Senator Clinton credit for a truly dynamite answer in last night’s debate. It is an answer that speaks to the public policy analyst in me. This is from the official CNN transcript:

CUMMINGS: Well, we've got a question on this that's come in on politico.com, and it echoes, I think, a message that you all might be fighting up against if Mitt Romney turns out to be your opponent come the fall. We've talked about McCain, now we have Romney's strengths to address.

Now, Howard Meyerson (ph) of Pasadena, California, says he views the country as a very large business, and neither one of you have ever run a business. So, why should either of you be elected to be CEO of the country?

CLINTON: Well, I would, with all due respect, say that the United States government is much more than a business. It is a trust. It is the most complicated organization. But it is not out to make a profit. It is out to help the American people. It is about to stand up for our values and to do what we should at home and around the world to keep faith with who we are as a country.

A man of conviction exits stage right...

John Edwards gave a very moving speech today as he suspended his Presidential campaign. I think the former Senator from North Carolina will find his way into the next Democratic cabinet. He would make a very strong Labor Secretary.

It is a bit long, but I would urge you to read the speech. I have pasted it below:

Thank you all very much. We're very proud to be back here.

During the spring of 2006, I had the extraordinary experience of bringing 700 college kids here to New Orleans to work. These are kids who gave up their spring break to come to New Orleans to work, to rehabilitate houses, because of their commitment as Americans, because they believed in what was possible, and because they cared about their country.

I began my presidential campaign here to remind the country that we, as citizens and as a government, have a moral responsibility to each other, and what we do together matters.

We must do better, if we want to live up to the great promise of this country that we all love so much.

It is appropriate that I come here today. It's time for me to step aside so that history can -- so that history can blaze its path.

We do not know who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but what we do know is that our Democratic Party will make history. We will be strong, we will be unified, and with our convictions and a little backbone we will take back the White House in November and we'll create hope and opportunity for this country.

(APPLAUSE)

This journey of ours began right here in New Orleans. It was a December morning in the Lower Ninth Ward when people went to work, not just me, but lots of others went to work with shovels and hammers to help restore a house that had been destroyed by the storm.

We joined together in a city that had been abandoned by our government and had been forgotten, but not by us.

We knew that they still mourned the dead, that they were still stunned by the destruction, and that they wondered when all those cement steps in all those vacant lots would once again lead to a door, to a home, and to a dream.

We came here to the Lower Ninth Ward to rebuild. And we're going to rebuild today and work today, and we will continue to come back. We will never forget the heartache and we'll always be here to bring them hope, so that someday, one day, the trumpets will sound in Musicians' Village, where we are today, play loud across Lake Ponchartrain, so that working people can come marching in and those steps once again can lead to a family living out the dream in America.

We sat with poultry workers in Mississippi, janitors in Florida, nurses in California. We listened as child after child told us about their worry about whether we would preserve the planet.

We listened to worker after worker say that, "The economy is tearing my family apart."

We walked the streets of Cleveland, where house after house was in foreclosure.

And we said, "We're better than this. And economic justice in America is our cause."

And we spent a day, a summer day, in Wise, Virginia, with a man named James Lowe, who told us the story of having been born with a cleft palate. He had no health care coverage. His family couldn't afford to fix it.

And finally some good Samaritan came along and paid for his cleft palate to be fixed, which allowed him to speak for the first time. But they did it when he was 50 years old.

His amazing story, though, gave this campaign voice: universal health care for every man, woman and child in America. That is our cause.

(APPLAUSE)

And we do this -- we do this for each other in America. We don't turn away from a neighbor in their time of need. Because every one of us knows that what -- but for the grace of God, there goes us.

The American people have never stopped doing this, even when their government walked away, and walked away it has from hardworking people, and, yes, from the poor, those who live in poverty in this country.

For decades, we stopped focusing on those struggles. They didn't register in political polls, they didn't get us votes and so we stopped talking about it.

I don't know how it started. I don't know when our party began to turn away from the cause of working people, from the fathers who were working three jobs literally just to pay the rent, mothers sending their kids to bed wrapped up in their clothes and in coats because they couldn't afford to pay for heat. We know that our brothers and sisters have been bullied into believing that they can't organize and can't put a union in the workplace.

Well, in this campaign, we didn't turn our heads. We looked them square in the eye and we said, "We see you, we hear you, and we are with you. And we will never forget you."

And I have a feeling that if the leaders...

(LAUGHTER)

... if the leaders of our great Democratic Party continue to hear the voices of working people, a proud progressive will occupy the White House.

Now, I've spoken to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. They have both pledged to me and, more importantly, through me to America that they will make ending poverty central to their campaign for the presidency.

(APPLAUSE)

And more importantly, they have pledged to me that as president of the United States they will make ending poverty and economic inequality central to their presidency.

This is the cause of my life. And I now have their commitment to engage in this cause.

And I want to say to everyone here on the way here today, we passed under a bridge that carried the interstate where 100 to 200 homeless Americans sleep every night. And we stopped, we got out, we went in and spoke to them.

There was a minister there who comes every morning and feeds the homeless out of her own pocket. She said she has no money left in her bank account. She struggles to be able to do it. But she knows it's the moral, just and right thing to do.

And I spoke to some of the people who were there. And as I was leaving, one woman said to me, "You won't forget us, will you? Promise me you won't forget us."

Well, I say to her, and I say to all those who are struggling in this country, we will never forget you. We will fight for you. We will stand up for you.

(APPLAUSE)

But I want to say this. I want to say this, because it's important.

With all of the injustice that we've seen, I can say this, America's hour of transformation is upon us.

It may be hard to believe when we have bullets flying in Baghdad. It may be hard to believe when it costs $58 to fill your car up with gas. It may be hard to believe when your school doesn't have the right books for your kids.

It's hard to speak out for change when you feel like your voice is not being heard.

But I do hear it. We hear it. This Democratic Party hears you. We hear you once again.

And we will lift you up with our dream of what's possible: one America -- one America that works for everybody; one America where struggling towns and factories come back to life, because we finally transformed our economy by ending our dependence on oil; one America where the men who work the late shift and the women who get up at dawn to drive a two-hour commute and the young person who closes the store to save for college, they will be honored for that work; one America where no child will go to bed hungry, because we will finally end the moral shame of 37 million people living in poverty; one America where every single man, woman and child in this country has health care; one America with one public school system that works for all of our children; one America that finally brings this war in Iraq to an end and brings our servicemembers home with the hero's welcome that they have earned and that they deserve.

(APPLAUSE)

Today, I am suspending my campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. But I want to say this to everyone: with Elizabeth, with my family, with my friends, with all of you and all of your support, this son of a mill worker is going to be just fine. Our job now is to make certain that America will be fine.

And I want to thank every one who has worked so hard, all those who have volunteered, my dedicated campaign staff who've worked absolutely tirelessly in this campaign.

And I want to say a personal word to those I've seen, literally, in the last few days -- those I saw in Oklahoma yesterday, in Missouri, last night in Minnesota, who came to me and said, "Don't forget us. Speak for us. We need your voice."

I want you to know that you almost changed my mind. (LAUGHTER)

Because I hear your voice, I feel you, and your cause is our cause.

Your country needs you, every single one of you, all of you who have been involved in this campaign and this movement for change and this cause. We need you. It is in our hour of need that your country needs you.

Don't turn away, because we have not just the city of New Orleans to rebuild, we have an American house to rebuild.

This work goes on. It goes on right here in Musicians' Village. There are homes to build here and in neighborhoods all along the Gulf.

The work goes on for the students in crumbling schools just yearning for a chance to get ahead.

It goes on for daycare workers, for steel workers risking their lives in cities all across this country.

And the work goes on for 200,000 men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America, proud veterans who go to sleep every night under bridges or in shelters or on grates, just as the people we just saw on the way here today.

Their cause is our cause. Their struggle is our struggle. Their dreams are our dreams.

Do not turn away from these great struggles before us. Do not give up on the causes that we have fought for. Do not walk away from what's possible. Because it's time for all of us -- all of us -- together, to make the two Americas one.

Thank you, God bless you, and let's go to work. Thank you all very much.

Able to keep their word. A test?

The major candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States agreed that because the Florida Democratic Party had violated Party rules in moving up their nomination primary that their delegates would not be counted at the National Convention in Denver this summer.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that winning Florida in the Fall would make winning the Presidency a whole heap easier for the Democratic Party and snubbing the state Party won't help in achieving that goal. But I also believe that the DNC was working hard (and ultimately failing) to keep the primary schedule from getting too front loaded.

All that said, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Senator Edwards (recently departed from the race) all agreed to bypass the contest as the delegates would not aid the nomination of the Democratic candidate.

In the weeks after her shock in Iowa and then her thumping in South Carolina, Senator Clinton has begun urging her opponents to push for Florida's inclusion after all. They all rejected this approach. Clinton then campaigned and "won" in Florida yesterday. She gave a victory speech that made it look like she had just won the Kentucky Derby, Indy 500 and Super Bowl all rolled in one.

I believe it is incredibly disingenuous to make a commitment, give your word and then to go back on that word. The worst bit is celebrating a victory like that when you were essentially unopposed. And why was she unopposed? Because her opponents kept their word and their commitment to their Party. There will be time later to campaign in Florida. I imagine that the Dems will not be strangers in the Sunshine State.

So, if Senator Clinton can't keep her word to her Party, to her "friends", what makes you think she will honor her commitments to the American people?

As Tony Montana (Al Pacino) said in the movie Scarface: "I only have two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break 'em for nobody."

Something we all need to hear again...

An Endorsement That Matters

So there was a pretty high level endorsement for Barack Obama yesterday, but I will focus on that one later. Another endorsement that has come in that has received less coverage came in the form of an open letter to Senator Obama that was published in the New York Observer.

Dear Senator Obama,

This letter represents a first for me--a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.

May I describe to you my thoughts?

I have admired Senator Clinton for years. Her knowledge always seemed to me exhaustive; her negotiation of politics expert. However I am more compelled by the quality of mind (as far as I can measure it) of a candidate. I cared little for her gender as a source of my admiration, and the little I did care was based on the fact that no liberal woman has ever ruled in America. Only conservative or "new-centrist" ones are allowed into that realm. Nor do I care very much for your race[s]. I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me "proud."

In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can't train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace--that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.

When, I wondered, was the last time this country was guided by such a leader? Someone whose moral center was un-embargoed? Someone with courage instead of mere ambition? Someone who truly thinks of his country's citizens as "we," not "they"? Someone who understands what it will take to help America realize the virtues it fancies about itself, what it desperately needs to become in the world?

Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb.

There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.

Good luck to you and to us.

Toni Morrison

New York Times Endorsements

The all important (or not important at all) endorsements from the paper of record in this country were released today. Not surprisingly the Times endorsed New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race. It is also no surprise that they chose to endorse Arizona Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination.

What was interesting was the manner in which each nomination was couched. One could say in the Republican contest the choice was a no-brainer. The snub of Rudy Giuliani should come as no surprise, because journalists in New York have long known what the rest of us are learning; that he is nuttier than a fruit cake! The editorial board’s clear and long standing position on the separation of church and state made an endorsement of Mike Huckabee all but impossible. The only other possibility would have been Mitt Romney and the Times rightly caught the fact that a man as truly conservative as Governor Romney claims to be would never have gotten elected to lead Taxachusetts. His chameleonesque ability to stand for “whatever you want” is totally unappealing and uninspired.

If I had to come up with an overarching theme for the Times’ endorsement of Hillary Clinton I would have to say it was; “Hedging their bet.” Clearly the times like Hillary, but I think they are equally critical of her style as they are of Obama's newness. I found it interesting that they would say: “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.” Then they go on to say: “The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.”

To my mind these two points knock on the door of the central issue defining their major difference without daring to walk through it. Mr. Obama wants to change the tone of the debate. It is impossible to assess how rancorous the tone has gotten in Washington over the last seven years in a vacuum. The vitriolic way Democrats and Republicans have fought so bitterly over all manner of issues didn’t start in 2000. It has certainly gotten worse since then. I would argue that the political tone became particularly partisan after the election of President Clinton in 1992 and really fell apart after the 1994 midterm elections.

That isn't the sole responsibility of the Clintons. The Republicans are equally, if not more, to blame. But the Clinton administration was good at slinging mud and fighting. The Times hints at this when they say: “As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)”

I wonder if we can truly feel comfortable rolling the dice on the next 8 years. If we need to change the tone, do we want to look to the past to guide us? The Times, apparently, thinks we should. But then again, the paper of record marched in lock step with President Bush to war in Iraq.

What is the point???

All this debate about race and gender, are people missing the point? Obviously African-Americans and Hispanics face challenges that whites do not, but the single greatest challenge in America is being born into poverty. John Edwards is the candidate speaking most coherently on this issue.

For all her bloviating about being the most informed, most qualified, most experienced candidate, with the ability to lead on issues; Senator Clinton is all too happy to slip away from the issues and engage in “politics as usual.” And even when discussing issues, Clinton’s approach seems to showing a shocking lack of understanding of the challenges that poor Americans face. Her plan to expand health coverage is to mandate that people buy health insurance, expand the patchwork of government plans, and take steps to make private insurance plans a little more “affordable” is pitiful. All the health care plans being pushed are pitiful. They are, at best, a continuation of the status quo policy of piecemeal action because our leaders lack the courage to fight for drastic and bold change.

An individual mandate plays directly into the conservative “individual responsibility” position. This is their bailiwick and the fact the Democrats have retreated to this point is a sad statement of how far from the solution we are. Health plans in Massachusetts, after the passage of the reform bill in 2005 (which includes an individual mandate) responded to requests to provide a plan with a “low” $200 monthly premium offered a plan with a $500 deductible and severely curtailed benefits. The companies said they could create plans that met any cost requirements, but would such thin coverage hold any appeal with consumers? How many poor people can afford $200 per month (that just covers one person, not a whole family)? How does a $500 deductible provide any incentive to go to the doctor early and engage in a preventative approach to health care that all public health officials claim is the best and most cost effective approach? We need to blow up the system and we need leaders willing to do it from inside the system.

Washington isn’t the problem. Rich people are! They become inherently uninterested in sharing with other people. Some may espouse liberal rhetoric, but they are inherently disinterested in putting their own well being and societal status on the block when looking for solutions.

Poor people, Hispanic, black, or white; are being left behind in this society. When Dr. King said: “…We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one.” Poor people are also trapped in ghettos. Upward mobility becomes increasingly difficult the further down the socio-economic scale you go. Is there a glass ceiling for women? Yes! Is there still discrimination against minorities in this country? Absolutely! But I would argue that class discrimination is the worst, by far. Illegal immigrants from Central America are okay, as long as they are mowing our lawns or washing our cars, but as soon as their kids want to go to college or they want public health services, they are suddenly a scourge. To quote the increasingly annoying Bill Clinton: “Give me a break! This is the biggest fairy tale!” Talk about a red herring!

For all his powerful speeches on this issue, John Edwards is ultimately not the right guy to lead this fight. Our current system has created inequity of wealth and we need to change it, but it is simply not possible to force the type of change we need. Ultimately we may also be unable to finesse change, as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would like. In which case, we are in big, big trouble.