Obama & Fitch?

Did anyone happen to watch Obama's speech last night? If you did, there's no way you could have missed the three guys in Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts standing behind him. See below.
OK, maybe some people (Dad?) didn't notice, but it caught my eye right away. First of all, I always look to see who the campaign has positioned behind the candidate during these speeches.

Of course there's a strategy, as there is with everything in politics. The strategy is usually to place some representatives of their least likely supporters behind the candidate. See the middle-aged white couple in the lower right above. Young people of diverse ethnic backgrounds behind Hillary. Anyone but an older white guy behind McCain.

What's going on with the Obama & Fitch campaign? College frat boys are already part of Obama's base. I don't think Obama has to worry about losing their support, as long as they actually come out to vote and don't get sidetracked at a bar somewhere.

Wait - could it be that they're offering free beer at these rallies? Show us your "I voted" sticker and we'll give you a keg cup? The guy on the far right (number 54) did appear to stumble numerous times and had that red-around-the-eyes "dude, I'm gonna puke" look on his face. (Yes, I was paying more attention to the Abercrombies than I was to the speech. I can't be the only one who's getting bored hearing the same speech after every primary.)

Are these A&F-clad supporters strategy or mere coincidence? My first thought when I saw them was that this was an Abercrombie & Fitch advertising ploy. Unless this is a campaign finance loophole, it seems unlikely.

A more plausible explanation could be that the Obama campaign selected these guys to show their base (carefully mixed with the non-base old folks). Perhaps they are looking to draw in more 20-something women, who are leaning toward Obama, at least publicly. I've read about young closet Hillary supporters who don't voice their opinion in the face of Obama-mania. Who knows.

The more I think about this, though, I wonder if this was one of those rare moments in politics: a meaningless coincidence. With A&F as ubiquitous as it is on college campuses, these guys probably didn't even realize that they were a three-piece walking billboard for $40 t-shirts. And now they are semi-famous. Who knew that conformity could lead to 15 minutes of fame?

It's June 4th...

The primaries are over and may I say - way to go South Dakotans! You cast your ballots for Hillary, making a clear statement about her campaign even when the nomination is beyond her grasp. How many times was South Dakota mentioned by the national media over the past few weeks? The Great State hasn't received that much attention since before Tom Daschle was inexplicably voted out of office.

I've heard a rumor that Grandma Dottie had front row seats to hear Bill Clinton speak this week in Webster. There may have been a photo-op and hand shaking involved as well. I must investigate this further, but if this is true, to say I'm jealous would be an understatement!

Despite Hillary's win in South Dakota, she doesn't have the delegates to win the nomination. In fact, Walter Mondale's defection this morning will surely be the first of many. Math may not be my best subject, but there is no denying that Obama exceeded 2,118 delegates last night. He's the nominee. End of campaign, or at least it should be.

I'm saying it here: time to end it, Hillary. I also told her this on her website. As if she would listen to me, but she asked for input from supporters and here's what I wrote:

Hillary – You are an inspiration. Your determination and perseverance in this campaign are eclipsed only by the presidential skill and aptitude you have shown the American people. I first voted for you in the 2000 NY Senate race and eagerly anticipated your presidential bid even before that time.

I know, as millions of other do, that you would make a tremendous president. Americans’ voices have been heard in a democratic process that’s part of what makes our country great. While it may not always favor the most qualified or most dedicated, we must respect and uphold the process.

The votes are in and while it was an incredibly close contest, the nomination is not yours. Please end your campaign. There’s so much you can do to, as you said last night, help people. It doesn’t have to be from the presidency. And it’s not going to be. Moving on doesn’t mean giving up. Move on before someone else makes that decision for you. Do it for yourself and for us.

Several times throughout this process, I said I would support Obama if he became the nominee. While still unofficial until the convention, I'm making my support official today (what am I, a superdelegate?). I hope my fellow Hillary supporters will follow suit.

I have expressed concerns about Obama's ability to compete against John McCain with "swing" voters. The more I listen to McCain's weak platform, the less I worry about that. His criticisms that Obama hasn't served in the military and is thus less qualified to be president are ridiculous. Does he really think that military service resonates with many voters today? While McCain's is laudable, I don't believe there are many Americans who gauge candidates on that anymore. I believe his pro-war stance will hinder McCain more than it will help him.

Obama has a difficult five months ahead of him, but ultimately he will persevere. Should the hotly-anticipated (at least by me) Obama/Clinton dream ticket materialize (how about this week?), McCain may as well concede now and we can skip the election altogether!

Yes We Did!

Although it was dark when I left the house this morning, I swear the sky was filled with rainbows and lollipops lined the candy-paved streets. OK, everything looked exactly the same. But it does feel a bit like waking up in a grand technicolor Land of Oz after being knocked in the head (repeatedly for eight years).

While every American is better off today, whether they all recognize it or not, there is something larger than a Democrat winning the election. There is significance to the election of an African-American man in a country with a tragic history of racism that we all know exists to this day.

My dear friend Elaine's eldest son, who voted in his first election and youngest son who was born three months ago, will both remember 2008 as the year their president's face looked like theirs. Elaine told me that she's received calls and emails from family around the world - people who have never lived in the US and likely never will - who are inspired and overjoyed by what America has done. A quick look at newspapers around the world affirms their sentiments. It's almost as if we have repaired eight years of damage in one day, though it may not be quite that simple.

As much as I believe in this historic moment, I know we're not there. This is a step in what has been and will continue to be a long journey. A road that I hope will include more firsts. While I am thrilled with President-Elect Obama and was behind him 100 percent, I can't help but think about Hillary. About how seeing my own face reflected in our President's would make this amazing day twice as great. About how Sarah "all-style-no-substance" Palin did more to hurt women than help us.

Bygones. As a country, we made the right choice. I have no doubt about it.

Highlights:
- Although South Dakota went predictably red, Obama won where my favorite people live: Brown, Day, Marshall, Roberts, Brookings, Moody, Lake, plus a few others. You did what you could and your vote absolutely counts in Obama's Popular Vote win - the first Democrat to win a Popular Vote majority since 1964.

- Tim Johnson's blowout of Joel Dyktra in the SD Senate race. Everything I read indicated the race was tight. The first returns I saw were after the victory was called for Johnson. To say I freaked out may be an understatement. I think Chris and Jack were a little scared...

Dykstra ran possibly the most negative campaign in the state's history, yet he claimed to have "run a race we could be proud of." If he takes pride in exploiting a physical disability I truly fear the tactics he would consider shameful. The people of South Dakota are better than that and you proved it last night! This doesn't quite make up for the Daschle-debacle of four years ago, but it's a good start.

- In other excellent news from the Great State, Measure 11 went down in flames. Ten points is frankly too close on an issue like this and I fear that the extremists will never let up. But I think that voters are tired of dealing with this and maybe it will go away for awhile. A similar measure was defeated even more decisively in Colorado. Obama will likely select from one to three new US Supreme Court justices during his first term. It is nearly guaranteed that he wouldn't appoint someone with an agenda that includes overturning Roe v. Wade.

- Kay Hagan's defeat of Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina. Not only was this somewhat of a surprise victory for a Democrat in a conservative state, but it was a defeat of perhaps the most vile campaign tactics our country has ever seen. If you haven't seen the ad Dole ran in the final days of the race, watch it here. Dole accuses Hagan, a Presbyterian Sunday School teacher, of consorting with "Godless Americans" and ends the spot with an image of Hagan and a voiceover pretending to be Hagan saying "there is no God." This is so low even Joel Dykstra might consider it shameful.

- By the narrowest of margins, Indiana went for Obama, the first time a Democrat won the state since 1964. Indianapolis is one of four cities I cover as part of my job. When I was there three weeks ago I was shocked to see four or five Obama yard signs for every McCain yard sign. This was in the conservative suburbs, not the more liberal urban core. Maybe the pollsters should skip the phone calls and drive around instead. That approach would be similarly unscientific and possibly equally accurate!

- Katie Couric, CBS' accurate early calls, CNN's graphics and OMG was that a hologram of the US Capitol???

Lowlights
- It appears Al Franken lost his MN Senate bid to Norm Coleman by (at most recent count) 477 votes. Coleman has claimed victory, but an automatic recount looms. As Bonnie mentioned this morning, every vote really does matter. There are worse people than Coleman to send to Washington as representatives of the interests of Minnesotans (see: Michelle Bachmann) and this one could change, but it could be weeks before we know.

- Michelle Bachmann's Sixth District victory over El Tinklenberg. He was initially a long shot, but after Bachmann's Anti-American accusations, his chances skyrocketed. Unfortunately, there were enough voters who want Bachmann to continue speaking for them.

- California passed Proposition 8, effectively rescinding the right of all people to marry granted earlier this year by the state Supreme Court. Opponents have already filed a lawsuit challenging the vote. I'm not gay, I'm already married and I don't live in California. I do, however, strongly favor people's right to marry whomever they choose. We haven't heard the end of this issue, in California or nationwide.

- Alaskans appear to be as discerning in selecting their Senator as they were their governor. While the race remains undecided, convicted felon Ted Stevens maintains a slim lead over his Democratic challenger. I know they like to do things differently in Alaska and, frankly, who's to say that a governor has to read the newspaper or know more than one Supreme Court decision? Being a dimwit is one thing; being a criminal is quite another.

- Even Tom Brokaw couldn't convince me to watch NBC. Election night will never be the same without Tim Russert and his whiteboard. As much as I was in awe of CNN's holo-graphic-mania, Russert's no-frills election coverage was second to none.

***

President-elect Obama used the phrase "We are the ones we've been waiting for" in his Super Tuesday speech last February. While not original and criticized as over-the-top cheesy, it is these words that have been going through my head for the past day.

I would have voted in this election no matter what. I've voted in every presidential election since 1980, even if I no one actually counted my vote in the first three. What amazed me and encouraged me were all the people I know who voted for the first time. Who told me they weren't interested until now.

Perhaps it takes a situation so dire and a past so unpleasant for all of us to understand that the future really is in our hands. And collectively, it is our right, our responsibility to affect the change we seek. For it is the will of the individual, multiplied 133 million times (and counting), that defines Democracy.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

Bitter?

I've refrained from writing about the presidential campaign for several weeks. There are many reasons why, but mostly it's because I'm tired of the negativity. I've been interested in politics for decades (you know you're old when you've been doing anything for decades), but the one thing I can't stand is when the candidates get negative. I start to tune it out.

But there are some things I can't - or refuse to - tune out. One of the reasons I've always been and always will be a Democrat (unless we come up with something better), is because it's the party of the people, the one to whom the average middle-class or working-class American matters.

Certainly, our elected Democrats are rarely middle-class and almost never working-class. But sometimes they were raised without monetary privilege, as were a fair number of Republicans. As I see it, one of the key points that differentiates a Democrat from a Republican (politician or regular person) is the ability to identify with and relate to the issues that affect people different from themselves.

However, last week Obama showed his lack of understanding when he said:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Not only as a small-town and Midwest native, but also as a Democrat and a rational person, I am appalled by this broad-stroke assessment. It is a huge over-simplification and ignorant assignment of a singular mindset to millions of people. In his last sentence above, he essentially concludes Rural Midwest=Bitter=Ignorant gun-toting, bible-thumping racists.

Obama has frequently been identified as an elitist, but until now I didn't necessarily buy it. If or when (and it increasingly looks to be the latter) he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him. But not without reservation, as I don't think he truly understands the majority of the electorate who will (and, indeed, already have) cast their ballots in his favor.

Or as stated more eloquently by Bill Kristol in today's New York Times: "He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize."

"And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?"

Is he really the best candidate to lead the Democrats? We would be wise to consider what other masks might slip between now and November and what we'll find when the real Obama emerges.

Even the President Gets it Wrong!

I have noticed Obama's misuse of I vs. me (as I notice when others do this, which happens more often than not).

I'm glad to see the New York Times take up this grammar issue and am reposting the entire article here for anyone who might be interested.

For the non-grammar obsessed out there (everyone but me?), everything you need to know is in the last paragraph.

When President Obama speaks before Congress and the nation tonight, he will be facing some of his toughest critics.

Grammar junkies.

Since his election, the president has been roundly criticized by bloggers for using “I” instead of “me” in phrases like “a very personal decision for Michelle and I” or “the main disagreement with John and I” or “graciously invited Michelle and I.”

The rule here, according to conventional wisdom, is that we use “I” as a subject and “me” as an object, whether the pronoun appears by itself or in a twosome. Thus every “I” in those quotes ought to be a “me.”

So should the president go stand in a corner of the Oval Office (if he can find one) and contemplate the error of his ways? Not so fast.

For centuries, it was perfectly acceptable to use either “I” or “me” as the object of a verb or preposition, especially after “and.” Literature is full of examples. Here’s Shakespeare, in “The Merchant of Venice”: “All debts are cleared between you and I.” And here’s Lord Byron, complaining to his half-sister about the English town of Southwell, “which, between you and I, I wish was swallowed up by an earthquake, provided my eloquent mother was not in it.”

It wasn’t until the mid-1800s that language mavens began kvetching about “I” and “me.” The first kvetch cited in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage came from a commencement address in 1846. In 1869, Richard Meade Bache included it in his book “Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech.”

Why did these 19th-century wordies insist “I” is “I” and “me” is “me”? They were probably influenced by Latin, with its rigid treatment of subject and object pronouns. For whatever reason, their approach stuck — at least in the rule books.

Then, why do so many scofflaws keep using “I” instead of “me”? Perhaps it’s because they were scolded as children for saying things like “Me want candy” instead of “I want candy,” so they began to think “I” was somehow more socially acceptable. Or maybe it’s because they were admonished against “it’s me.” Anybody who’s had “it is I” drummed into his head is likely to avoid “me” on principle, even when it’s right. The term for this linguistic phenomenon is “hypercorrection.”

A related crime that Mr. Obama stands accused of is using “myself” to dodge the “I”-versus-“me” issue, as when he spoke last November of “a substantive conversation between myself and the president.” The standard practice here is to use “myself” for emphasis or to refer to the speaker (“I’ll do it myself”), not merely as a substitute for “me.” But some language authorities accept a looser usage, and point out that “myself” has been regularly used in place of “me” since Anglo-Saxon days.

Our 44th president isn’t the first occupant of the White House to suffer from pronounitis. Nos. 43 and 42 were similarly afflicted. The symptoms: “for Laura and I,” “invited Hillary and I,” and so on. (For the record, Nos. 41 and 40 had no problem with the objective case, regularly using “Barbara and me” or “Nancy and me” when appropriate.)

But an educated speaker is expected to keep his pronouns in line. Here, then, is a tip, Mr. President. Nobody chooses the wrong pronoun when it’s standing on its own. If you’re tempted to say “for Michelle and I” in tonight’s speech, just mentally omit Michelle (sorry, Mrs. Obama), and you’ll get it right. And no one will get on your case.

Thoughts on the New Hampshire Primary

As voters go to the polls in New Hampshire today, our world is changing and our future is coming into view.

I've said that I have nothing against Barack Obama but that he isn't my candidate of choice. However, one issue that's always bothered me about him - and on which many of his supporters are uninformed - is his position on the war in Iraq.

Sure, it's easy to say that you don't support the war TODAY. Wouldn't we all say that or at least agree to some extent? While I'm not proud to admit it, I was a trusting American who was misled by our government and supported the initial efforts in Iraq. That was by far the popular opinion at the time and I can respect anyone - especially a presidential candidate - who can admit they were duped like many of us.

Obama has the luxury of no voting record on Iraq because he wasn't elected to the US Senate until 2004. And now he's using that as one of the tenets of his "change" campaign. In fact, Obama said in a 2004 speech that he didn't know how he would've voted on the Iraq resolution and that there was "no difference" between him and George Bush on the war.

Am I the only one who is concerned about his lack of experience? I mean, what has this guy really done? Sure, if he becomes the nominee I will support him because I'm a loyal Democrat, but I wonder if the dogmatic core of his supporters are fully aware of his position on some of the more divisive issues.

Chris asked me yesterday if I thought the campaign promises that candidates make bear any similarity to what they actually do in office. Rarely, I said, but not because they're trying to trick us in to voting for them (with the probable exception of Bush and company).

It's extremely difficult for one person to effect dramatic change, even the president. We are fortunate to live in a country where laws are enacted by a representative democracy, not one person. I'd love to believe Obama could make radical changes, but my question then is, if he's such a change agent, what has he done in the Senate or even in the Illinois State Senate to indicate he has the ability to DO and not just TALK??

Who?

John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Who? Alaska's governor, apparently. What a ridiculously transparent attempt to target women.

I've always found the concept of a woman Republican to be an oxymoron. Or any other minority. Or anyone whose income doesn't meet John McCain's definition of middle class (i.e., makes less than $5 million per year).

(Oxy)morons aside, this ploy to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters (whose strength and tenacity have been significantly exaggerated) is both laughable and doomed to failure.

He could not have made a better VP choice!

Couple this tragic mis-step with Obama's home run speech last night and, folks, this thing is in the bag.

Anyone who listened to Obama's words last night cannot help but feel motivated and hopeful for the future.

Anyone who was previously uncertain about Obama's plans for moving our nation forward cannot help but feel convinced.

More than ever, we need a Democrat. I vote along party lines. Always. Many people don't and I respect the idea of voting for the person rather than the party.

Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Different stories, same goals. Together, they are the people and the party we need.

The Comeback Kid 2!

Anyone else love the excitment of watching election returns? I couldn't peel myself away from the tv until it was all over or, as it were, not even close to over. The contest for both parties' nominee is just getting started!

Hillary did what the polls and the pundits said she couldn't and pulled out a win in New Hampshire. Although she never lagged Obama in the returns the entire night, CNN and FoxNews refused to name her the winner until seconds before Obama began his second-place speech. It was funny to watch them essentially be "scooped" by the candidate himself.

After her loss in Iowa, it seems like the news guys were afraid to say Hillary had a chance. Until it was inevitable. In fact, I think there's a lot of that going around. Certainly, she's a polarizing figure. But as I think I've mentioned in a prior post, few people can put their finger on why or what they don't like. The tone of her voice? The fact that she's not the most dynamic orator?

It's not because she's a woman. Or even if it were, no one would admit it. I don't support her because she's a woman, either. As Gloria Steinem put it in her NY Times Op-Ed yesterday “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”

While gender is not the main reason to support or not support a candidate, it's impossible to ignore that gender does matter. Think not? Let me tell you a story about two women I know. One lives in North Dakota and the other in Florida. They don't know each other and they have little in common, but they have both learned the same hard lesson: for them, becoming a mom means losing a job.

One was fired as her due date approached last fall. Although she has since found a new and hopefully better job after spending several (unpaid) weeks with her daughter, she was told by an attorney that she had no legal recourse and to basically forget about it and move on.

The other started a new job last fall and shortly thereafter found out she is pregnant. Upon telling her boss, she learned that because she won't have worked there for one year by the time the baby is born, she is not eligible for any maternity leave (even under FMLA). If she cobbles together all her vacation and sick time, she can take five weeks off, but must return to work after that and then will have zero days to take for an entire year. They have essentially told her that she may as well quit her job and reapply. And this is an organization whose sole mission is "eliminating cancer as a major health problem." One would imagine that they advocate time off for cancer treatment, but don't offer their own employees that same advantage for having a child.

Becoming a mom should not mean losing a job. It's utterly shocking that that isn't an outright violation of civil rights laws. In fact, women should not have to choose between having a career and having a family. Certainly, leaving work to stay at home is a nice to choice to be able to make, but many, many women don't have that luxury. For those who do, leave policies like those in Europe (up to 18 months paid leave to be used by both parents) coupled with flexible work policies might give them the freedom to continue pursuing their careers.

Gender does matter. This is not an anti-man statement. In fact, I think Obama (and Edwards, for that matter) recognize the importance of family-friendly work policies and would encourage them as president. But I've read numerous reports that today's young women (20s and 30s) don't think there is a gender gap and therefore don't see how having a woman lead the most powerful nation on earth would benefit them. I'll admit, the gender balance in our country will not automatically reverse the day Hillary takes office. There won't be 490 female Fortune 500 CEOs and the salary gap won't disappear. But the face of power will look more like the one I see in the mirror than it ever has before. And that, I believe, will irrevocably alter the way every woman sees herself.

More Facts About Taxes

For my post today, I'll just share this piece from Salon. Straight from the mouth of McCain's economic advisor...

It seems that Douglas Holtz-Eakin, John McCain's chief economic advisor, has exposed yet another hole in the Straight Talk Express. Time's Joe Klein reports that in a forthcoming book by Fortune columnist Matt Miller, Holtz-Eakin admits that the next president will have to raise taxes. "If you do nothing on the spending side, you're going to have to raise taxes whether you're a Republican, a Democrat or a Martian," Holtz-Eakin tells Miller.

So why does McCain keep voicing his opposition to tax hikes, and hitting Barack Obama for supposedly wanting them? Holtz-Eakin had an idea about that too. When Miller asked him why Republicans continue to push tax cuts, Holtz-Eakin replied, "It's the brand ... and you don't dilute the brand."

Holtz-Eakin has also previously acknowledged, to Time's Michael Scherer, that Obama's tax plan will lower taxes over 10 years.

My favorite line - the one that lends some insight into the Republican phenomenon:

"It's the brand ... and you don't dilute the brand."

One doesn't have to spend 10 years in marketing, as I have, to understand the truth in that statement. We're savvy consumers. We know when we're being taken in or pandered to, at least when it comes to companies that want our money.

But this isn't Coke vs. Pepsi or Crest vs. Colgate. Elections are different. Make a choice, but base it on facts and reasons not propaganda and branding.

My Case for Reform

You may have noticed my posts on political issues have become less frequent over the past several months. This is due to several factors; no longer fearing the actions of the previous administration not least among them. I also recognize that many readers of this blog prefer I post fun photos and charming anecdotes instead of heated rants (unless they agree with me!).

However, the ongoing health care debate is far too important and far too personal not to discuss and disseminate. In light of Rush Limbaugh's assertion yesterday that Democrats are like Nazis (yet another blow to intelligent discourse under the guise of the First Amendment), today is the appropriate time for this post.

Background & Options

I read Tom Daschle's Critical: What We Can Do About Health Care a few weeks ago. While in general his image is significantly tarnished in my eyes, Daschle is well informed about the history of health care reform and presents ideas similar to Obama's proposed plan in a clear and concise manner.

Like Daschle and other "Nazi" Democrats, I would prefer a national health care plan. "Socialized medicine," if you will. If you saw Michael Moore's movie Sicko you will be presented with an extremely positive (one-sided) view of government-run health care. Despite this, it is a compelling film with startlingly sad personal stories. Everyone should see this film.

Certainly, there are problems. But is it a broken system like ours? Single payer systems seem to be subject to criticism for one of two reasons: aversion to change or lack of knowledge about the alternatives. Regarding the latter, my impressions of Canadian and UK health care come from a number of sources, not the least of which is friends who are from or live in countries with national health care. We haven't spent a great deal of time on the topic, but it seems that health care is not a big issue in these places because it is a right of every citizen. What is there to discuss? Juley, Deb, Jay please pitch in on this if you will!

All this is moot, really, because the proposed changes to health care do not include anything even closely resembling single payer plans. I repeat: Obama is not proposing government-run healthcare. Not because it's not the best choice (at least I believe it is), but because smart politicians know that it will never pass, even with a Democratic majority. Thanks for nothing, Blue Dogs! What was your share of the $187 million in donations from health care related industries?

We offer Medicare for people 65 and over. Why wouldn't we extend this to younger people (i.e., everyone)? Or what about the insurance available to federal employees and the military? Those are government run and even Bill Kristol admits that they are first class. Although it seems that some out there, including a once prominent economist don't realize who runs Medicare and Medicaid. Perhaps this is a marketing problem?

Current Proposals

Reluctantly, I will admit that many reasonable people think the single payer option is not the best choice. I'm not going to encourage another unwinnable battle, especially since I would rather see some change than none at all.

The aversion to change mentioned above is an aversion to what many perceive to be an increase in taxes. We hear about unimaginable sums: billions, even trillions of dollars are figures regularly thrown around in this debate. Where will that money come from? It's an important issue, but one I'm not best equipped to address. This article outlines some proposed ideas. This is not an issue of simply adding spending to an existing system. Changes can bring about many opportunities to save money. Please, read about this. Don't just listen to Sean Hannity.

Yes, cost is a concern. But with 46 million people uninsured in this country, we can't afford not to change this system. Various reform proposals are seeking to provide an option for the uninsured, not to take away what is already there.

If you have insurance, it is probably through your employer. Proposed health care reforms will still allow you to get insurance that way. You have probably seen your premiums go up and coverage go down over the past few years. If you haven't, your employer is taking on the cost. You will see that in your (lack of) salary increase, diminished bonus, or other cost cutting measures at your place of work (no more candy dish? holiday party at the office instead of a restaurant?). Companies that produce goods have passed increased insurance costs along to those who buy their products. Surely you've heard that GM pays more for health care than it does for steel and that health care accounts for $1,525 of every vehicle produced.

When you think of the 46 million uninsured, what comes to your mind? This is somewhat of a Rorschach test. If you picture poor people whom you consider lazy, unhealthy, and deserving of what they get, I can't help you. But I would ask that you stop watching Hannity and Beck and O'Reilly or at least switching it up to some actual news once in awhile (clearly Rush is not on that list).

On the other hand, if you picture middle class people (the poor are covered by Medicaid) whose employers don't offer health insurance (not required of companies with < 50 employees, < 20 or so in some states like Minnesota).

A Personal Take

Health care and insurance are more than just a political issue for me. I have a personal stake, as we all do but may not realize. Often, we don't see an alternative and assume we have to deal with circumstances as they are. That should never be the case.

Chris sustained a $15,000 injury just six months after getting on my health insurance plan through work. I believe we paid $50 out of pocket (plus, of course, many hundreds in monthly insurance premiums). We were certainly not prepared for a $15,000 expense; thank goodness we didn't have to be.

Chris went for years without insurance, which many young, healthy, self-employed people do. We were talking recently about how he was able to start his own business because he didn't really need health insurance and how he may not have been able to do this under different circumstances.

As a worker for "the man," I have never been without insurance. I have had some extremely limited benefit plans (and also some great ones), but have noticed premiums increase and benefits decline in recent years. There was even one year when my parents gave me insurance for my birthday while I was in graduate school but too old to be on their plan. It was only $400 for the year; cheap for insurance, but expensive for a gift!

Now that I'm involuntarily unemployed, I might like to work for myself as well. At least for awhile. I've gotten some projects and done work for Chris, but this really isn't a sustainable situation for one (and only one) reason: the cost of health insurance.

We are eligible for COBRA through my former employer. The premium is about $800 a month. We're grateful for the 65% subsidy through the end of the year, but that $800 is going to be quite a budget blow if I don't have a job by January. We have no chronic conditions, take no medication, and visit the doctor for only regular check ups. But we won't go without health insurance. Accidental injuries happen, as we know!

Although Chris was voluntarily ununisured before we got married, there are millions who are unable to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions. I have been researching insurance options because we can't fathom paying $800 a month come January. Have you ever looked into buying insurance on your own? Let me tell you, it is a nightmare. For a reasonable price ($200/month for a couple in their 30s), you basically get a high deductible plan with several coverage restrictions. If you are older, you will pay much more. If you have health problems, you may not be able to get insurance at all. You can't be excluded from a group (employer) plan if you have a pre-existing condition, but you can be turned down for private insurance for any reason.

Opposition

Insurance companies are spending $1.4 million dollars a day to defeat health care reform. If they were not afraid of competition and regulation, why would they spend that kind of money on this effort? Why would we as consumers not want competition? Competition brings prices down. And if the government is so incapable of running anything, what do the insurers have to worry about?

Regarding regulation of insurance companies, think about it this way: do you think an industry (of any kind) should be allowed free reign to charge any price for any service and do business any way they like? That might sound great on the surface, but think about the unregulated activities that led to the Wall Street and mortgage industry debacle. Need I say more?

Free market proponents would say that the market will self-regulate and keep prices reasonable and service high. I don't necessarily buy that and I will give you one example why. Do you remember how much you paid for cable pre-1996? How much do you pay now? How many cable providers are there in your city? One or two plus a couple of satellite providers? No wonder basic cable has increased 200% in 15 years.

Like telecommunications, there is very little competition in the insurance industry. Large employers are able to negotiate to some degree, but individuals have no power at all. A government option will allow people who do not work for large employers to band together and gain some negotiating power. Insurance companies who provide less coverage at a higher price will be edged out or they will have to become more competitive. As consumers of health care, we will finally be in the driver's seat!

Do the Research

It's pointless to address the lies and rumors that are being spread on this topic. But I will ask anyone who feels strongly about health care to please do some research outside of the Fox network, Rush Limbaugh, and conservative blogs.

When those commercials come on television advertising miracle weight loss drugs that "actually burn fat" and will make you thin in days or weeks, we know they're lying. Right? Please tell me we don't believe them. So should be the case with an issue like health care reform. If you hear or read something, don't take it as fact. Do your research. You may continue to disagree that the system needs reform, but at least you won't base your opinion solely on what Fox News tells you to believe.

Health care reform isn't new. Efforts date back to Harry Truman and each attempt has been thwarted by insurers, hospitals, and health care providers with deep pockets often perpetuating lies and misleading statements. If this reform doesn't pass, it will come up again. In the meantime, our health care system will continue to deteriorate as costs encroach on our financial security ever more intensely. Let's fix health care now!

Just a thought...

There's been so much talk and hype about how Obama has "brought millions of new voters into politics." While I'm a rare breed who's been interested in politics since age six (or maybe younger), I'm certainly aware that many of those in my age cohort and younger (and older) don't share that enthusiasm.

This surge in interest is a wonderful thing, but these claims of Obama's influence have got me thinking. Is it really him or is it that seven years of Bush have been so damaging and alienating that these people would've been energized by someone, anyone offering a different point of view?

Just a thought...

The Excitement Has Begun!

After well over a year of campaigning, the first test of the 2008 election is over! In the days and weeks ahead we will begin to see the face of our next president. This is an exciting time - 4 days 'til New Hampshire and don't forget to vote in your state on:

January 15 - Michigan
January 29 - Florida
February 5 - Minnesota, North Dakota, New York, New Jersey
June 3 - South Dakota (not sure what impact that will have!)

Certainly the major media outlets will give a better report than I have the desire or time to do. But I would like to share two fun facts about the Iowa Caucus winners that you may not have known.

Mike Huckabee has cooked squirrel in his popcorn popper. Rumor has it that the Republican elite think he's too "hillbilly" to be their candidate. Iowans sure like him, though.

Apparently there are rumors that Barack Obama is a Muslim. I wouldn't have a problem with this and anyone who would is likely ignorant about the religion. However, it's not true. He attends the United Church of Christ and has never been a Muslim.

These contenders are just the winners of the first contest. The field has narrowed, but the candidates have not been chosen. Hillary Clinton remains my candidate of choice. I voted for her in New York in 2000 and I will vote for her in the Minnesota caucus on February 5.

I just love the presidential election process!

What I'm Thinking...

I know it's been too long since my last blog post when Amber emailed me to say she's going through withdrawal!

Between busy days at work, work-related travel, housework, exercise and trying to squeeze in some fun here and there, blogging has been relegated to the back burner.

Frankly, the election takes up the majority of my spare thinking these days. Do you really want to hear me rave about that again? Great! I thought you did. I have some things to say on some critical issues but I will save (most of) those for a separate post.

I will tell you what I'm thinking about today...

~ Melissa and I are going to see Matthew Sweet at First Avenue tonight. I didn't know he still toured, but can't wait to see him. It makes me feel not so old to know a musician I liked in college is still touring. This time we have general admission tickets so there will be no incidents like at the Gear Daddies.

~ Mom and Dad are coming to visit this weekend! We're going to ride the Minnesota Zephyr dinner train. Reviews are mixed and it's closing at the end of this year (presumably due to low ridership), but it is sure to be an interesting experience.

~ Our guests will get to sample the apple pie I made (and froze) with apples we picked during Suzanne's visit. I also made an apple crisp, which was good but too much for Chris, Jack and me to eat before it became apple soggy.

~ Chris and I saw David Sedaris at the State Theatre last Sunday. Chris has read most of his books, so was happy to hear him read mostly new material. Sedaris was funny and ironic and refreshing to a theatre full of liberal elites two weeks before the election and two days after Michelle Bachmann's embarassed Minnesota with quite possibly her most ridiculous comments yet. Go Tinklenberg! Bonnie and Duane will get to cast their ballots in what's looking like a possible loss for Bachmann! I almost wish I was in the 6th District so I could vote for him too. Ellison certainly doesn't need my vote in the 5th. Is anyone even running against him?

~ Melissa, Chris and I saw W. last Saturday night. Admittedly, I slept through part of it so can't give a full review. As a film, it was quite mediocre. But it did increase my empathy quotient for our current president. I still would never have voted for him, probably for the very reason I empathize with him: he seems fun, like someone you'd want to have a beer with, kind of a screw-up who could never win his dad's approval. Does he seem like someone who would make a good (or even not worst-in-history) president? Not. At. All.

With that, I'll sign off. 13 days to go!

South Dakotans: if you're not registered, it's too late. If you won't be in your home district on November 4, get an absentee ballot.

Minnesotans: register on election day if you're not yet.

As Chris learned last week, you must be a resident (i.e., have a driver's license) 20 days before the election. Too late for him, but he'll vote absentee in Florida. He'll be more help there both to Obama and in the probably futile attempt to defeat their gay marriage ban. Californians will get to vote on the same issue, although that is an attempt to take away an established right. It's also less likely to pass.

I don't understand that issue at all. Why do some people care so much about what other people do in their private lives. Maybe I'll discuss that in a future post. That and South Dakota's Measure 11, which anyone who respects an individual's right to choose and/or the right of medical professionals to make decisions in their patients' best interest will vote against without second thought.

OK, I'm really done for the day now.

Facts About Taxes

Half-truths, misinformation, lies. Cynicism, sarcasm, condescension. Politics of fear. These have been the themes this week in St. Paul. More on that after it reaches its pinnacle tonight.

Taxes are one area where Republicans have often succeeded in winning over those who take information at face value without doing their research. When Republicans cut taxes, it's usually not for people like you and me, but they present it to us as though it is.

Here's the reality of the candidates' tax plans, provided by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center.


It's clear which plan will provide the greatest benefit to the most people. Nine out of ten American households make less than $75,000 a year. Obama's plan will lower taxes for those making up to $227,000 a year, extending tax cuts to 95% of working households.

While McCain's proposal cuts taxes across the board, look at the disparity between the reduction for most of us compared to the benefit to the extremely wealthy.

It doesn't seem fair for hard working people to shoulder an undue share of the tax burden. We all pay the same amount for a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas, but a few dollars here and there can make or break a family struggling to pay the bills.

These are the facts. The choice is clear for those who believe in doing what's right for the greater good rather than catering to their self-serving individualism.

The Results Are In

and nothing much has changed... The race for the Democratic nominee is still on in full force. I'm admittedly disappointed, but not surprised, by the results here in Minnesota. Obama beat Hillary 2-to-1 in my precinct, a margin reflected statewide.

Another disappointment for me yesterday was in the caucus process itself. I've never observed something so disorganized! I actually wrote my vote on a scrap of notebook paper because they ran out of ballots. I was also just barely able to cast my vote because the harried inefficiency of the process. However, It was exciting to be part of the record turnout on this important day.

With only an hour and half to cast ballots in Minnesota, the streets were lined with cars for blocks around my polling place. Most of you are aware of my lack of parallel parking skills (although it's much improved after Marilyn's instruction a few years ago), but I did the fastest and best park of my life as I raced to make it in before voting ended.

I was starving and frustrated by the disorganization, so left shortly after casting my ballot. But I was so interested to hear about Mom's first caucus experience in Ivanhoe. (Hillary won 8 to 5) She stayed for the entire process and I'm so impressed with her activism! Jack was unable to go because he had class last night (don't they want students to caucus?), but we had a long conversation about all the issues!