Who you gonna call, if you want not for profit health care?

How could Rose Ann DeMoro write an article on Hillary Clinton's proposed health care plan, complain that Hillary learned the wrong lesson when she is proposing a plan that lines the pockets of the profiteering health "care" industry, and state Hillary's "plan is a smorgasbord of the worst elements of what we've seen and heard from some other presidential candidates", all without mentioning the name of the one candidate who is proposing exactly the plan that DeMoro wishes?

DeMoro says Hillary "might have decided to cut them [i.e., the health care Incs,] out of the business of profiting off pain, suffering and medical debt, and proposed a very different solution, such as expanding Medicare, Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Program to cover everyone." Well, DeMoro, too, "might have decided" to mention that Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate whose health care plan does exactly that!

One has to wonder why Kucinich, the only truly pro-labor candidate (e.g., for repeal of Taft-Hartly) who is also for a single payer not-for-profit health care plan, is totally absent from the health care discussion by DeMoro who is a nurse and national vice president of the AFL-CIO. Perhaps if the AFL-CIO would support Kucinich and his health care plan, then DeMoro would not be wondering what his name is or act like there is no candidate offering the plan she wants.

Gregory Wonderwheel
Santa Rosa, CA

Kucinich Would Win If People Dared To Vote On The Issues

Kucinich is the only candidate who really has a vision that is from the heart and not from the pocket book.

Kucinich is the candidate who transcends the political cynicism of the plutocracy propaganda. Those words "plutocracy" and "propaganda" probably turn off some people who just can't quite grasp what is going on in politics today. But the propaganda becomes clear when you learn that Kucinich is the candidate who speaks for the most people on most of the issues, yet his candidacy is marginalized by the media, the Democratic Party leaders, and by the Democratic Party rank and file who even acknowledge that he presents their views on the issues but they just can't vote for him because he is not seen as "electable".

I think it is plainly evident that when people speak on the issues and are not blinded by the hype of “electability”, “stature,” “charisma”, or “star power,” then Dennis Kucinich would be the next president of the USA.

Kucinich is the candidate who speaks for the majority of the American people. See the poll below if you don’t believe it. Yes it is unscientific; yes it is limited and skewed to internet users; but even given all of that, you must ask your self why the poll shows nearly 58% ranking Kucinich first place on the issues when the candidates name is NOT known. The next highest candidate gets less than 8% of first place rankings? Why is that? Don't you find this to be shocking?

We should look at all the issues to evaluate the candidate of our choice. I think everyone agrees with that.

So which issues do you look at most importantly? No candidate can be expected to agree with each of us on all the issues, but how is Kucinich wrong on the issues that you hold to be most important?

When people look at the issues in a “blind taste test” asking where they stand on an issue without a candidate’s face attached, the results are startling only to those who live within the media black-out of Kucinich and the propaganda of “horse race” elections. Kucinich speaks for the people. What is shocking is that the people don't get to know that due to the media filtering and manipulation of the reporting. For example, a recent PBS News Hour report on a Democratic debate made is seem that it was a debate between Obama and Clinton with the other candidates merely looking on.

Go to this website http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php to see how your views line up with the candidates on 25 issues:

I found the results to be quite accurate in my case, correctly scoring and ranking my agreement with the candidates in order of my preference on the issues: Kucinich 103, Gravel 77, Obama 56, Edwards 55, Clinton 55, Dodd 53, Biden 48, Richardson 47.

Here are some basic stats based on the submissions to the questionnaire at the time of calculation: http://www.dehp.net/candidate/stats.php

At the time of 134,346 people answering:

Measuring how many people had the candidate as their first rank according to how they responded to the issues, NOT KNOWING THE CANDIDATE’S NAME:

Candidate | Number of first | Percentage of
------------ | place ranks -----| people responding
Kucinich - 77,824 -- 57.93%
Gravel - 9,522 -- 7.09%
Paul - 9,182 -- 6.83%
Romney - 5,912 -- 4.40%
Clinton - 4,903 -- 3.65%
Hunter - 4,195 -- 3.12%
Giuliani - 4,069 -- 3.03%
Obama - 3,942 -- 2.93%
Biden - 2,522 -- 1.88%
Richardson - 2,416 -- 1.80%
McCain - 2,256 -- 1.68%
Tancredo - 2,117 -- 1.58%
Edwards - 1,472 -- 1.10%
Dodd - 1,164 -- 0.87%
Huckabee - 986 -- 0.73%
Cox - 941 -- 0.70%
Thompson - 582 -- 0.43%
Brownback - 341 -- 0.25%
Total: 134,346 -- 100.00%


At the time of this response snapshot, nearly 58% of respondents had their positions on the issues rank Kucinich as most agreeing with them. The second highest candidate Gravel has a little over 7%.

When the responses are preference weighted for the top three candidates with a responder’s first rank getting a 3, second rank a 2, and third rank getting a 1, the following order appears:

Candidate | Weighted number ----- | Percentage of all
-------------| of top three ranks ----- | weighted responses.
Kucinich - 266210 -- 33.44%
Gravel - 160516 -- 20.16%
Obama - 61435 -- 7.72%
Clinton - 43352 -- 5.45%
Paul - 38148 -- 4.79%
Romney - 30525 -- 3.83%
Edwards - 27404 -- 3.44%
Hunter - 26314 -- 3.31%
Richardson - 22538 -- 2.83%
Biden - 21518 -- 2.70%
Dodd - 18236 -- 2.29%
Giuliani - 17854 -- 2.24%
Tancredo - 17717 -- 2.23%
McCain - 17286 -- 2.17%
Huckabee - 8031 -- 1.01%
Cox - 7368 -- 0.93%
Thompson - 6358 -- 0.80%
Brownback - 5266 -- 0.66%
Total: - 796076 -- 100.00%


Even with weighting the top three, Kucinich is still by far the number one ranked candidate on the issues by those responding. The difference between these two lists shows the vast number of Democrats who have positions that rank Obama and Clinton as second or third behind Kucinich and Gravel. Remember, these are ranks on the issues WITHOUT the names of the candidates attached, not on a rank of the candidate by name or personality. This shows that the Democratic Party leadership is not following the rank and file of the Party's views.

Iraq was of course the issue ranked most important by the most people, and clearly Kucinich speaks for the most people on this issue, even though the Democratic controlled congress does not follow Kucinich's lead and is still supporting the war.

Here are my important issues:

Kucinich was the first candidate to oppose Iraq and have the good judgement and level thinking to stand against it when 9/11 hysteria was giving in to Bush: right on that.

Kucinich is the only one for not-for-profit health care for all: right on that.

Kucinich is the only one for a Department of Peace to begin the education process away from war and violence as a way of solving both international and domestic issues: right on that one too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who says it is wrong to use war as an instrument of foreign policy (this is probably over the heads of the other candidates): and he is right on that issue.

Kucinich openly opposes nuclear weapons and commits to nuclear disarmament: right again.

Kucinich is the only candidate who is unequivocal about reparations for slavery: right on that one.

Kucinich is the only candidate against land mines, cluster bombs, and uranium munitions: right on that one again.

Kucinich is the candidate who says on his first day in office he will get out of NAFTA and WTO, and join the international criminal court: right again.

Kucinich is against the death penalty: right on that too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who has a plan for universal day care for pre-kindergarten for ages 3 to 5 (Clinton announced her program long after Kucinich had already announced his but her’s will start at age 4): right here too.

Kucinich is the only candidate who says that every American should have the right and opportunity to go to college and he has a program to make that real: right once more.

Kucinich is the only candidate with a comprehensive public works program focusing on green issues: right there as well.

Kucinich is the only candidate I've heard say that the war on terror is fake and that we should instead hunt down so-called "terrorists" as the criminals that they are using the international police structures and not aggrandizing these criminals by calling them combatants in a "war" which is really a sham: right, right, right.

Kucinich is for equal marriage rights: right on that too.

I also find it interesting that Kucinich is asking for the media to look into what it means that Hillary Clinton stands up in a debate and says she regrets that she was "lied" to and misled by Bush. Well, why couldn't she tell Bush was lying? I mean, his lips were moving, weren't they? So far the media is giving Clinton a free pass on this question and instead touts her so-called “experience.” Actually, Obama is quite right to point out he has been in elected office for more years than Clinton or Edwards have been. Of course Obama doesn't point out that Kucinich has been in elected office at the city, state, and federal levels longer than Obama and so has the widest experience at all levels of government.

Yet the propaganda machine doesn’t discuss his experience or his having the positions on issues that reflects the widest swath of the U.S. citizens. If only people would vote the issues by voting their conscience, rather than running scared and voting for horses in a horse race! Then we would have a leader who actually reflected the people and not just the wealthy.

Obama's Diplomatic Blunder

Now Barack Obama's campaign is sending out messages asking for support for his latest sabre rattling. Here's part of the email I received yesterday:

After September 11th, we had a calling to write a new chapter in American history.

Americans were united. Our friends around the world stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us. We had the opportunity to devise new strategies, build new alliances, safeguard our values, and serve a just cause.

If only we had seized that opportunity.

Unfortunately, we did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not capture or kill Osama bin Ladin. And this administration drove us into war on the wrong battlefield with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create and no plan for how to get out.

Now, six years later, we are overdue for a major change of course in our foreign policy. America must stop fighting the wrong war and start fighting the war we need to win.

The next president must end the war in Iraq, refocus on Afghanistan and the Taliban resurgence, and pressure Pakistan to root out al Qaeda once and for all.

Most importantly, the next president must make sure that Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda’s core leadership are captured or killed. If Pakistan or any other nation won't act against bin Ladin and his cohorts, we will.

Sign on to my plan and spread the word:

http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

The time has come to turn the page on a failed approach.

The next President of the United States must commit to getting our troops out of Iraq and taking the fight to the terrorists.

We must reinforce our mission in Afghanistan with additional troops. We must press Pakistan and President Musharraf to close down terrorist training camps and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a safe-haven.

If Musharraf acts, we will stand with him. But if Pakistan will not act against Osama bin Ladin and the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans, we will.

These are achievable goals, and when I am president we will wage the war we need to win with a comprehensive strategy.

Read the plan, declare your support, and spread the word that it's time to change direction:

http://action.barackobama.com/newleadership

The first step to making America safer is getting our troops out of Iraq and onto the right battlefields in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But that's not enough.

No Obama, that is not the right war either. First, there is no evidence that al Queda is fighting in Afghanistan. We are currently the invaders and occupiers in Afghanistan just as in Iraq. Once al Queda was driven out of Afghanistan there was no further justification for our continued invasion and occupation. We are now in the middle of the Afghanistan civil war where we have no business being.

Second, I'm sorry to hear that this is your "strategy." After your inspiring words at the Democratic debate about taking a new path in diplomacy to have an open door to meeting with the national leaders of countries with which we are estranged, now you have taken a 180 degree turn and have presented a Bush-Cheney lite diplomatic sabre rattling statement.

NO THANKS! Threatening to invade the sovereignty of Pakistan is NOT THE WAY to do diplomacy.

Please consider a new foreign policy direction. Al Queda is a criminal enterprise. It needs to to be dealt with as such. The President of the USA, whomever it is, needs to deal with al Queda as international criminals. Present the case to the country who is protecting any such criminals, and if the country won't let the criminals be extradited then take it to the UN for extradition sanctions.

Please DO NOT INVADE a sovereign nation such as Pakistan. That is just the Bush-Cheney way of doing our nation's business.

Al Queda should be treated as any ring of international criminals would be treated. Their fake religious motivations should be treated no differently than if their motivation was money through the drug trade. As I stated in my previous blog post, only Dennis Kucinich of all the presidential candidates has the vision of a new era of diplomacy based on international respect and the treatment of international criminals as criminals, rather than glorifying them as enemies in a phony "war on terror." Let's give "strength through peace" a chance!

ADDENDUM 8/8/2007: It seems like I'm not the only one who has a sour taste from Obama's latest war mongering attempt to sell people on the wrong war by calling it the "right battlefield." Here is an excerpt from the review by the Black Agenda Report of Wednesday, 08 August 2007, by BAR executive editor Glen Ford:

The Senator from Illinois masquerades as a "peace
candidate" - and then proposes the Americans invade
Pakistan, the only Muslim nation that has The Bomb.
After the U.S. has propped up the military regime for
generations, and stunted democracy in a country of 165
million, Obama now thinks he can just walk into western
Pakistan - Waziristan - to find and kill Osama bin
Ladin. In the process, he would unite all of the Right
and the Left opposition to the government in Islamabad,
and give the generals no choice but to brandish The
Bomb. Obama wants to add 100,000 new troops to the U.S.
military. Now we know where they will be going:
Waziristan, a place from Hell. Barack Obama Ain't
Nothin' But a War Ho'

I encourage everyone to click on the link and read the whole article. It is important that such Democratic Party myths as the ones about Kennedy are not used as cover for the likes of Clinton and Obama.

Hillary Clinton's Karma

Karma is such an interesting process to observe.

During the recent Democratic presidential debate (the CCN/YouTube Democratic debate) in question 16 Barack Obama was asked if he would meet -- without preconditions -- the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to bridge the gap between our countries?

Obama gave a good answer that was approved by the focus group with reaction meters. He said,

"I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.... We may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward."

That was a presidential answer. Of course meetings like that should not be had with preconditions. As Obama implies, when there is antipathy or miscommunications then it is the initial face to face meeting that creates the conditions for real progress, not the other way around.

Hillary Clinton then said she would not promise to meet with these nations' leaders. She said "I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes." That is the adolescent answer which is really just a diplomatic Bush-Cheney lite.

Today the chickens came home to roost on Clinton's answer. I received an email alert from her campaign whining that the Bush administration has played the propaganda card against her and she is crying foul. Here's what Clinton says,

Here's the whole story. Back in May, concerned about the administration's failure to plan in Iraq, I sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates asking him to provide Congress with briefings of contingency plans for withdrawal -- or an explanation of why no such plans exist.

Two weeks ago, Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded in a letter that said discussing plans for withdrawal "reinforces enemy propaganda." It was an outrageous response -- and a dangerous one. Planning for withdrawal isn't just common sense. It is vital to ensuring our troops return home safe.

Now wait a minute Hillary! You can't tell Obama that he should not meet with a nation's leader because it might be used as propaganda and then complain when the identical propaganda card is used against you. Either you are worried about preventing propaganda or you aren't. This is the kind of lack of political principles that makes Clinton have no credibility or appearance of integrity. And, by the way, the TV focus group seemed to agree with me because they turned their meters toward disapproval when Clinton said she would play politics and not talk to the national leaders.

In this case, of course it was her comment to Obama that was just as outrageous as Edelman's comment to her. A president can't conduct policy discussions based on whether or not others will try to make propaganda out of it. A president has to decide what is the right thing to do and then explain it as carefully and clearly as possible. The truth is what takes away any propaganda value of the other side, not the diplomatic jockeying for propaganda hegemony.

So I give your words back to you Hillary Clinton: Your response to Obama was an outrageous response -- and a dangerous one. Promising to talk with national leaders with whom we have national disagreements isn't just common sense. It is vital to ensuring our nation remains safe.

That said, I don't want this to be taken as an endorsement of Obama. Obama is a better choice than Clinton. For example, in this area of being open to talking with leaders he disagrees with he is willing to change the direction of Clinton's Bush-Cheney lite approach to diplomacy. However, Obama is still rattling the sabres when he thinks it will make him political points. Today's news in the BBC has Obama he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government. Well that's a step in the wrong direction.

Of all the presidential candidates, only Dennis Kucinich makes sense when he says he will not use war as an instrument of foreign policy and will track down terrorists as the criminals they are and use diplomacy to bring them to justice.

Progressive, yes, but Liberal or Radical Progressive?

Portside recently sent out this brief comment about the criticism of John Conyers:

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2007
> From: Claire Carsman
> Subject: John Conyers
>
> It's appalling that people on the left have chosen to
> attack John Conyers. How are we ever going to build a
> unified movement with ridiculous tactics like that.
> And not to ignore the underlying racism.
>
> Claire Long Beach, CA

Frankly, I'm amazed that the atrocious behavior of John Conyers is receiving so much defense. On the progressive left, this must be the dividing line between liberal and radical. I'm a radical who sees Conyers' inaction as completely, totally, and absolutely unjustifiable. Every (let me emphasize -- every, single, each, and all) excuse I have heard in Conyers' defense has rung hollow. After hearing all the excuses there is only one logical conclusion: Conyers can't come up with a valid excuse because he has none. Perhaps Conyers is to be pitied, because circumstantial evidence points to the sad truth that he would probably like to bring the bill of impeachment, but Speaker Pelosi is ordering him not to do so. Since he can't just come out and say this openly, he is left to give the clearly bogus rationalizations that we have heard.

Portside readers like Claire Carsman wonder how are we going to build "a unified movement" by criticizing Conyers, yet she doesn't ask why Conyers is breaking up the unified movement by refusing to act? Why is it that Conyers should get a free ride as the liberal gatekeeper against the radicals while the radical's complaint at being locked out of Congress is then called the source of the problem?

This divide on the left was recently revealed in the attempt by Hillary Clinton to cover it up. In the most recent Presidential debates, Clinton was asked to define liberal and state if she is a liberal. She waffled and evaded and said that liberal used to be a positive word but isn't any longer, so now she considers herself a "modern progressive." I used to relish the label progressive until I heard if from her lips. The question is begged: what is a "modern progressive" -- is it a liberal progressive or a radical progressive?

I'm a radical progressive and proud of it. Let the liberal progressives like John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton continue to wield their gatekeeping power against the radical progressives like us, so be it; that's real politik. Radicals criticizing Conyers have been called racists, but let me say it plain: it is the radicals in the progressive movement who are continually treated as the house slaves by the liberal Democrats, always expected to give our votes and money but never to raise our voice in criticism. But don't for a minute think that we radical progessives are going to hush up like good servants or slaves and keep quiet while the liberal masters lock up Congress, keeping it for themselves, and in so doing aiding and abetting George Bush's crimes against humanity and the Constitution.

The Best With the Least

Isn't it a basic truth in politics that those with the best things to say have the least money to say it with? Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former Sen. Mike Gravel of Alaska are clearly the front runners in content and appear to have the least amount of campaign funding to share their views.

After the Democratic presidential candidate debate in Orangeburg, South Carolina, Gravel made a comment that spoke to a basic fault line in political funding. Meeting the press directly after the debate, Gravel said he regretted that debate moderator Brian Williams had not asked about hedge funds.

“Every one of those people except Kucinich is taking hedge fund money. Hedge fund money is the manipulation of the economy overseas and nobody knows anything about it…. If the world economy tanks, it’s going to be because of the hedge funds.”

The deeply perverting impact of political fund raising is highlighted in Gravel's remarks.

DEBATE RUMINATIONS:

The presidential debate was revealing in many ways. First of all it revealed the bias towards the so-called "front runners" who have the giant campaign war chests. The format was definitely targeted to the candidates with not all candidates being asked the same questions. Therefore certain "presidential" questions, like "What would you do if two American cities were attacked by terrorists on the same day?", were only asked of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards, as if they were the only ones capable of answering that question.

Still, even with the biased questioning process, the candidates did reveal themselves.

Our hero Dennis Kucinich ably presented the reality check of the debate. Though former Senator Gravel was energetic and refreshingly feisty and mostly there with the right points, none of the other candidates, even Gravel, would dare to support Kucinich's call for the impeachment of Vice-President Cheney. This showed that only Kucinich is in touch with the American people and the other candidates are still without the moral courage to do the right thing. By refusing to indicate that Cheney should be held accountable Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, and Richardson all show their contempt for holding elected official responsible for lying to the American public to start an illegal war.

Clinton was asked if she agreed with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comment that the war is lost, and typical of Clinton, she dodged the question and didn't say whether she agreed or not, whether the war is lost or not. Gravel had the courage to say clearly and correctly, "This war was lost the day that George Bush invaded Iraq on a fraudulent basis."

Clinton said, again, that if she knew then what she knows now she would have voted differently, and Kucinich said that is no excuse because all the information was available then to everyone, and that is why he voted against the war. He said,

"If you made the wrong choice, we're here auditioning to be President of the United States, people have to see who had the judgement and the wisdom not to go to war in the first place. ... This isn't American Idol here, we're choosing a President and we have to look at the audition that occurred in 2003... and my colleagues here made the wrong decision."

This is the point that makes the most sense in deciding my choice. Edwards is to be congratulated for saying he is sorry for his mistaken vote, but Clinton won't even say her vote was a mistake. Only Kucinich can say he has consistently voted against the war and funding it and had ability to correctly analyze the situation and vote accordingly.

Gravel, of course hasn't been in the Senate in the last 10 years or so, and he should get full credit for pointing to Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Biden for saying that nukes are on the table against Iran. Gravel said that was an immoral position.

Edwards says he does live a "privileged and blessed lifestyle" but we should remember his humble roots because he remembers them. This highlights a problem with Edwards' in that he equates his privilege with being blessed. Being privileged does not mean one is blessed. To see wealth and privilege as signs of being blessed is a core problem with most religious belief systems.

Kucinich said he wants to remove war as an instrument of policy. This is the fundamental problem that the "front runners" won't address as a systemic problem arising from the military-industrial complex because they are beholding to that war-money-making machine.

The "debate" mostly was not an actual debate in the sense of addressing each other's positions except for a few brief exciting moments such as when Gravel pointed to the candidates who immorally threaten the use of nuclear weapons against Iran by using codes phrases like "no option is off the table". But still, there is a lot information provided in the forum provided by MSNBC. No one can be a responisible voter without doing the homework of comparing the candidates.

Kucinich alluded to the biggest problem in elections, which is that too many voters approach them like a vote for American Idol and actually pick a candidate based on how he or she dresses or how attractive the person is, or they vote for the one they think has "the best chance of winning." If people really voted for the candidate that they thought expressed the greatest convergence with their own views, then I think Kucinich would have a real chance.