Sunday, September 30, 2007

Karita Hummer Silver Pean Award goes to Fr4nki 's "Tired of the golden rule....."





Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





Reposted from the John Edwards blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/29/131747/782

Tired of the golden rule...

user icon Fr4nki in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/30/2007 at 1:42 AM EST

That's where those who HAVE the gold, RULE. Today, since apparently there is no other news in the world, the pundits are all in a tizzy at John's decision to walk his talk and take public financing, spinning it as a last ditch attempt to get enough money to save his campaign.

Really want the best president money can buy? Here's a great analysis of money vs. popularity:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ david_sw_070919_the_best_president_m.htm

A great point, "Candidates who raise more money get more media coverage, just as candidates who get more media coverage raise more money, and an amazing percentage of the coverage is simply about who has raised how much money."

How does this relate to ability to govern again? Maybe it does, but not in a good way: Junior IS arguably the best president money can buy; he broke all the fundraising records in his WH grab in 2004. We can see how that's working out...

Are we so simplistic that we REALLY believe it's just about how much money you have? If that's the case let's just put the White House on eBay and take bids for the next 13 months.

WE know that's not the truth. This country is tired of the golden rule. Tired of struggling and scraping to get by while fat cats languish at their $1000 a plate dinners and plan how to grab what little there is left of American prosperity. GET MAD. Tell your friends, tell your kids, tell your friend's kids. Let's get John Edwards in office and get our country back off the auction block.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Steve Kirsch's Brilliant Analysis of the Top Three Candidates



Steve Kirsch, Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





I am reposting this article that I submitted to the John Edwards Blog of my introductory comments and Steve Kirsch's really brilliant analysis of the top three candidates for President, 2008.

In reposting the piece, I am designating Steve Kirsch a recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award. (See Description of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award in another blog, entitled, What is Karita Hummer's silver Pen Award? http://passionateprogressivepatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/what-is-karita-hummers-silver-pen-award.html)


Time to Revisit Steve Kirsch's Analysis of the Top Three Candidates


Reposted from John Edwards blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/26/2247/43103

user icon Karita Hummer in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/26/2007 at 10:28 AM EST

Only one stands out, it's John Edwards!

I am often asked about my views of the top candidates. And I am not shy to tell what I think. But bar none, one of the best analyses of the candidates has come from Steve Kirsch of my own home town, San Jose. So I will copy it for you below for your reference, too. But before sharing his excellent analysis, let me share my impressions of the "top tier" candidates.

I believe that John Edwards stands heads and shoulders above the other candidates for his sincerity, integrity and vision for ending corruption and insider influence in Washington and achieving the goal of One America for all. Not only that, he is the most electable of the candidates and best assures us that we we will have the kind of Democrat in the White House who can begin to reverse the awful policies of the Bush Administration.

So what about the other candidates? I am often asked how do I see their candidacies. And I have answers. Especially when it comes to Hillary, I have answers, and these come from her actions and statements. I see her as cautious, careful, triangulating and calculating. She is unwilling to acknowledge the insider influence and corruption in Washington and, therefore, will compromise around our most essential needs. For me, Obama is also cautious and hasn't proven himself to be the leader I believe we need for this age.

So let me turn to Steve Kirsch's long analysis. I share it in its entirety, because I think it is so important.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

Here is Steve Kirsch's great analysis.

http://skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm

Who would make the best President?

By Steve Kirsch


September 6, 2007

Before the 2000 Presidential election, I published an analysis of George Bush which urged people not to vote for Bush because he would be a disaster as President since he had a track record of ignoring facts, ignoring science, and twisting the facts to support his misguided beliefs. Even though the evidence was there for everyone to see, most people don't look beyond the sound bites and nobody else predicted this. As everyone now knows, I was right on the money with my prediction.

I decided to do a similar in-depth analysis of the top 3 Democratic candidates for President for this election. You'll be surprised at what I found.

My methodology was the same as I used in 2000, i.e., if you want to know the truth about these candidates, you have to look beyond the surface. You must look at the facts that they are not telling you. Those hidden facts paint a very consistent picture for each candidate. Here are the highlights of what I found:

Clinton

1. She's been talking about the need for universal health care for more than 15 years, but as of September 6, 2007, she still hasn't proposed a universal health plan! What more evidence do you need than this? If she can't even come up with a proposal after 15 years of working on this issue, then how do you think she's going to perform on other important issues? The answer is obvious: virtually nothing is going to get done under her administration because it takes her too long to decide what she is going to do. Even if she later introduces a health care plan, you still have to ask yourself...why did it her take more than 15 years to do this when her competitors are able to do it in months? One of her supporters told me that she knows what she wants to do, but is afraid of being crushed by the special interests if she unveiled it now. When I pointed out that the other candidates did not get crushed, I was told that it was a non-issue because all the candidates are in favor of universal healthcare and the real issue is their ability to get something done. Well, OK, but I'm baffled as to how you get stuff done if you are too afraid of talking about what you think should be done. Just one day later I was told by the same person who gave me all those excuses that she would be announcing her policy next Monday on September 17. But the real questions will still be "why did it take so long" and "why did your people give out excuses that changed from day to day, none of which were true" (since if those excuses I was told were true, she never would have announced her plan)? Now that it is announced, it is not that different from the plan that John Edwards introduced months ago. Many people, including NY Times columnist Paul Krugman have pointed out that the Edwards and Clinton plans are extremely similar. Krugman wrote, "Still, she did deliver a plan, and it's as strong as the Edwards plan ... the Clinton plan basically is the Edwards plan." Here's an article from MyDD entitled "Hillary Endorses Edwards' Health Care Plan" which points out that her health care plan isn't substantially different from Edwards other than it took her 7 months longer to get there.
2. She is afraid to tell people where she stands and ask people to follow her. Look at her Iraq vote on May 24, 2007. She refused to tell anyone how she would vote before the vote. I thought the point was to get out of Iraq. Why didn't she tell everyone before the vote that she was going to vote against giving Bush a blank check on the war? What was she afraid of? And if she really wanted to end the war, then why didn't she urge any of her supporters to call their Senators to urge them to vote No? I know why because I asked her that question myself. She said she wanted to avoid the "media frenzy." But a real leader would want the publicity because she would be able to get her message out to a broader audience. Instead of asking her supporters to help end the war (like Edwards was doing), she was instead emailing them asking them what they thought her campaign theme song should be. Her failure of leadership on this critical issue is a reason why the Senate failed to stop the Iraq war.
3. Clinton voted against the Kerry-Feingold Amendment in 2006. That amendment would have set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq
4. Clinton endorsed Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Lieberman has been one of the few pro-Iraq war Democrats.
5. Mark Penn is both her pollster and her chief policy advisor. What more proof do you need than that that she is a follower of public opinion, rather than a leader. That won't work here. The US must take a leadership role in global warming for example. That means we need a President who is going to recognize what needs to be done and is going to go out and actually change public opinion in order to accomplish it . That's what leadership is all about and she hasn't got it. She's never going to ask you to change your mind, even when it is in the public's best interest. Do you recall her ever doing that? Her global warming leadership is non-existent. She's a reluctant follower. There is nothing in her policy that I'm aware of "pushes the envelope." Zero. She doesn't even have any goals for global warming. Yikes!
6. Like Bush, she has a perfectionist complex and cannot admit she made a mistake. She has never apologized for her Iraq vote. If she doesn't admit mistakes, then just like Bush, our country will be locked in to her mistakes. We will be told to "stay the course" on obvious mistakes (like Iraq) because otherwise, it would be an admission that she made a mistake and she cannot do that.
7. Collaborative? Privately, I've talked to several people who meet with her and they tell me she doesn't listen.
8. She is not a believer in government transparency when it applies to her. For example, during her health care program in 1993 was done in secret meetings. It was a huge failure. Has she changed? Apparently not. Look how she is responding to the most important crisis of her campaign, the donations from Norman Hsu, one of her top fundraisers and a convicted criminal. When the press broke the story, The New York Times reported on September 12 that Clinton refused to respond to requests from the press to release the names of the 260 donors that Hsu had recruited to the campaign. Is this the type of "open government" you want where when a scandal breaks, the President will withhold information from the press. Why? What is she afraid of? Why shouldn't the press be allowed to investigate? The answer is that Clinton's reputation is more important than the public's right to know the truth about what happened here. Open government? I don't think so.
9. Because she is a follower, her policies on the top issues are weak to non-existent. Her health care plan is non-existent. Her global warming plan is so weak that it doesn't even talk about limiting the construction of new coal plants. In short, she refuses to adopt even the most basic policy steps to keep the problem from getting worse. We're not even talking about steps to make it better. She won't even do the things required to keep the problem from getting worse! What kind of leadership is that?
10. In August, John Edwards asked Senator Clinton to join him in taking the Democratic Party on the first step towards real reform--to become the first party to refuse and reject the money of Washington lobbyists.
She refused. She thinks it is just fine to take money from lobbyists and got loudly booed at the Kos conference for saying that.
11. Environmentalists who have met with her privately tell me she understands the importance and the urgency of the global warming problem, but she, like her husband, is simply unwilling to actually take the steps necessary to tackle the problem.
12. On the "gold standard" climate change bill in the Senate, she signed as a co-sponsor 4 months after the bill was introduced and after 12 other Senators signed on. Global warming is the most important issue in our lifetimes. This is simply yet another confirming example that she's not a leader; she's a follower. And to make things worse, she signed on to the bill silently with not even a press release. How do you lead people to follow you if you take positions only after it is safe and even then are afraid to tell them what positions you are taking?
13. People close to her tell me she thinks like a Senator, not like a President. She thinks about how to change her policies in order to get the votes she needs when she should be thinking about how to get people to change their minds to support what needs to be done. Contrast that with Bush; Bush decides what needs to be done, then convinces Congress he's right (even when he isn't) and to support him (even when they shouldn't). Too bad Bush always makes terrible decisions. But at least he makes decisions and gets others to follow. Clinton does the opposite; she lets others determine what she can do.
14. Can you think of anything that got done with respect to global warming when Bill Clinton was President? He had 8 years to do something and he had a Vice President (Al Gore) who knew the issue. Can you recall one thing he got done? I can't. They didn't even raise fuel economy standards by 1 mile per gallon. They wouldn't send the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification. So what action did Hillary take in the past that makes you think Hillary will be a more effective President than Bill on this critical issue?
15. I have no problem whatsoever with a woman President. If Senator Barbara Boxer were running for President, she'd have my vote in a heartbeat. Why? Because Boxer always stands up for, fights for, and is a leader for the public interest. Boxer takes courageous stances all the time, often alone. I know this because I've seen it first hand on a bill that she and I worked on where she was the only member of the Senate willing to stand up for the public interest. Then she convinces others to change their minds. But Senator Clinton isn't in the same leadership class. A leader would never have acted the way she did on the Iraq funding vote I described above. Never.
16. Could I be wrong about her? I think it is very unlikely. Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government, has said that global warming is the biggest problem that civilization has ever been confronted with. That's a pretty strong statement. He didn't say it was just a problem or that it is the biggest problem today. He said it is the biggest problem ever. That's "ever" as in "for all time." And he's absolutely right about that based on the research I've done into climate change. So how does Clinton respond to this problem? Well, she has no goal in her plan. She's has strategies, but she has not articulated a goal in her plan, it's just strategies: she's going to put in place a cap-and-trade system, a Strategic Energy Fund, and a few other things. There is nothing in her plan that says what greenhouse gas reduction goals she wants to achieve by 2020 and beyond. Every leader knows that specific measurable goals are the hallmark of leadership. To not have specific measurable goals for the most important problem facing our civilization is unacceptable. How can you put together a plan if you can't articulate what the goal should be? Also, I know for sure she knows that the lack of a specific goal is an issue with her policy because I wrote her a memo about it and she told me herself she read my memo. So not only should she have done it on her own, but having been brought to her specific attention, still nothing happens. Nor does she address the transportation sector at all in her plan. Power generation and transportation are the two biggest emission sources. How can you be silent about transportation? And she's not even come out and said "no new coal plants without sequestration." I don't have a clue how you can possibly save the planet and still continue to do things that make the problem worse. Clinton never explains that. Of course, when there are no goals, there is no accountability, so she doesn't have to explain anything. We simply cannot elect a leader in 2008 who doesn't articulate specific goals on greenhouse gas reduction. There are plenty of other candidates for President who have clearly articulated specific measurable goals for greenhouse gas reductions and plans that are aligned with meeting the goals. Please do yourself and the rest of humanity a favor and pick one of them to support.
17. She signed on to the weaker McCain-Lieberman climate bill on 1/26/07. That was 10 days after 10 other Senators signed on to the Sanders-Boxer bill. In short, Clinton knew about both bills, but she chose only to co-sponsor the weaker bill rather than the gold-standard Sanders-Boxer bill that has environmentalists unanimously cheering. Then, more than 3 months later, she signs on to the "gold standard" Sanders-Boxer bill and she now touts her support of Sanders-Boxer in interviews as proof she is tough on climate change. But nobody has pointed out the interesting timing so the press has never asked her on why, on January 26, 2007, with both bills on the table, she chose only to co-sponsor the weaker bill and then, more than 3 months later that she suddenly signs onto Sanders-Boxer which had not changed at all since introduction! Hard to explain that one, isn't it? I have an explanation: Obama signed on just a few hours before she did. Think that was just an amazing coincidence? The bottom line is we need a President who is tough on climate change; not someone who follows the herd.
18. Grist.org agrees. They said this about her climate change plan: "dutifully toes the Democratic line on climate change...vague on the details...Where she mentions specific solutions, she tends to focus on "clean coal" and ethanol...Clinton is ...not out front." I can guarantee you this: clean coal is at least a decade away according to one of our top climate change experts (Jim Hansen). I can also guarantee that every climate expert I've talked with says we need to take serious action right now. Her emphasis to solve the problem now is to wait for decades and hope that technologies will be available in the future. We need to solve the problem now, not in decades. And there are great technologies available right now. Today, California doesn't rely on coal; it's illegal! Clinton will not lead this country to energy independence and her failure to emphasize and deploy technologies we have to today to reduce our emissions will lead to irreversible climate change consequences. Ask any climate change expert; they'll tell you the exact same thing.

Obama

1. Obama talks a great game. He's very inspirational speaker. If he really walked the talk, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. But the problem is that when you do the research on his legislation, and when you analyze his response to some very telling questions, you come away disappointed. Really disappointed. You find that the reality is that he'd get nothing done and could even make some really important problems that we have worse.
2. Think he wants to end the war in Iraq? He sure talks tough. I just got a mailing from his campaign that says, "I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in 2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I opposed it in 2006. And I introduced a plan this January to remove all of our combat brigades by March 2008." It sure sounds convincing, doesn't it? It sure does if you don't do your homework! What he hoping you'll never find out is that according to Wikipedia, "Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427." None of these were related to ending the war in Iraq. Additionally, "once Obama got to Washington [in 2005], he made only one Senate speech on Iraq." [8]. The full analysis has even more examples of his lack of interest in ending the Iraq war. If he is such a great leader, why didn't he actually do something about it? It's easy to have opinions and do nothing.
3. Like Clinton, Obama voted against the Kerry-Feingold Amendment in 2006 that would have set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. So he brags he introduced a plan in 2007 that would set a timetable for withdrawal. But when he had a chance back in 2006 to vote for such a time table for withdrawal, he voted against it! See the full analysis for details (search for Kerry-Feingold). OK, so why doesn't he explain why he wasn't for a timetable then, but is for it now?
4. A President Obama wouldn't be much different than President Bush with respect to removing troops from Iraq. CNN reported that Obama announced his plan for reducing troops on September 12 in Clinton, Iowa. Obama would withdraw troops "at a pace of one or two brigades every month." So it could take as much as 10 months under Obama's plan just to reduce the troops to pre-surge levels. That's not much faster than the rate that President Bush wants to withdraw the troops (reduce to pre-surge levels in 10 months). Contrast that with what Senator Clinton would do (she didn't say), or with what Edwards would do (immediately withdraw 40,000 to 50,000 troops).
5. Obama endorsed Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Lieberman has been one of the few pro-Iraq war Democrats.
6. Like Clinton, when the vote to whether to continue to fund the Iraq war came up, he refused to tell people how he would vote before the vote. Instead of urging his supporters to tell their members of Congress to vote against giving Bush a blank check to fund the war, he instead asked them help organize a walk to support his campaign. Obama's failure of leadership on this critical issue is a key reason why the Senate failed to stop the Iraq war.
7. Obama was the head of the "Coal to Liquids" caucus in the Senate. This is a technique for turning coal into gasoline and diesel. The problem is that it makes global warming far worse if you do this. Environmental groups kept pointing this out to him and he kept ignoring them and not changing his opinion. I talked to one prominent leader who approached him on this issue and Obama just smiled and walked away. He only recently modified his position but it took a long long time for him to do that. If he really wants to end global warming, he'd never have taken a position like this that was opposed by every single environmental group. So why did he do it? He ways it's because we have a lot of coal in our country so we should use it. But that's stupid and dangerous. The key problems we need to solve are energy independence and global warming and you can solve both problems without Coal to Liquids. That's what he should be looking at. He should look at what solutions are available and pick the solutions that solve the problems we face at the lowest cost. So his decision making process is flawed and he clearly is not afraid to ignore the advice of environmental groups and instead heed the advice of the coal lobby. So we have a bad decision maker who lacks leadership skills and sides with the special interests rather than the public interest. That makes him a worse choice than Clinton.
8. Some people told me Obama supports coal because his home state is a coal state. But Obama is running for President, not Senator. You simply cannot advocate a position that can result in the destruction of humanity in less than 100 years for short term economic advantage of a single state. That's an irresponsible position for a candidate for President to take. It would mean thumbing our noses at the EU countries which are willing to make dramatic cuts if the US is willing to join them. What kind of leadership is that? And for what gain? So he can preserve his support in Illinois?
9. Virtually all of the legislation he has proposed is a zero. He talks about compromise to get things done and his bills reflect that. The problem is that the reason both sides agree is that neither side has to change. So in his "Health for Hybrids" bill, he's willing to pay the healthcare costs for US auto makers, but he's unwilling to require them to produce more hybrids or improve their fuel economy. He just requires that the fuel economy not get worse. That's not forward progress. It's spending billions of taxpayer dollars to get nothing done. He's simply betting that nobody is going to actually read the legislation. The full analysis talks in detail about this bill and his other bills. It's the same story. There are so many escape clauses in his bills that nobody has to change. For example, on another bill, his bill to raise fuel economy standards, the Sierra Club's analysis of Obama's bill concluded that is was virtually useless. Is that what we need in this country? A President who proposes legislation that gets nothing done?
10. I confirmed my conclusion that he's not a leader when he responded to a question I asked him at one of his events. I asked him why it took him 4 months to sign on to Sanders-Boxer, the "gold standard" climate change bill. He said there were two reasons: 1) he was already signed on to the (weaker) McCain-Lieberman bill and 2) he didn't think Sanders-Boxer could pass and he doesn't sign on to bills if it is only symbolic. In other words, he just told me point blank to my face: "I AM NOT A LEADER on climate change issues." You see, a real leader takes a stand in the public interest and then works hard to shift opinion to supporting that stand. A real leader would recognize this bill as the most important bill in the Senate and sign on immediately and then he'd go around and try to convince other Senators of the importance of the bill and encourage them to sign on. In short, leaders take positions, then convince others. Instead, Obama left the all leadership to Senator Boxer. And he signed on silently. No press release. He's never even emailed his supporters to ask them to urge their Senators to co-sponsor this critical bill. He still hasn't. So the most important issue that civilization has ever faced, global warming, is just not important to him.
11. Like Clinton, he signed on to the Sanders-Boxer bill after a dozen Senators had already signed on. If you are serious about being a leader global warming, you don't wait 4 months on a bill supported by every major environmental group and called the "gold standard" of climate change bills. And if you do sign on, you don't sign on silently like he did.
12. Can you name one thing that Obama has accomplished that impressed you?

Edwards

1. Edwards is the most electable Democrat, i.e., polls show consistently that he wins by the widest margin against all likely Republican challengers. For example, see John Edwards Does It Again and An Ohio electability boost for Edwards. This is reason enough alone to vote for him. Democrats, if they thought about it for a second, should vote for the candidate who has the best chance of beating any Republican, rather than the Democrat that they "prefer" the most. That candidate is Edwards. He's our best shot at winning the White House. So unless you know something about Edwards that makes him completely unacceptable to you, if you want to ensure Democratic control of the White House, supporting Edwards is your best bet. From a recent voter survey:

Clinton beats the Republicans by an average of 7.00%
Obama beats the Republicans by an average of 9.00%
Edwards beats the Republicans by an average of 15.66%

2. Rasmussen Reports on September 14, 2007 concludes: "When the views of all voters are considered, all of the candidates earn mixed reviews. Edwards has the highest favorables among all candidates at the moment with 51%." Note that is candidates from both parties and voters from all parties. So Edwards is the most electable. Look at that report very carefully. Look at the margins of victory for Clinton vs. Giuliani and Clinton v. Thompson. Then look at the same number for Edwards vs. those same top Republicans. See how the margin of victory is greater if the Democrats nominate Edwards than Clinton? For the greatest chance of winning the White House, Edwards is the Democrat's best choice.
3. Look at the favorable/unfavorable ratings of each candidate over time below (the latest is in bold). We should nominate the candidate with the highest favorable and the lowest unfavorable. Edwards wins on both. He has the highest favorable and the lowest unfavorable:
Hillary Clinton 49/48 50/48 45/54 47/50 49/49 49/49 49/50
Barack Obama 48/45 48/42 47/45 50/43 46/47 49/45 47/45
John Edwards 54/39 52/42 49/46 48/44 52/41 52/41 51/41
4. He's a leader. Look at the same Iraq war funding vote for example example. While the other two candidates voted silently and refused to tell people where they stood on whether to fund the war in Iraq, Edwards was repeatedly urging his followers to tell their Members of Congress to vote against giving Bush the money to keep the war going. Edwards was outspoken in his opposition to the war and the need to cut the funding. The other two candidates were silent. It is a stunning example of the huge leadership difference between Edwards and the other two top candidates. If you want someone who will lead us out of Iraq, Edwards should be your choice.
5. He's the boldest on the issues. Unlike for the other candidates, his proposals can actually achieve the goals he talks about. Contrast that with Clinton where she is afraid to communicate her plans.
6. Edwards said that the first day he is sworn in, he will submit legislation to the Congress that says that if they don't pass Universal health care by July 20th, then the President, the Congress and all appointees will lose their health care. Know any other candidate who has the guts to do that? This way, Members of Congress will get a chance to experience what 45 million Americans experience.
7. First candidate to call for an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
8. First candidate to make his campaign carbon neutral.
9. Edwards won the MoveOn TownHall on climate change with 33% of the total vote. This is twice as many votes as his nearest opponent.
10. Grist.org says Edward's plan on climate change is "far and away the strongest, most comprehensive climate and energy plan among the three Democratic front-runners"
11. He has a plan for universal healthcare. The others don't.
12. Unlike Clinton and Obama, he was in favor of the Kerry-Feingold Amendment in 2006 that would have set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
13. Unlike Clinton and Obama, Edwards refused to endorse Lieberman. He went further: Edwards was the first major Democrat to come campaign for Lamont who was against the war in Iraq.
14. He's not going to negotiate what's in the public interest. He makes a huge point of this in his speeches.
15. People who know him personally all tell me he is the most honest politician they've ever known. These references are from people who are top Democratic fundraisers who know just about everyone. Also, Edwards is the same way "off camera" as "on camera." So what you see is really how he is.
16. He was the first candidate to meet with the heads of the top environmental groups to talk about global warming. They all came away impressed with his commitment to take the steps needed to tackle the problem and agreed that he clearly understood the urgency.
17. He's the only candidate with clear priorities. Look at his home page. There is a "To Do" list that clearly lists his top issues, in priority order.
18. Global warming is his #1 priority. He says it and it on his home page. Nobody else has clear priorities and nobody else has global warming as the #1 priority. Trust me on this...he's absolutely right to make it our top priority. Our survival depends on it.
19. Although Edwards did vote originally to authorize the Iraq war, he was opposed to the war but was "talked into" making that decision. Unlike Clinton, he has apologized for making that mistake. Also, from the experience, he has learned to trust his gut more than his advisors.

About the research that I did

Global warming is the most important problem our civilization has ever faced. It must be solved during this President's term. This is the most important vote you will ever make. We can't afford to get it wrong this time.

So I felt I needed to do my homework because I was very confused as to who I should support. So in May of 2007, I started as an undecided voter and I spent about a month pouring over the voting records, legislation, statements, policies, actions, responses to my questions, and impressions of others who know the candidates. I wrote up nearly 40 pages of analysis with references, but that's too long for most people to read, so I summarized it here.

What I found was that John Edwards was the only candidate who has a good chance of moving our country forward. Clinton and Obama would make people feel good, but would get little to nothing accomplished.

The detailed research links are in the section above. A lot of my research focused on global warming and Iraq. I choose those issue because they are critically important. By analyzing the candidates actions in-depth with respect to these two issues, you get an excellent sense of how they would perform on other issues.

My experience has been that if you look at what the candidates did prior to the start of the primaries as well as early in the primaries, you'll get the most accurate picture of how they will perform in office if elected. The closer you get to the primary, the more useless and noisy the data becomes. My analysis, even though it was done in May, is extremely accurate. The data that I found was very consistent for each candidate. As a result of the consistency, I am very confident that what I concluded is an accurate reflection of how each candidate would perform as President. Others who have looked closely at the records of the top 3 candidates have come to the same conclusion I have.

My criteria for who would make the "best" President might be different than yours. You may vote for a candidate because you like them or because you think they have the most experience or because you think they are "more presidential." I don't do that and I don't think you should either. We have some very very tough problems to solve. I wanted to find out who would do the best job in solving these problems. That was my criteria. That is what matters.

And your decision is absolutely critical. If this President does not take dramatic action on global warming, we will pass a climate tipping point over the next 8 years at which point climate change is a runaway train, beyond our ability to stop it (we can only slow it). At the current rate, according to the IPCC, there is a good chance that human beings will be extinct or nearly extinct in less than 100 years. See my analysis of how it will end for details. So you must choose the right candidate if we are to avoid this. We need someone who has the best chance of winning against any Republican challenger and who has the best chance of taking extremely serious actions to stop global warming. There is only one candidate I found that meets both tests: John Edwards.

The analysis was limited to the top 3 candidates due to the limited time I had to do this (a month) and because it is extremely unlikely that another other candidate can win.

Finally, based on my definition of leadership, Bush does exhibit some key leadership skills. For example, even though there was no solid evidence of a threat, Bush convinced Congress to allow him to invade Iraq. That is a pretty amazing feat of leadership. Bush's main problem is he makes lousy decisions. Just think what would happen to America if Bush used the same dogged determination he has in fighting terrorism into achieving energy independence and stopping global warming? So he exhibits leadership because he takes positions that he (incorrectly) thinks are best for the country and then gets others to tow the line even when they disagree with him. It's just that Bush makes boneheaded decisions, ignores science, twists the facts, and he leads us in the complete opposite direction that we should be going. Overall, he's a terrible leader; he flunks every single one of the nine C's of great leaders spelled out in Iacocca's "Where have all the leaders gone?" book (as Iacocca himself points out in the book).
A final thought

Global warming is a critical problem and unfortunately none of the candidates above adequately address it (Edwards being the closest by a long shot, but still not good enough). If you find a candidate for President who can articulate the following three points and proposes policies to accomplish them without escape clauses, then you are truly lucky and you've found the person who should be our next President:

1. We must adopt an aggressive greenhouse gas emission goal by 2020 which is at least as good as what the EU countries are already willing to do (which is a 20% cut from 1990 levels by 2020) and have policies that are necessary and sufficient to realistically achieve the goal.
2. We must provide regulations or incentives to clean up the power grid as soon as possible so that our power generation is near zero emissions
3. The cheapest way to power our vehicles is also the cleanest: we must plug-in the transportation, e.g., encourage or require the production and purchase of full performance battery electric vehicles (FPBEV) and plug-in PHEVs with a large all electric range (AER).

For more information

Who would make the best President? (Summary)
I take one specific example, the Iraq war funding vote, and analyze the candidates based on their actions on this critical vote to end the Iraq war. I guarantee that you'll be absolutely amazed at the differences and they are crystal clear in this example and there are no excuses.

Who would make the best President?
The full analysis. Long and covers a lot of issues, but worth reading if you have the time. Full of references to source material that backs up the analysis.

Comparing the top 3 Democratic candidates
A summary chart of the pros and cons of the top 3 candidates in my view

How it will end
This article describes the irreversible consequences of our failure to choose the right person for President.

Betsy's blog
If you don't believe me, check out what Betsy has to say (and if you know who she is, please tell me!).

-----------------
About the author

Steve Kirsch is a philanthropist and entrepreneur based in San Jose, CA. He is CEO of Abaca, an anti-spam company. He has donated millions of dollars to environmental and world safety issues.

Email: stk@ propel.com.
Phone: 650-279-1008

http://skirsch.com/politics/president/co mparison.htm

Two Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Awards in a row for DonVila


Well DonVila just hit two homeruns in a row. Congratulations, DonVila for sharing the enthusiasm and spirit of the John Edwards' campaign for president.


Two Time Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award



Two gorgeous days in New Hampshire

user icon DonVila in Quick Posts Feed of
9/27/2007 at 9:41 PM EST

Reposted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/27/164658/711

This is the Thursday post on my local blog Progressives, South Bend which summarizes the arc of energy behind the Campaign To Change America.

Today and yesterday in New Hampshire have been gorgeous for The Campaign To Change America.

I was contacted early in the week to be involved in a conference call ahead of Wednesday's debate with John Edward's campaign strategists. It wasn't just them and me to be sure - but I gather there were less than 200 of us across the country on this call. How did I rate this special treatment? Not for much, I would say. I am a captain in our local One Corps chapter - along with Dustin Blythe. He and I have certainly put effort into the campaign. But I think we were invited because we identified ourselves as wanting to make a difference. That really seems to be enough.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am a political junkie, and this is the first campaign I have been absolutely fired up about. I now understand evangelism. So...

The call was so cool. We didn't hear from unknown operatives. Instead, the first speaker was none other than David Bonior, the campaign chair. I'm sure most of you know the Hon. David Bonior, former House Majority Whip from Michigan as a tireless supporter of progressive causes for decades. What you may not know is that he holds his position with the Edwards campaign (unpaid), despite his determination to retire from politics. The mood that surrounds this campaign is that it's finally time to do something!

We got a real clear idea of the strategy and our assets in the first four states. A couple things that stood out was that although Senators Clinton and Obama have spent over 4 million dollars on television ads in Iowa recently, our lead in the polls had not diminished. The second thing that caught my attention was that Senator Edwards had quietly accumulated more African American elected official endorsements in South Carolina than Clinton and Obama combined.

So, John Edwards has real strength in three of the four early states - strong union support in Nevada - but New Hampshire seems challenging. Enter two gorgeous days.

In the debate at Dartmouth, he looked like The President. He was calm, clear and unflappable. No analyst I heard claimed anything less than a fantastic outing for him. None.

So, how do you follow that? Today, he was at the University of New Hampshire for a MySpace/MTV dialogue. There was a large audience on site, but many people - including me - watched online. The online viewers were offered the opportunity to rate his responses to individual questions and eventually his overall responses.

He did pretty well. In the end, the overall favorable vote was roughly 93%.

I love the smell of democracy - it smells like victory.


Don Wheeler

Thursday, September 27, 2007

DonVila's "The Campaign To Change America has changed this American" receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award



The Campaign To Change America has changed this American

Reposted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/26/134626/195#12

user icon DonVila in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/26/2007 at 8:33 PM EST

This is the text of my commentary which will be aired by our local NPR station, WVPE next week - my third, so far.

(This is an amazing opportunity for an average person to weigh in. Most of these stations welcome citizen participation).

What I have to say is directed to people who think of themselves as progressives or liberals or lefties... Conservative listeners may want to click off their radios for a couple of minutes, or maybe fire up the ol' food processor. Go ahead, I'll give you a second.

OK, for those of you still listening, I want to say that we have an opportunity I haven't seen before and don't think will come again - at least in my lifetime, and I'm 51.

We can support the candidate for President who proposes the things we'd actually like to see happen. We can listen carefully to their positions and plans..analyze and criticize... And then what we absolutely must do is put real energy not just into that person's campaign - but into his or her vision (and hopefully your own) of what could be.

The reason I'm satisfied we have this luxury, is that people who tend not to pay much attention to the federal government's conduct are so ticked at the current goons of the Executive Branch, that they are quite open to listening to other approaches. But don't kid yourself, if we elect the "safe" candidate who doesn't want to rock the boat too much, those folks will note the minor improvement and shift their focus back to their personal situations. And the opportunity will have been lost.

No, this is a rare opportunity indeed.

Anyone who knows me, (or probably) even had a brief conversation with me knows who I support. But I'm not here to tout my candidate or the campaign so much as to tell you what being involved has done for me and how it's changed me.

Backing up a bit, because of the availability of information via the internet, it's now possible to know an amazing amount about a person running for President. In my case, I know more about my candidate than I've known about all the people running for office I've voted for in the past combined. And if you like what you find out, that can give you a lot of confidence in your candidate.

My candidate's campaign has an umbrella social action organization, and late last winter I made contact with the local chapter. Before I knew it, I was a captain of the chapter. We've been involved with food drives, peace demonstrations, health care advocacy, home repair for needy citizens and similar activities.

My candidate's blog is very open to supporters (and detractors for that matter) and eventually I started posting. That went pretty well, and since the campaign encourages local action, I later got the idea of starting my own blog - Progressives, South Bend. I call it a forum to promote and discuss social action issues, ideas and events in the Michiana area. That's exactly what I hope it will become, and I'm pleased to note I've gotten some nice reviews even though I'm pretty new at the whole business.

The way I see it is that those of us who think everyone should have health care, that we've no business in Iraq, that it's unconscionable that 37 million fellow citizens live a mean existence must take this rare opportunity to weigh in on these matters and be serious about effecting change. Find who you think has the best ideas, support that candidate and try to get those ideas happening - here. I've had a chance to do some of that and it sure feels good. Don't calculate, don't triangulate - support the person you think has the best plans.
Because there is a value beyond the Presidential race - though, I'm sure you can tell I believe it to be supremely important. My candidate and his campaign have energized me into real citizenship, and I believe this effect will last well into the future for me. I wish that for you as well. It feels good.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it this way - There comes a time, for all of us, when silence is a betrayal. Ghandi, whom he admired said this - We have to be the change we want to see in the world.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Don Wheeler
Writer/Editor
Progressives, South Bend

Paul Cigno, recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for "Bear with me on this!"



Recipient of Karita Hummer's silver Pen Award

(Paul Cigno and I are members of SCV 4 Edwards and when he wrote this to me, I thought it was really a great analysis and I wanted to share it for the blogosphere! Karita Hummer)



SCV4Edwards



Bear with me on this



I have a video from Crooks and Liars where GOP smearmeister Frank Luntz interviews a group of conservatives from New Hampshire last night after the Republican debate. None of them were impressed with it, in fact the only person that came out a some kind of a winner among them was John McCain.

Please read the rest of this post and then follow this link:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/fox_debate_voters.mov

What does what I've written above have to do with John Edwards? The thing that they liked about McCain was that they saw him as informed and 'concise' (you can nearly make a drinking game out of all the times you'll hear that word in this video). Well, that describes John, it's the thing that probably drew most of us to him in the first
place. He says what he is going to do and we trust him to walk the talk. He's standing up for his values and is clear on the course he wants to take, he's not running on style points.

Edwards is the real deal as he sticks his neck out when he says that we need politically regulate and limit the same corporate influences such as Goldman Sachs whom he consulted for in 2005 and to make them pay their fair share in taxes to help out with our health care system (hopefully paying less then what they do now for providing that same service). He tries to create a conversation among Americans about what it is that they really want. He projects real leadership.

The upshot of this post is that all across America, this is what people are looking for and Edwards has been all about a leading a united America from back in 2003. I think that more than a few conservatives may well be ready to get on board with someone who truly proposes change, even if it means trying a new approach to things. We had an era where we saw Reagan Democrats become GOP faithful (in a way, I was part of that myself). I say we are just as likely to create a generation of Edwards conservatives. Watch the video and tell me if it doesn't sound like these people are pining for the kind of leader whom they may even be willing to change their world view for.



Paul,

You are so right on the money here!! Absolutely, Edwards has a knack for reaching across divides, even with progressive programs, because of his genuinenss and how he speaks to the common heart in all of us. Great thinking and excelelnt strategizing. This is what we need. Elizabeth Edwards spoke of this phenomenon, that when Americans were asked who was more conservative, Edwards or the other candidates, they answered Edwards! Interesting. I feel like Reagan Democrats are coming home and that is Edwards populism and anti-corruption and anti-cronyism that is catching their attention.

Keep up the good thinking, Paul.

Karita

Monday, September 24, 2007

Saje Williams, Repeat Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for, "My Ultimate Issue with Hillary Clinton"




Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




My ultimate issue with Hillary Clinton


Reposted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/23/4858/74835

user icon Saje Williams in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/23/2007 at 3:46 PM EST

In a nutshell, I don't think she has the vision to be the leader we need in this coming time of tribulation. We face some staggering challenges, not only as a nation, but as a species, and nothing she has said or done in the past several years tells me that she's the kind of person who can rise to the occasion and be the person we need to lead not only us, but the rest of the world, into a harrowing and uncertain future.

We need a visionary--someone who can see and seek ways to implement desperately needed changes in the way we look at things and the way we do things...someone who isn't beholden to the status quo, who doesn't necessarily believe that the way things are done now is the way forward.

I see in other candidates the signs of having that kind of vision. Both John Edwards and Barack Obama have shown more than a glimmer of it. But I'm almost certain that Hillary Clinton is not the visionary we need.

John F. Kennedy was such a visionary. He foresaw a day when we would walk on the moon and, though he did not live to see it, that came about just as he said it would. That is the kind of vision we need now...though we need a different direction than that.

We need a direction that takes us towards energy independence, learning to adapt our lives to the pressures of global climate change, and away from the wars spawned by the mistakes of our past. We need not a "Third Way" but a "New Way."

We need to reach out and embrace what hope we can through burgeoning technologies. New discoveries and developments in energy production and storage, medicine and genetic engineering, and nanotechnology. These are the pillars of hope in this new millenia's threshold on which we crouch.

We need a leader who can see what might be and can help forge a path to what can be. Someone not rooted entirely in the past, but capable of gazing into the future.

There is hope for us, despite the dread certainty of some people as to our fate. But only if the United States reclaims its role as the home of those who challenge the future, as we once did. We can, but we have to find the will to do it, and choose the right person to be our standard bearer into this new century and new millenia.

All politics aside...I don't think that person is Hillary Rodham Clinton. And that's too bad, because there is nothing saying the person we need couldn't be a woman.

Just not that woman.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

SDRippe receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for his post, "The 44th Endorses John Edwards"




Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award




The 44th Endorses John Edwards

user icon SDRippe in Diaries Feed of SDRippe's Diary
9/23/2007 at 9:41 AM EST

Posted from John Edwards Blog on diaries

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/23/9410/07934#13

(Original post at www.the44th.blogspot.com)

John Edwards should be the next President of the United States.

If you're really paying attention to the Democratic field -- if you're consuming more than sound bites and headlines; if you take the time to read policy proposals; if you can find a way to get beyond the media's short-sighted obsession with Clinton and Obama -- it's clear than only one candidate has clearly thought through the challenges and obstacles currently facing our country.

What strikes me most about the former Senator from North Carolina is not his sweeping health care reform proposal, not his honest mea cupla on Iraq, not his new education initiative, and not his undying attention to "fringe" issues of poverty and the governmental failings of hurricane Katrina -- although each of those issues has been thoughtfully crafted by Edwards into positive policy. No, what really sets him apart is that unlike the remainder of the field, John Edwards doesn't just want to be president. He wants to be an agent of change. He wants to put more emphasis on the solution than on the problem. He wants to fix a broken government dominated by money and influence and elected officials on the take.

John Edwards, it seems to me, wants to be the president that history regards as the Franklin Roosevelt of the new century -- the person who, against all odds and against a backdrop of bitter division, can reengage the average American in the political realm.

I don't feel that from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I have no doubt that each wants to be president. But I don't believe either wants to exact change.

I've watched politics -- closely -- all of my adult life, usually with a sense of hope and inspiration. But today, I am cynical. And that cynicism extends beyond my disdain for the self-serving policies of the GOP. I am equally unhappy with the Democratic party and its inability (or unwillingness) to make any appreciable progress on the largest issues of the day since regaining a majority last November. My party has let me down, and I think I know why.

You can search the Democratic party through and through, and not find a true leader willing to risk an ounce of political capital for the sake of truth. You may find dozens and dozens of speechified orators who talk a good game, but who ultimately stand idly by while the current president spins the country into its weakest state in decades. You will not find any current congressman or governor who inspires anything other than the status quo.

John Edwards inspires me. He gives me hope that no matter how shattered our political system is today, he can rally the country behind a solution. He makes me believe (and this isn't easy) that a new day in American discourse is on the horizon -- that in the not so distant future, we might set aside partisanship in favor of progress. John Edwards gives me confidence that we can do something, instead of just talk endlessly about why we disagree.

From the day John Edwards announced his candicacy -- when he said, in effect, that it was irresponsible to wait for the election to actually induce action -- it was clear that this campaign would be not be politics as usual. Since then, he has dared to bring to the forefront issues that other candidates would rather keep in the periphery. He has, as many journalists have rightfully noted, set the agenda for the Democratic party, and he has done so forcefully and eloquently.

There was a time early on in this campaign when the media still paid attention to people not named Hillary. That's no longer the case. Clinton has been annointed the Democratic nominee by the folks who write our newspapers and edit our TV news. And so you'll have to dig a little deeper if you really want to learn what the other candidates stand for. But that, I believe, is our duty as voters.

I can tell you that many of the early primary/caucus states aren't listening to the media. In those states, where Edwards has spent appreciable time, folks don't call him "populist." They just call him honest. And if honesty and populism are synonymous, maybe there's more hope than I thought.

Between now and Iowa, I will continue to put my money and my time behind John Edwards. More than that, I will put my faith in him...not just for The 44th, but for the sake of generations to come.

If Karl Rove wants to know where his Emails went, he might ask Greg Palast













Dialogue between Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast on 2004 election

user icon Karita Hummer in Diaries Feed of Karita Hummer's Diary
9/23/2007 at 6:02 PM EST

Air America, Ring of Fire produced a production of a dialogue between Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Greg Palast on Caging and the 2004 election, regarding news of an election story not covered previously in America.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/162.html

Why does American media not cover the news? Why is possible American election fraud news only fit to print or air in Europe and Asia?

The Fourth Estate has fallen down on the job, big time, with regard to elections and campaigns? Influence of money, you say? I say!

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

Thursday, September 20, 2007

"ideas, change, jobs, sustainability, energy " by Fr4naki receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award





Reposted from John Edwards blog.



http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/19/235415/333


Get a Job, Help Your Neighbor, Save the World

user icon Fr4naki in Quick Posts Feed of
9/20/2007 at 10:13 AM EST

Here on the left side of the county, the sun has just disappeared and there's a tantalizing chill in the air. A chill that promises spiced cider and pumkins and a glorious showy display of falling leaves--and fear.

I am one of the lucky ones, I know. I'm a single mom but went to college at 35 and after $26K in loans, got out of the service sector and into public employ. Three years ago I used my VA benefit to buy my first home, no money down, an old 1900 farm house that my small town has grown around. She's a wonderful summer house, tall ceilings and tall windows, situated to catch the best of the Pacific breezes but she's also a pretty serious fixer-upper, original, single paned windows, 40-year old roof, sagging foundation, no furnace.

In the summer, my job just makes ends meet and me and the kiddo dig and putter in the yard, throw on some paint, chase the dog. In the summer we live the high life, no extravagancies but enough. We are, like many of you, a paycheck away from disaster but as my paycheck comes in and disappears, I push that thought away. I go and weed.

But in the winter, oh in the winter my summer sweetheart is bitterly cold. An old gas fireplace insert was put on a shelf in our living room and it weakly burns through a fortune in gas and electric each month. On cold days, our house will not reach 55 degrees. Nights are brutal. We close off rooms and layer on sweats and sweaters and huddle under blankets. We can't pour hot liquids into our glass mugs as they will explode. On terribly cold days I run a space heater by the pipes in the basement--I couldn't afford a plumber if the cold caused them to burst. I've just managed the last two years to cover the $470 bill each month to keep the gas and electricity on. This year, I think I will need a second job to keep from losing control of this balancing act.

I don't think of the season ahead and yearn for family get-togethers, holiday parties, Christmas. Instead I wonder if this year, these expenses will cause me to lose my home. I lie in my cold room at night afraid and I know I am not alone.

Across the country millions of living wage jobs have been "outsourced" by greedy corporations who then get our tax dollars to subsidize this destruction. Why not put our friends and neighbors, researchers, machinists and craftsmen to work developing and helping communities install solar and wind systems to help heat and power their homes? Why not use some of the billions of dollars of graft to establish research and training and apprenticeship programs? Get teachers involved and get kids excited with innovative hands on science education. Put people to work, designing and manufacturing the systems, doing installation on old homes and retrofitting new construction? Why not subsidize all of it?

We can save our neighbors from having to choose between food and energy costs. We can save our workers from unemployment or the mind-numbing exhaustion of holding several service jobs to make ends meet. We can build a whole new industry NOT predicated on the destruction of our environment but on the protection of it. And when we run out of homes and businesses to retrofit we can export this industry; we can send our experts into developing nations so their growth does not have to follow the same polluting path as our own.

I admit I have a selfish interest in this; I would feel no pity whatsoever if something I did made a dent in the record profits these utilities post year after year after year while those who cannot afford their "services" freeze to death or die of heat exhaustion. We desperately need change. We need jobs and new sustainable industries. We need to regain our national pride, our reputation as good and responsible people. No private company is going to fill this void. It's time for US to again be the conscientious, benevolent world citizens that our privilege demands...not the bloated, ignorantly maniacal robber baron we are now seen to be by the rest of the world community.

It's not a new idea and it's not an idea that will make anyone rich--unless you count the richness of a compassionate community, the richness of security and safety in your home and knowing that someone hears you, that you are not left to stand or to fall, with no one to care.

That richness is what is missing in America today. It's gotten lost, in the endless lobbying and trading of influence and the dismantling of a social contract in favor of system by the rich and for the rich and the rest of us be damned.

I see that richness in John and Elizabeth and damned if I don't feel hopeful again about this country, about all of you, hopeful about the future.

So there's one idea...I know they want to hear yours. Think big America, think with your hearts, not with some stingy, greedy patriotic individualism, dream. And share those dreams with John Edwards. I think he's listening and I think he's dreaming too...

take care...and stay warm.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for "Patriotism: A Half-educated Old Milk-woman And A Ph. D. Scholar " by asaiyed777




Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award






Reposted from John Edwards blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/19/2921/82846#7

Patriotism: A Half-educated Old Milk-woman And A Ph. D. Scholar
asaiyed777 in Diaries
9/19/2007 at 2:09 AM EST

This is a true story. I started hearing it from my dad when I was about twelve years old and heard it over fifty times on different occasions, as I saw him telling other people. And eventually one day, I read the original book from where he quoted the story.

It was a chronicle by a Bengali Language Professor of Dhaka University, Bangladesh. He did his Ph. D from either Oxford or Cambridge, I don't exactly remember. He chronicled his stay in England when he was a Ph. D. scholar and later published in a Book named "Seven Hundred And Fifty Days In England". He wrote his daily events so interestingly that it turned out to be a popular novel. I am writing about one of the events that he wrote and it goes like this:

And old lady was delivering milk to him and she found in him a good listener. So, whenever she delivered milk, she stopped for few moments and talked to him. Over time, they built a good rapport and it was going like that. However, one day the lady told him that she wouldn't be coming to deliver milk anymore from the next day. He wondered, "Why"? The old lady said price of milk went up and her milk delivery business would be no more profitable. So, she was bound to give up. It came right off his mouth as he heard, " Why not add some water to the milk and sell? Then you will be able keep your margin". The old lady looked at him straight in the eyes and asked, " Do you want that I spoil my nation's health"? The Ph. D. scholar then wrote in his chronicle, " I am an elite of my country doing Ph. D. here and expect to go back after obtaining my degree and teach, whereas what a teaching that half-educated lady gave me today: "Do you want that I spoil my nation's health"? This is a true story happened about fifty years ago.

Fifty years later, here in America we need to think about the safety of foods. Imported Foods. Foods that are getting some people more profits and more margins.

Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for "Labors 2 cents" by IBEWDENNIS





Recipient of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award







"Go, John, go!"










Reprinted from John Edwards blog


http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/18/111621/050#15

Labors 2 cents
IBEWDENNIS in Action
9/18/2007 at 8:32 PM EST


Go John GO!
I drove from Kansas to hear all of the candidates at the Harkin Steak Fry. Wake up organized labor, John Edwards is the real deal! No more corporate democrats! Lets take back OUR country. I challege every union member to donate an hours wage this month. Round it up to the nearest dollar and add two cents so the campaign knows this came from hard working UNION families. In the words of Gompers...WE WANT MORE!
Lets' get busy!
IBEW Dennis

Sunday, September 16, 2007

"Video: John Edwards at the Sizzling Hot Harkin Steak Fry!" by NCDem Amy receives Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award






Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


user icon NCDem Amy in Quick Posts Feed of
9/16/2007 at 10:56 PM EST

Reposted from John Edwards blog

Video: John Edwards at the Sizzling Hot Harkin Steak Fry!


Over 12,000 Iowa Democrats from across the state gathered to meet the Democratic Presidential candidates. The Harkin Steak Fry is a historic event that both people on the ground and netrooters participate in. John Deeth of the Iowa Independent offers an interesting look at previous Steak Frys noting some of the most memborable moments.

Watch Senator Edwards' Speech here:

Part 1 http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/16/225628/952

Part 2 http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/16/225628/952

John Edwards Fires Up the Crowd!

The event kicked off with Senator Tom Harkin delivering the introductory remarks, stating that we need "bold plans" to end the war in Iraq, end global warming, create universal healthcare and stated that, "we will have a Democratic President in the White House!"

John Edwards, the Presidential candidate who is leading in the polls in Iowa, was welcomed by a huge crowd of supporters. Thousands of Iowa voters filled out the "Change Coin" form and entered a contest being held by the Edwards for President campaign whereby the winner will have the opportunity to meet one on one with Elizabeth Edwards. The first edition of the "Edwards Extra" which was distributed to Iowans, provided some real meat and substance on the issues.

Edwards spoke passionately about how our country needs "big change." Edwards addressed a number of issues, including his plan to end the war in Iraq, end global warming, create truly Universal Health Care for All Americans and ending ecomomic disparity in the U.S.


On the Iraq war, Edwards stated that "a mandate has been issued by the American people, to force this president to change course in Iraq, hold his feet to the fire." He went on to demand that "Every single funding bill should have a timetable for withdrawl. If he [Bush] vetoes then send him another..."

Edwards talked about his plan to end global warming which includes capping greenhouse gas pollution starting in 2010 with a cap-and-trade system, and reducing it by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

On Univeral Health Care, Edwards laid out how an Edwards Administration would fund health care for all, explaining that he'd roll back Bush's tax cuts for those who earn over $200,000. A supporter in the crowd shouted, “Power to the People!” as Edwards talked about how we cannot negotiate with the corporate lobbyists, those who are preventing us from having Universal HealthCare stating, “I don’t want to replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats.”

Edwards, who currently holds the largest bloc of union members' endorsements of any candidate, stated that we must strengthen the right of unions to organize and referred to the labor movement as the "greatest anti- poverty movement."

Edwards closed his speech with a moving account of how he and Elizabeth came to the decision to commit to what he called, “the cause of our lives” asking the voters in Iowa, “When you make that decision, trust your heart.




John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.

Reposted from John Edwards blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/16/42429/6551

Republican and Democratic Political Machines: undemocratic and unfair

user icon Karita Hummer in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/16/2007 at 4:38 PM EST

John Edwards, Standing up to corruption, cronyism and modern day money changers.

Among the most inspiring elements in the John Edwards campaign is his insistence on the reigning in of Lobbyist influence and putting the brakes on corruption, cronyism and insider influence and unfair bottom line practices by some corporations to the detriment of the common good (such as outsourcing, tax shelters, unfair loans. bankruptcy, pollution, etc..)

When I heard him speak last December in Santa Clara, before he declared his candidacy, John Edwards rightly said that it wouldn't due to trade unfair Republican election practices with Democratic election practices that kept the status quo. In other words, in all things, be as principled in our own matters as we expect of the Republicans in theirs.

The corruption, cronyism and rampant favoritism to certain corporations in the Bush Administration is almost without parallel in the history of our national politics. The Bush/Cheney/Rovian political machine has been incomparably efficient in only two areas, putting cronies in place and keeping Republican criticism and nay defection to a bare minimum, and they have been mean-spirited and ruthless. It's as if the ghost of old Tammany Hall (New York City) descended in the White House and took hold throughout government on a national level.

But, if we really want reform, if we really want the common good to be the new bottom line for America, like John Edwards says, we can not trade their corrupt machine for ours. We must rid the Democratic Party of its own tendencies toward machine politics, corruption, cronyism, and the money changers in our government - including no nights in the Lincoln Bedroom for high rollers orchestrated by Republican or Democratic machines.

Enough is enough - of the lobbyists and campaign finance high rollers/money changers in our government. Squeaky clean, fair and transparent is the way to go.

This is how Wikipedia describes a political machine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine

"A political machine is an unofficial system of a political organization based on patronage, the spoils system, "behind-the-scenes" control, and longstanding political ties within the structure of a representative democracy. Machines sometimes have a boss, and always have a long-term corps of dedicated workers who depend on the patronage generated by government contracts and jobs. Machine politics has existed in many United States cities, especially between about 1875 and 1950, but continuing in some cases down to the present day. It is also common (under the name clientelism or political clientelism) in Latin America, especially in rural areas, and also in some African states and other emerging democracies, like postcommunist Eastern European countries. Japan's Liberal Democratic Party is often cited as another political machine, maintaining power in suburban and rural areas through its control of farm bureaus and road construction agencies. (American Journey, 2005)

The key to a political machine is patronage: holding public office implies the ability to do favors (and also the ability to profit from graft). Political machines generally steer away from issue-based politics, favoring a quid pro quo (something for something) with certain aspects of a barter economy or gift economy: the patron or "boss" does favors for the constituents, who then vote as they are told to. Sometimes this system of favors is supplemented by threats of violence or harassment toward those who attempt to step outside of it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_m achine

While political machine approaches do have their admirers (it gets work done efficiently, so some say), by and large, the systems are stifling, reduce creativity and increase a sense of dis-empowerment in the governed. Such systems are usually antithetical to participatory democracy.

I grew up as a child in Pittsburgh,PA. Machine politics was part and parcel of the political fare for the community. It felt oppressive and authoritarian and corrupt. It wasn't until Pete Flaherty was elected Mayor of Pittsburgh, PA, in 1969 did one feel a sense of real citizen empowerment and potential.

And get this, about Pete Flaherty, now deceased, who stood up to the Democratic machine of the city of that era:

"Mr. Flaherty, though outspent by a margin of more than 4 to 1, nonetheless cruised to a landslide victory in the 1969 election, launching an administration that would permanently transform Pittsburgh government." By James O'Toole, "Obituary: Pete Flaherty dies at 80, Former mayor and county commissioner", Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05109/490 421.stm

So, did you catch that number, outspent by a margin of 4 to 1. (OK, everyone, remember those numbers and take heart!)

So, what am I getting at. I guess it's quite obvious that I am concerned about the seemingly machine like approach to Hillary Clinton's campaign, which would seem to translate in to the type of governance one could expect from her (if she could even get elected which I highly do doubt). The feeling I have about this is based on her attitude toward lobbyist campaign money and other high roller money (even from Murdoch), her seeming inability listen to people and her sense of entitlement to the presidency, based on her insider status.
Altogether, it gives me a feeling of authoritarianism and elitism, that feels antithetical to our best principles in the Party.

We don't need Machine Politics, from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We do need a Democrat who can stand up to the corrupting influences in our government today and say, "No, we aren't going to do business that way anymore. We are going to have a new bottom line, which is the common good - and there is no compromising on that."

That Democrat is John Edwards.

Defense of Lobbyists is old politics and throwing the money changers out is new politics. We need reform for our Country and reform for our Party. The old way doesn't work.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for Every American should be asking: by jco11111





Winner of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award


Every American should be asking:

Reposted from John Edwards Blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/15/114926/062

user icon jco11111 in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/15/2007 at 11:49 AM EST
How can I help? How can I help elect an Administration that will promote ideas not ideology? How can I help elect an administration that will raise the level of political discourse not label those who disagree as traitors. As Americans we are saddened by the current operational and readiness state of our Army and the persistent evolutionary downward trend over these past seven years. This is not about Soldiership - this is about leadership. Our brave men and women in the military have served with honor and distinction. They have accomplished every mission that has been asked of them. Were we could say the same about the President. Our Soldiers and Marines should not be tasked to police a civil war. President Bush has no plan but to run out the clock. He said as much in Draper's book when he admitted he was playing for October. He wants to pass this war to the next President so that he can minimize his responsibility for it. We are equally saddened by the current state of our manufacturing base, especially our textile and furniture mills in the South and our automobile manufacturing in the Detroit. We shudder as we drive on our highways and over our bridges hopping that they are safe. The fact that America is the most powerful nation in the history of time, yet so many of our citizens do not have access to basic health care. Soon millions of our citizens will join the ranks of the homeless or working poor as they lose their homes to foreclosure. We need a change of course, a new direction. And we all know, that "substitution is not real change." Somewhere on the path of humanity and decency, as America was operating abroad in promoting Democracy and seeding the seeds to advance the rule of law in far away places, we lost our way at home. We forgot that old adage that "charity begins at home." Please tell me how I can help take our country back from the powerful and the special interest and restore power to the people - where it rightfully belongs. JCO11111

What is Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award?






Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award is my own personal accolade for good writing that advances the progressive vision for America.

I had a fellow blogger ask, what is the meaning of Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award and this is what I answered.

I share it here, reprinted from the John Edwards blog.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/16/201/09966

Just my own way of spreading the good word. (none / 0)

When I get excited about a piece I see, I think it deserves a silver pen award, as we have seen in our local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News. (I always thought it might be a good thing for the blog tohave such an award, but, then I thought it would not really have been good for the Campaign to do such choosing.)

So, I invented my own, when I felt especially moved or impressed. It's just a personal accolade I like to give to our great citizen journalists in this blog community. When people accept the award, I repost their piece in my own blog site at Blogspot, http://passionateprogressivepatriot.blog spot.com/.

I hope it doesn't seem too presumptuous or that I am taking myself too seriously. It's poking a little fun at myself, but I do mean my praise very sincerely.

I will not limit my Silver Pen Award to blogs only found on the JRE blog, but will inlcude blogs and writings from other sites, as appropriate to the mission of my blogspot site which is to advance progressive thought.

Karita Hummer
San Jose, CA

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award for grannyhelen's, "John Edwards and Our Interconnected, Post-9/11 World"








Karita Hummer's Silver Pen Award

John Edwards and Our Interconnected, Post-9/11 World

user icon grannyhelen in Arguments & Analyses Feed of
9/15/2007 at 10:57 AM EST

Reposted from John Edwards blog

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/9/14/2276/74059

It's a dark, cool fall night in New England, where the diningroom/computer room/throughway to the kitchen/kids art area has finally ceased of all the activity it can handle within its modest 9' x 12' walls. Our family struggles with two small children, one of whom likely has mild autism. As parents our minds agitate over every bill, our souls rejoice over every word our children speak. Trapped in a house that we cannot sell in this current real estate market, we gird ourselves against the here-and-now and focus on the future.

We are like every other family on our block, and all of these families are interconnected with families from Great Britain, and Iraq, and North Korea, and Russia, and South Africa. What affects our one family directly affects all of these other families indirectly, and what these far-away families experience directly affects us indirectly.

To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we are tied in the inescapable bonds of mutuality.

September is one of the hardest months for me, as it reminds me of younger days when my husband and I were DINKS (double-income no kids). Where was I on 9/11? I was in an up-and-coming, African American suburb of Atlanta, Georgia, working what many would consider a dream job: matching my professional talents with my passion for social justice.

On 9/11, I was on the phone, strong-arming a business executive, using an opening he had left wide-open for me to exploit. I was focused, shutting out the bright blue sky and crisp morning air outside my office so that only he and I existed in this moment in time. In tense negotiations, we were discussing the possibility of his company sponsoring an educational program on nonviolence...

...then the first plane hit.

We couldn't ever pick up that conversation again. It wasn't that we didn't understand its importance, it's just...well, let's say a lot of things went undone after 9/11. Best to put them away, try to hide the sensory memory of the experience.

I eventually left that job and wandered through this world, raising my children, having more conversations with more people about more money and what I would and would not do for them. But always, I carried in the back of my mind the memory of that day, the thick-as-mud irony of my small attempt to spread the message of nonviolence right when the World Trade Center was attacked.

The dark ironies seemed to continue: a cynical use of a national tragedy to play "Democracy dominoes" in the Middle East by attacking Iraq; our national leader declaring "you're either with us or against us" (and giving one the sinking sensation that - in addition to France and Russia - he meant you); a hooded man, arms akimbo, wires dripping off his body as if he was some decorative indoor palm tree in a shopping mall just waiting for the Christmas lights to be turned on.

Martin Luther King viewed the world through the lense of what he termed the "triple evils" of society: racism, poverty and war. It was in the middle of my wandering through my daily life that I encountered this message that gave me hope, that made me think, "Wow. Here's finally a presidential candidate who knew what King was actually talking about":

Being the jaded, research geek that I am, I dug deeper. I found his policies on poverty: http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/ and universal health care: http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-car e/ . And I started to notice something: this guy's policies were all interconnected. This wasn't politics-by-laundry-list. This was the beginnings of a coherent strategy to take on King's triple evils proactively, to start the process of true justice by using the tools of our sometimes-corrupt-but-still-accountable Democratic system.

Over time, either the policies grew or my knowledge of them did, but I discovered the same consistency in John Edwards' stance on labor: http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-fa milies/ (King, by the way, was an unabashed supporter of unions and organized labor) as well as the environment: http://johnedwards.com/issues/energy/ .

Recently, he's put out a plan to combat terrorism that is the closest I think one can realistically get to protecting our country by not just going after global terrorists structures but also the root causes of terrorism:

All of this has made me very hopeful that maybe, just maybe, we'll have a Presidential candidate that can implement not just King's words, but his policies.

Maybe John Edwards, once elected, would fall short on that. Maybe the realpolitik of Washington would crush his progressive policies and my soaring expectations. If so, he's got one seriously jaded, vocal blogger on his hands.

But I think at least he deserves a chance.