Governor Kathleen Sebelius today called on Senator Clinton and her campaign surrogates to stop discounting the votes of Red State Democrats.
“Senator Clinton and her campaign surrogates keep deriding Senator Obama’s wins in red states by saying that her victories in the ‘big states’ are the ones that matter,” Governor Sebelius said. “ The right Democrat, like Barack Obama, can carry red states, just like the 14 Democratic governors elected in states won by George Bush in 2004. We can’t tell people their votes don’t matter and then expect their support against John McCain in November. Senator Obama is reaching to Independents and Republicans because they desperately want to change our politics. I hope Senator Clinton will follow his lead and stop dismissing Democrats that don’t live in New York or California.”
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 6:35am - Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com
January 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton has clearly, succinctly, and repeatedly challenged Barack Obama and John Edwards to let voters judge them or her by their records. Hillary Clinton has included her 8 years as First Lady in her 35 years of political experience, so it is appropriate to take her up on her challenge.
In this post, we will just examine one of the claims Clinton has made about her record, per her request to look closely at not just words, but her actions.
In the hot and testy debate in South Carolina, Clinton countered Obama's correct assertion that she served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart (followed by years as a corporate attorney for the Rose Law Firm) by saying, in essence, that when Obama was wet behind his ears, she was working and being inspired by the legendary Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund. That is true until you get to the issue of results in public office.
As we have noted in a previous editor's blog (along with the page numbers), Hillary brags in her memoirs that she was the one who lured the infamous Dick Morris back as an adviser to Bill (and Hillary) during the White House years in the mid-90s, as Bill Clinton was trying to find a way to counter the Newt Gingrich assault and the never-ending Republican attempts to investigate and impeach him.
As a result of Morris's "triangulating" advice, the Clintons embraced some cold-hearted measures, including what became called euphemistically "welfare reform." In fact, the progressive and children's advocate community considered it a Draconian measure that would punish poor children if their moms didn't find work. The Clintons, both of them, supported it, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Among those who ardently and eloquently opposed the Clinton "welfare reform" bill was Marian Wright Edelman. Her husband, Peter Edelman, quit his high-level job at the Department of Health and Human Services in protest when Bill Clinton signed the bill. He was deeply upset about what the legislation would do to helpless children.
AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children’s Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, “His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.” So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t—and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.
And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of—a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy who’s born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many children are sitting up—15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study—are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could not get mental health and health care in their community. This is an abomination.
That is a staggering indictment, from the woman Hillary Clinton regularly mentions as her mentor, of a gap between Hillary Clinton's words and her record. It reflects upon a political decision that she and Bill made to leave many children behind in order to ensure a second term. (The "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act," as it was cynically called, was signed in August of 1996, just about three months before the '96 presidential election.)
I can personally understand the symbolic importance and progressive act it would be to elect our first woman president. That would be joyful indeed. But not if our first woman president is not progressive.
BuzzFlash has received and posted many angry e-mails from women readers who consider any critical look at Hillary Clinton's record as an "attack" on her. Given that Clinton has invited the entire nation to investigate her record to see if she delivers on her promises, it betrays Clinton's own request not to proceed with such a task.
Does one's gender make one immune from betraying helpless children and the poor?
Just ask Marian Wright Edelman and Peter Edelman. If you think Edelman's quotation was taken out of context, read the full interview here.
And to those who might think that BuzzFlash is being fed information by the Obama or Edwards camp, you are dreaming. We are disillusioned, to say the least, that the Obama camp appears so deficient in being able to bring Hillary's checkered record on progressive issues out as a campaign issue. We don't know who they have working in their opposition research department, but you can find this stuff on Google, for Christ's sake. The Clinton campaign can run circles around the Obama and Edwards campaigns when it comes to opposition research.
Throughout the primaries, BuzzFlash has been roundly ignored by the Democratic presidential campaigns. In fact, we have only received one non-robotic e-mail (and no phone calls, faxes, or snail mail) from any of the campaigns -- and that was one about the Nevada results that we shared with our readers. (It was from one high-level Clinton adviser whom we know, but who otherwise hasn't been communicating with us since joining the Clinton campaign.)
We are actually glad we aren't hounded with spin by the campaigns. It leaves us with a clear head.
The Hillary and Bill Clinton betrayal of poor women and children in 1996 (and as Edelman notes in her interview, now having a devastating long-term impact) came to mind by chance. In the early '90s, I was an attendee at a meeting with Peter Edelman on an unrelated topic, and I was impressed by what an earnest, sincere person he appeared to be. When he resigned in 1996, I was a bit shocked. I hadn't followed the welfare debate at the time, but if he left his powerful position because of the Clintons embracing the "Welfare Reform" bill, I decided to look into it. Resignations over principle are rare at high levels of government, and it causes one to take notice.
When I heard Hillary Clinton bring up her Children's Defense Fund experience as a rebuke to Barack Obama, I recalled the '96 "abomination" as Marian Wright Edelman calls it, and just started Googling.
Amazing what Google can do to help one fulfill Hillary Clinton's request of us that we examine her 35 years of experience and see the results of her record.
And you know what, the Clinton campaign won't even be upset with this column.
Why?
For the same reason that the Clintons supported the odious "welfare reform" bill in the first place.
Because criticism from the likes of BuzzFlash will make Hillary look more "centrist" in the general election.
But meanwhile the moms and children have indeed been left behind, very far behind.
The following editorial from Madison, Wisconsin, published on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, pierces the very heart and soul of this election - it illustrates better than any piece I've read in the country, why this is the most important election of our lifetime - why we must elect Barack Obama
For Barack Obama and the better angels of our nature
At the close of his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke to those who would divide the United States.
"We are not enemies, but friends," said the 16th president. "We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
On this, the 199th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, America is again divided.
The question that will be answered by voters in Wisconsin next Tuesday, and by voters nationwide in November, is whether this land must remain divided.
The seven years of George Bush's tragically flawed attempt at a presidency have strained the very fabric of this nation. Our debates about war and peace, taxes and spending, civil rights and civil liberties have developed bitter edges that suggest we are enemies: Democrat versus Republican, Red State versus Blue State, liberal versus conservative.
And yet, most Americans are still touched by the better angels of our nature.
We still believe that this great nation can and should be what Lincoln imagined: "the last best hope of Earth."
That, more than any of the vagaries of campaign finance, primary scheduling or simplistic candidate comparisons, explains why Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency has been so successful -- and why it must prevail on Feb. 19 in Wisconsin and at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver.
It may be mere coincidence that Obama is, like Lincoln, an Illinoisan with a relatively short resume of electoral service.
But as Obama submits himself to what his predecessor called "this great tribunal of the American people," we are reminded of the essential message of Lincoln's distant campaigning: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew and then we shall save our country."
There are some Democrats who still suggest that to support Obama requires too great a leap of faith, just as it has always been suggested of young men who bid for the presidency before the established order judges it to be their time. But the American people have a history of understanding, as they did with Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, that sound judgment and an ability to inspire should count for more than a long resume and the burden of knowing too much of what is not supposed to be achievable and too little of the infinite possibility of this unfinished American experiment.
The last of Obama's serious competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has put in more time in Washington, and she has the scars to prove it. As an activist first lady and more recently as the senator from New York, Clinton has fought her share of battles with "the vast right-wing conspiracy" that she so famously named. But she has too often seemed to fight for power as opposed to principle. She supported the draconian welfare reforms and the fundamentally flawed free trade deals promoted by Bill Clinton's administration, she voted in the Senate for the Patriot Act and the resolution authorizing George Bush to take the country to war with Iraq, and as a presidential candidate she has condoned an often crude and divisive campaign.
Clinton's record is longer. But it is not commendable.
Obama's record is shorter, and imperfect in places. But it is superior to Clinton's. As a community organizer in Chicago. Obama worked to save industrial jobs and the neighborhoods they sustain. As an Illinois state senator he was an ardent advocate of that state's historic death penalty moratorium. As a likely contender for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2003, he marched with anti-war protesters. As a freshman senator he worked with Wisconsin's Russ Feingold to promote sweeping ethics reforms. And as a presidential candidate he has mounted a campaign distinguished by its optimism, its vigor, its appeal to the young and the previously disengaged, and its success in upending the calculations of those who thought they controlled our politics.
Everything about Clinton suggests that, at best, she would manage a smooth transition from the Bush era.
Everything about Obama suggests that he favors a bolder break with the failed politics and policies of the Bush interregnum.
Obama proposes something far more radical than Clinton imagines: a transformation. His is the politics of faith in the prospect of democratic renewal; of the worthy dream that a divided people might unite around common purposes and lower partisan barriers to make possible dramatic shifts in the way the United States relates to the world and to itself.
Last month, Clinton and Obama sparred about this new politics.
Clinton said, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."
Obama said, "This whole notion of false hopes bothers me. There is no such thing as false hopes."
Something tells us that Lincoln would have preferred Obama's response. And so, we think, will the voters of Wisconsin, a state that since it embraced another radical from Illinois 148 years ago has so frequently preferred the audacity of hope to the compromise of complacency.
As Wisconsin's Feb. 19 primary approaches, we hope that Democrats, independents and Republicans will again embrace the better angels of our nature and support the candidacy of Barack Obama in numbers so overwhelming that he can secure his claim on the Democratic nomination and, ultimately, on the presidency of a nation that is so ready to begin anew.
Homecare Worker Pauline Beck Says: ‘Barack Will Change America’
Washington, DC—Nurses, childcare workers, janitors and other service workers endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president today, calling him the candidate with the best vision, best plan and best strategy to lead the country to a new American Dream.
Members of the Service Employees International Union endorsed Obama to achieve economic justice, quality, affordable healthcare for every American, the freedom for workers to unite in unions, and an end to the Iraq war.
Pauline Beck, a home health care worker in Oakland, CA, said, “Barack is the right candidate for workers. He will change our country.” Senator Obama spent a day with Beck last August, helping her care for an elderly patient and spending time with Beck’s family.
SEIU members are supporting Obama with an aggressive political effort. With more than 150,000 members in the upcoming primary states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas, SEIU will mobilize thousands to go door-to-door, work the phones, and will send mail about their support for Obama. SEIU also will have a substantial presence on television and radio in every critical state.
“This is about more than one election. It’s about building for the next generation of America," said SEIU President Andy Stern. “Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we’ve ever seen.”
Anna Burger, SEIU’s Secretary-Treasurer, said, “This is one of the most important presidential elections workers have faced. Families are struggling, we’re fighting two wars, and a majority of Americans are now worried that their children will be worse off than they are. Obama is the right person at the right time to lead the change we so desperately need in our country.”
###
With 1.9 million members, SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. Focused on uniting workers in three sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide, SEIU is the largest health care union, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; the largest property services union, including building cleaning and security; and the second largest public employee union.
By Chuck Lindell | Friday, February 15, 2008, 09:34 AM
Austin Mayor Will Wynn endorsed Sen. Barack Obama this morning, saying the Democratic presidential candidate “gets it” when it comes to the environment.
“Recently I’ve had conversations about energy policy with presidential candidates from both parties, and I believe Senator Obama is the only person who can move us forward on this critical issue,” Wynn said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.
Wynn has spearheaded clean-energy initiatives in Austin and spurred the U.S. Conference of Mayors to address policies aimed at reducing global climate change.
“(Obama) offers a commitment to confront our energy challenges in ways that will unite our country, help our economy flourish and protect our planet and national security for the next generation and beyond,” Wynn said in the statement.
Wynn’s predecessor, state Sen. Kirk Watson, has also endorsed Obama.
MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Clinton's most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.
“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”
Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview as the Service Employees International Union was on the brink of endorsing Mr. Obama.
“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”
His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he would not go against the will of voters in his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama last week.
from an article by Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy February 15, 2008
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama opening a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Today’s results show Obama earning support from 49% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton attracts 37% (see recent daily numbers). Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the Obama surge is that he now leads 46% to 41% among women. Clinton retains a lead among the narrower subset of white women, but her lead in that vital demographic is down to just three percentage points. Obama now leads 47% to 44% among white voters and 69% to 10% among African-American voters.
During recent weeks, I have watched with increasing dismay the media suggestions that Latinos will not vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary because of underlying racism or tension that exists between African-Americans and us.
What surprises me most is the overly facile and inaccurate juxtaposition of Latino vs. African-Americans as a "race" conflict. I chair the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund and, in that capacity, work with Latinos at every level of government across the country.
And guess what? We are black, indigenous, white and everything in between. We are also blond-haired and blue-eyed, we are Catholic and Protestant, Republican and Democratic, and, as far as I have been able to determine, we are not unanimously supporting one candidate more than another. The idea that all Latinos speak with one political voice is a false dichotomy and makes flawed assumptions that show a basic ignorance of Latinos and our very diverse culture.
As the son of a Mexican mother and Spanish father who grew up in a Cuban and El Salvadoran neighborhood, I have lived this diversity and recognize that Latino Democratic primary voting trends are much more about familiarity with the candidate and much less about race.
Hillary Clinton has done well among Latinos during the early Democratic primary season and figures to continue that success in Texas. However, rather than suggest she might win a greater share of the Latino vote in Texas because of racism, a more responsible view would acknowledge that the Clinton brand is still strong here. She campaigned in South Texas for George McGovern in the 1970s, was the first lady of a neighboring state in the 1980s and was the first lady to a president popular among Latinos for most of the 1990s.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, Texas provides Sen. Barack Obama with a huge opportunity to court Latinos. Texas Latinos have a recent history of supporting non-Latino African-American candidates. Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and Houston Mayor Lee Brown were elected and then re-elected against Latino challengers (Margaret Donnelly and Orlando Sanchez, respectively) with sizeable support from Latinos.
After beating Latino candidate Victor Morales in the Democratic primary runoff in 2002, Mr. Kirk actually did as well as or better among Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley during his senatorial bid than Laredo gubernatorial candidate Tony Sanchez.
And while Mr. Obama is referred to as a "black" candidate, in truth he is of mixed race, as are many Latinos. And, as the son of an immigrant, his experience can affirm that the American dream is still intact for everyone, regardless of where one's parents were born.
His dedication to his family, strong work ethic, opposition to the war in Iraq and deep faith are all qualities that are important to Latino voters. A recently released analysis of Super Tuesday results by the Willie Velasquez Institute shows that Mr. Obama is making important strides among Latino voters, including among late-breaking undecided Latinos.
Super Tuesday results also showed that Mr. Obama makes up big ground among all voters who see him and are exposed to his message. With the Texas Democratic primary still several weeks away, there is time for Barack Obama to further connect with Texas Latinos.
With all the distracting talk of an African-American-Latino electoral divide, it is easy to lose perspective of the ultimate goal of electing a president who can bring the United States together.
Our main focus should not be on who can appeal to which racial or ethnic group more than another, but which candidate can unite all races, ethnicities, age groups, faiths and economic classes as a nation to address our common challenges and to restore our historic position as a respected leader of the free world.
I am the Latino son of immigrants, but, rather than engaging in the contrived politics of division, I want Barack Obama, a black man of mixed ethnicity, to be my president. How's that for the politics of hope?
Rafael Anchía is a state representative from Dallas, the 2005 LULAC "National Man of the Year" and chairman of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund.
HELEN P. HOWELL AND VICKIE WALLEN - GUEST COLUMNISTS
Given the disastrous results of the Bush administration, including our immersion in an unjustifiable war, an economy on the verge of a recession, loss of respect and stature in the global community, and increased suffering at home, the need for fundamental change in the quality of our country's leadership is essential.
Like many women, we would be excited to help elect a woman president. At this pivotal moment in our history, however, the gender of our next president is not our foremost concern. Because of the troubled state of the union, our priority is for the Democrats to select as our nominee the candidate who is best positioned to win in November, and to navigate our nation out of the current morass, unite us and move the country forward.
We are a diverse group of women who have spent years working for equal rights, social justice and a powerful political voice for all women. Two of us are women of color, and one of us is a lesbian. All of us are mothers with a deep concern for the future of our children and our nation.
Sen. Barack Obama is the candidate with the energy and vision to lead our country in these difficult times -- to make our nation safer, restore our standing in the world and inspire Americans to be active participants in our democracy. He transcends the cynical politics of yesterday and inspires us to believe that tomorrow can be better. His message of hope and unity, his character and integrity, his keen mind and thoughtfulness, his belief in people and his optimism inspire us and move us to action.
He speaks directly and authentically to the broad range of issues that we care about, including the war in Iraq, poverty, education, equal opportunity, health care and the environment. His experience as the son of a single mother, husband of a working mother and father of two young daughters has given him a firm understanding of the challenges and concerns of working women and their families, as well as a firm commitment to addressing them.
Obama's unique background and experiences allow him to identify with the diverse circumstances and struggles of others, thereby lessening the divisions among us and enhancing our shared beliefs.
The fact that he is a unifying leader rather than a technocrat adds to his appeal. We agree with him that our country must be brought together before significant policy changes can occur. Certainly, no president can do it alone. An engaged electorate and strong, active coalitions are needed to overcome stalemate and create new possibilities and change. Obama is uniquely able to bring potential allies -- including independents and Republicans -- together.
Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, is perceived as a more polarizing figure in our country, and we fear she will unify and energize the right wing of the Republican Party. Furthermore, while perhaps a master of policy analysis and the mechanics of the policymaking process, neither of those strengths will help her unite a fractured country or overcome gridlock to achieve fundamental change.
Our other major concern about Clinton is that she has demonstrated a troubling propensity to compromise some core Democratic principles. When we consider, for example, her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, her absence and silence during the 2006 battle to defeat the South Dakota abortion ban (Obama was the only U.S. senator to assist with fundraising efforts for the campaign against the ban), and the racially charged comments by her and her husband during the campaign for the South Carolina primary, we easily choose Obama as our candidate.
We are free, as feminists, to choose the candidate who speaks to our collective aspirations. Barack's community organizing and advocacy work demonstrate his passion and commitment to the issues that matter most to us.
As mothers, we are also struck by the powerful way in which Obama has energized young people. One of us, the daughter of Aki Kurose, a lifetime civil rights and peace activist, who fought for many of these same issues, has two children who will be voting for the first time in November. They are thrilled by Obama's candidacy and have become active in his campaign. Obama understands that engaging the next generation is crucial to the destiny of our nation, and he has empowered young people to lift their voices and shape their future. Like Aki Kurose's grandchildren, they have responded by participating in the nominating process in record numbers.
Obama is the leader we need now. He represents our best hope to lead America into the future.
Helen P. Howell has served as counsel to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and serves as a national board member for Planned Parenthood. Vickie Wallen has served as the state ombudsman for families and children and as a senior policy adviser and legal counsel for former Gov. Mike Lowry. Ruthann Kurose also contributed to this column. She is a founding member of May's List, a political action committee established to elect women leaders to state office.
For over the thirty five years, Frances Kissling has been the leading international voice on women, religion and reproduction. She is currently working on a book on ethical dilemmas and abortion as a Fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. A prolific writer and lecturer, Kissling is the co-author of Rosie: The Investigation of a Wrongful Death (The Dial Press, 1978). She has published in the New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, The Nation, American Prospect, New Republic online, Salon.com, Irish Independent, The Guardian, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, OGlobo,(Brazil) Gazeta Wyborza (Poland) and numerous other journals and publications. For 25 years she was president of Catholics for A Free Choice. Best known for combining serious political advocacy with humor, Kissling once noted that she spent 25 years looking for a government she could overthrow that couldn't put her in jail and she found it in the Vatican.
(from the Huffungton Post)
In a recent Huffington Post article, an impressive group of women leaders examined Hillary Clinton's Senate record on reproductive rights and concluded that "Hillary Clinton is the best choice for president of the United States." The viewpoint of these leaders is important, they are all knowledgeable insiders, committed feminists and have extensive professional experience with Senator Clinton. The 10 endorsers, including Martha Burk, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, and Gloria Steinem, rightly identify themselves as "women who have spent our careers fighting to protect a woman's right to choose."
As another woman leader who has spent her career fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, with a special emphasis on protecting women's religious freedom, I see the record through a different lens. I have endorsed Senator Obama. While I believe in the nitty gritty of a day-to-day legislative agenda, there will be little difference between Clinton and Obama, I am convinced that in the larger struggle to complete the social transformation promised by Roe, Obama's instincts and values will bring us closer to that transformation.
There is no doubt that not even the most anorectic model could slip through the "space" between Obama and Clinton on some major choice issues. Both will nominate Supreme Court justices who support Roe; both will lift the global gag rule within days of taking office with a coterie of choice leaders standing behind them: and UNFPA can expect that its funding will be restored as both will certify that the agency is not involved in coercive programs in China. The Clinton endorsers rightly point to Clinton's leadership role in the Senate on over the counter availability of emergency contraception and expanded support for Title X and Medicaid family planning funds, but does anyone expect that Senator Obama would not be equally supportive?
Of course, Obama enters the arena with a shorter record and on some of the more controversial reproductive health issues, we don't know what he would do or how he would use his office to advocate for women's reproductive rights. I suspect that in some areas he may fall short and we will need to work hard to prevent that. I also more than suspect, based on her record as a Senator and the record of the Clinton administration, that there are a number of areas where Senator Clinton is more likely to disappoint us and I am surprised at the short memory of my friends and colleagues who are supporting Senator Clinton. While allowing for a change of heart, we need to remember those failures.
While Burk and others noted in their letter of support Senator Clinton's leadership on Medicaid family planning funding, they studiously ignored the question of whether the Senator has led efforts to restore Medicaid funding for abortions. She has not. In fact, in the last years of his presidency it was Bill Clinton who signed into law a permanent Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, a presidential first. We might have expected that the Senator with eight years in the Senate who our colleagues tell us is "the one candidate whose leadership on this issue is unparalleled" and who is considered one of the best across the aisle players might have tried to overturn that Amendment and shown a stronger commitment to poor and low income women than we saw in Senator Clinton.
Another controversial issue that went unmentioned was the question of whether the health care plan of Senator Clinton will give religious organizations the right to refuse to provide services they consider "immoral" -- emergency contraception, voluntary sterilization, condoms to prevent HIV, and assisted reproduction come to mind. Will the Clinton plan require abortion coverage? Some of us still remember the battles we had with Senator Clinton when as First Lady and health care reform honcho she was at first unwilling to include abortion as a mandated service. To the end the Clinton health care reform plan included the broadest right of refusal to provide services ever introduced in federal legislation. It would have allowed any provider, religious or not, to refuse to provide any service they deemed immoral and still participate in the plan and reap the benefits of participation. Has Senator Clinton changed her mind on these issues? It is perfectly plausible that she has, but it is the responsibility of reproductive health and women's rights advocates to secure those commitments now, not simply trust that the woman they know and love will do the right thing if elected.
Other issues mentioned by my colleagues also require more careful scrutiny. Senator Clinton has led the charge for the Prevention First Act which would expand family planning services and education dramatically thus reducing the need for abortion. The bill has languished in both the Senate and the House for almost four years, including the last two years when Democrats have had a clear majority. It seems fair to ask how high a priority this legislation was for the Senator when the bill never came to the floor for a vote in spite of the Senator's power, a Democratic majority and considerable Republican support for family planning.
To be fair, this is one of those situations where the fact that the Senator has a longer record works against her as well as for her. My candidate, Barack Obama, needs to be asked by the pro-choice community the same questions I ask Senator Clinton. Our task as advocates for sexual and reproductive health and rights and women's rights cannot be limited to electioneering or the idea that getting Democrats elected means the most equitable and progressive reproductive health policies will be supported. We must first and foremost be advocates for both the positions that will make women's lives better and the style of leadership that will enhance feminist values best.
The role of a president is not the same as that of a senator. I fully expect that whichever of the two, Obama or Clinton, become president, I will be fighting with them for more than either is ready to give. I am more suspicious of Senator Clinton because as much as I respect her, she has more than once failed the movement. The struggle for reproductive health and rights over the next decade cannot continue to be about defending against bad legislation or being the biggest pit bull in the fight; it is no longer about "winning" the culture war. It is about completing the social transformation that Roe began but did not solidify. That task, I believe, will best be accomplished by a president who sees her or his role as calling us to greatness. It is not about beating anti-abortion advocates to death; it is about listening to the majority of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal and highly regulated, acknowledging what it is that they are afraid of and making them less afraid. I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that. I deeply believe he is the best hope we have to ending both the abortion wars and the war in Iraq.
By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 2:30 PM PST, February 14, 2008
Columbus, Ohio -- The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, one of the nation's largest labor organizations and a force in battleground state politics, voted today to support Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.
The move is a blow to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign had also sought the union's backing. The UFCW is a prize because it is one of the largest in the country and is particularly influential in states with upcoming primaries: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
In Ohio, the union has 70,000 members who work in supermarkets and food processing.
That makes the union more influential than even the United Steelworkers, which now represents 56,000 workers in the state. Both campaigns have been aggressively courting the steelworkers union nationally, because of its influence in all three states. But as recently as this past weekend, the steelworkers union leadership decided to remain neutral.
In Texas, the UFCW has 26,000 workers, many of them Latinos working in the meatpacking industry.
The decision was made at 5 p.m. vote of the UFCW board, meeting by conference call. The union considers both Clinton and Obama as friends, said Jill Cashen, a union spokeswoman. But leaders were impressed at the appeal of Obama, particularly to younger members.
More than 40 percent of the UFCW membership is under 30, Cashen said, and the union became aware of Obama's appeal to that age group. "And our young people have become engaged in politics as never before," she said. "It's a sea change."
Barack Obama has gained strength in prospective general election match-ups against Republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee, while Hillary Clinton does not fare as well, a new nationwide Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey shows that Obama would defeat both McCain and Huckabee, while Clinton would lose to McCain and only defeat Huckabee by a small margin.
Clinton struggles among political independents, trailing McCain by a wide margin and Huckabee by a slim margin in that demographic, the survey shows. Against both men, she wins less than 80% of her own party. However, she does better among Democrats than either McCain or Huckabee does among Republicans. Huckabee wins just 70% support in a match-up against Clinton, while McCain wins 72% of the GOP support against her.
Obama has much stronger Democratic Party support, winning 87% backing of the Democrats when pitted against Huckabee, and 84% of the Democratic support against McCain. Among independents, Obama leads McCain by a 46% to 33% edge and Huckabee by a 48% to 31% advantage.
Christine "Roz" Samuels, a superdelegate from Montclair, New Jersey, who was supporting Hillary Clinton announced she was now supporting Senator Barack Obama for President today, citing his ability to unite the country:
"I now support Barack Obama because he has brought about a new wave of hope and energy to this country, especially among our young people, who represent our future. People want to see change. Barack can help unite this country and help us embrace our diverse nation.
"I am also proud to support Senator Obama because he spoke clearly and forcefully against the war in Iraq from the start. I know he has the leadership to make sure we bring our young men and women home as quickly and carefully as possible, and ensure all Americans have access to affordable health care."
Samuels served as Secretary-Treasurer of the Newark Teachers' Union, Local 481 from 1995 until 2007. Samuels is a former Commissioner of the Essex County Board of Elections, a member of the Montclair Democratic Committee, and active in the Montclair and state-wide NAACP.
By Ken Sury | Thursday, February 14, 2008, 11:47 AM
Trib political reporter David Doerr has received an e-mail that Texas House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam today announced his strong endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy for presiden.
Dunnam released the following statement:
“It gives me great pride to endorse Barack Obama for President. The constituents I serve, and all the people of Texas, are tired of politics as usual. In Texas — and across the rest of the country — we want a president who will finally put doing what is right above corporate special interests and radical partisan agendas. We want change we can believe in, not the same old Washington-style promises made and promises broken.
“Texas House Democrats are fighting hard to improve our public schools and bring health coverage to the uninsured. With Barack Obama as president, we will have a remarkable ally in achieving those vital goals and many more.”
Former Senator Lincoln Chafee (Photo: CJ Gunther/Reuters)
MILWAUKEE – Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican Senator from Rhode Island, said today that he is changing party registration – at least on primary day next month – and endorsing Senator Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy.
“I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability,” Mr. Chafee said in a conference call with reporters today.
Mr. Chafee, who lost his re-election bid in 2006 and became an independent last year, was one of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans. He served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with Mr. Obama.
The endorsement comes in advance of the Rhode Island primary on March 4, the same day as voters in Ohio and Texas help determine the Democratic presidential nominating fight. Mr. Chafee offered no guarantees on the power of his endorsement, but said he simply told Mr. Obama he believed he was the best candidate for the job.
“I said I’d do anything he wanted,” Mr. Chafee said, recounting his phone call to Mr. Obama on Tuesday, “and I was going to vote for him.”
In one regard, it is a curious choice. Two years ago, Senator John McCain came to Rhode Island to campaign on Mr. Chafee’s behalf. Mr. Obama campaigned for his opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, who ultimately prevailed.
This year, Mr. Whitehouse supports Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. And Mr. McCain is on his way to winning the Republican nomination
Asked about switch of loyalties, Mr. Chafee said: “I’m sure Sen. McCain will understand.”
By Jim Tankersley Washington Bureau 8:48 PM CST, February 13, 2008 WASHINGTON—He made his name in politics, but when David Wilhelm talks about his newest campaign, the venture capitalist in him comes out.
What made him pass over Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y)—the wife of his most famous client—to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Wednesday for the Democratic presidential nomination? Several reasons, said the man who managed Bill Clinton's winning 1992 White House run, starting with this: comparative advantage.
In economics, "comparative advantage" is the theory that countries should specialize in the goods they can produce most efficiently when compared to other countries. In politics, as Wilhelm wields the term, it means political parties should nominate the candidate whom voters perceive as having the clearest edge over the rival nominee on a critical issue.
On Clinton's signature issue, experience, Wilhelm said neither she nor Obama can ever trump presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, the four-term senator from Arizona. But on Obama's signature issue, change, Wilhelm believes Democrats win big.
"This," he said, "is a change election."
Wilhelm was born in Ohio but built his political career in Illinois, where he ran winning campaigns for Sen. Paul Simon, Mayor Richard Daley and, later, Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Early on he teamed with a finance whiz named Rahm Emanuel, who went on to work with him on the Clinton campaign and today chairs the House Democratic Caucus.
"David is loved and beloved," Emanuel said. "He's just a very decent human being." Asked about Wilhelm's political skills, he replied, "Look at his record."
After the '92 victory, President Clinton tapped Wilhelm to head the Democratic National Committee, where he served two years until he fell out of favor with the White House—and the 1994 "Republican Revolution" knocked Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill.
In recent years Wilhelm returned to his native state to launch venture capital firms that target companies in depressed rural areas that don't see much investment otherwise. He marched through Ohio's Appalachian hills with Jesse Jackson in the name of economic development and nurtured start-ups in struggling small towns. "We're making a difference," Wilhelm said in an interview Wednesday.
It's that sort of idealism that led him to Obama, after a brief stint advising Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden's Democratic presidential campaign. Working for Biden in Iowa, Wilhelm said, "you couldn't help but be impressed" by the energy and passion of Obama's supporters, particularly young people.
Obama, he said, could give Democrats a greater opportunity to push their ideals than they had under Bill Clinton, who won with 44 percent of the vote in a three-way election. Obama, he said, "has the potential to build a real majority for change that was maybe beyond what we could accomplish at that point in history.
"After decades of appeals to selfishness," he added, "I really think Americans are ready for a new appeal to the common good… [Obama] is so clearly tapping into some kind of yearning or craving or thirsting for the idea that we are better together than we are alone."
His endorsement of Obama puts Wilhelm at odds with some old friends, including Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, whom he advised in the 2006 campaign and who now backs Sen. Clinton in the presidential race. And of course, the Clintons, whom Wilhelm says he is not as close to these days as he is to Obama. Asked Wednesday how his relationship was with the former president, Wilhelm replied: "It's probably not very good today."
David Wilhelm, who was Bill Clinton’s campaign chairman in 1992, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president.
Mr. Wilhelm lives and works in Ohio, which will be a major battleground for the Democratic candidates come March 4.
After Mr. Wilhelm helped him win the election, Mr. Clinton made Mr. Wilhelm the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Now a venture capitalist who focuses on neglected regions of the country, Mr. Wilhelm is also a superdelegate and said he expected the Obama campaign would want him to get on the phone to lobby other superdelegates.
He said in a conference call today that Mr. Obama was more electable than Senator Hillary Clinton. Mr. Obama’s campaign is evidence of his leadership, he said, calling it “masterful.”
“He has out-worked her, out-organized her and out-raised her,” Mr. Wilhelm said. “I know organizational excellence when I see it, and the Obama campaign, win or lose, will serve as a model” of execution of strategy, message discipline, application of new technology and small-donor fund raising.
Exclusive Interview: By Kenneth T. Walsh Posted February 13, 2008 As he savored the prospect of victories in three crucial primaries yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told U.S.News & World Report that he will reach out aggressively to his critics and to unexpected constituencies—including Republicans—in an attempt to further consolidate support for a general-election campaign.
"You know, very rarely do you hear me talking about my opponents without giving them some credit for having good intentions and being decent people," he said. "I think that I would explicitly reach out to disaffected Republicans and remind them of some of their traditions. I mean, there's nothing uniquely Democratic about a respect for civil liberties. There's nothing uniquely Democratic about believing in a foreign policy of restraint. You know, a lot of the virtues I talk about are virtues that are deeply embedded in the Republican Party.... The Democrats don't have the monopoly on wisdom, but we have to make some sharp breaks from the failed administration policies of the past."
Obama also told U.S. News in the half-hour interview, "We have, you know, been happy to have policy debates with Senator Clinton and to offer contrasts, but we haven't engaged in the kind of slash-and-burn politics that we've become accustomed to. If I'm the nominee and John McCain's the nominee [for the Republicans], I'm going to try as much as possible to maintain that tone."
The first-term Illinois senator continued his remarkable string of victories in Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses yesterday with wins in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. This gives him eight consecutive victories. Obama and Hillary Clinton are now running neck and neck for the Democratic nomination, although Obama edged ahead of Clinton in the latest Associated Press tallies of delegate strength.
Clinton strategists admit she needs to win Ohio and Texas on March 4 to remain in contention, and she has stepped up her campaigning in both states, as has Obama.
In the interview, Obama sounded confident and relaxed, and he even returned to a line of argument that has drawn severe criticism from Hillary and Bill Clinton in the past—praise for the political skills of Ronald Reagan. "I do think it's a 'transformational moment,'" he said. "And whether the individual who ends up in the White House fulfills that possibility, you know, depends on both skill and circumstance. What I will say, and I've said this before, is that Ronald Reagan, I think, shifted our politics in a fundamental way. You know, I was criticized by the Clintons for saying that, but it's just a fact that there was a realignment, and the conservative framework for thinking about issues has dominated for the last 25 years. I think we are in a place where we can start changing that."
Below is a short clip of Senator Obama giving an economic policy talk at the Janesville, Wisconsin GM assembly plant - It is well worth your time to watch the short video and read his remarks.
The(AP) indidcated that workers at the Janesville's GM plant like what they heard from Barack Obama today, especially when he promised autoworkers he would end tax breaks for companies who ship jobs overseas and would not sign trade agreements unless they include protections for the environment and American workers. Jim Conley has worked at the plant for 39 years. Conley says he liked Obama's promise not to tax Social Security income and to end tax cuts for businesses that send jobs overseas. Lorenzo Barnes of Janesville worked at the plant for 31 years. He says the country needs a change and Obama is the man to bring it.
Keeping America’s Promise Remarks of Senator Barack Obama Janesville General Motors Assembly Plant
It was nearly a century ago that the first tractor rolled off the assembly line at this plant. The achievement didn’t just create a product to sell or profits for General Motors. It led to a shared prosperity enjoyed by all of Janesville. Homes and businesses began to sprout up along Milwaukee and Main Streets. Jobs were plentiful, with wages that could raise a family and benefits you could count on.
Prosperity hasn’t always come easily. The plant shut down for a period during the height of the Depression, and major shifts in production have been required to meet the changing times. Tractors became automobiles. Automobiles became artillery shells. SUVs are becoming hybrids as we speak, and the cost of transition has always been greatest for the workers and their families.
But through hard times and good, great challenge and great change, the promise of Janesville has been the promise of America – that our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat; that we rise or fall as one nation; that our economy is strongest when our middle-class grows and opportunity is spread as widely as possible. And when it’s not – when opportunity is uneven or unequal – it is our responsibility to restore balance, and fairness, and keep that promise alive for the next generation. That is the responsibility we face right now, and that is the responsibility I intend to meet as President of the United States.
We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control. The fallout from the housing crisis that’s cost jobs and wiped out savings was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington – the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it’s produced.
It’s a Washington where George Bush hands out billions in tax cuts year after year to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest few who don’t need them and don’t ask for them – tax breaks that are mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain of debt; tax breaks that could’ve gone into the pockets of the working families who needed them most.
It’s a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who’ve seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years.
It’s a Washington where politicians like John McCain and Hillary Clinton voted for a war in Iraq that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged – a war that is costing us thousands of precious lives and billions of dollars a week that could’ve been used to rebuild crumbling schools and bridges; roads and buildings; that could’ve been invested in job training and child care; in making health care affordable or putting college within reach.
And it’s a Washington that has thrown open its doors to lobbyists and special interests who’ve riddled our tax code with loopholes that let corporations avoid paying their taxes while you’re paying more. They’ve been allowed to write an energy policy that’s keeping us addicted to oil when there are families choosing between gas and groceries. They’ve used money and influence to kill health care reform at a time when half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and then they’ve rigged our bankruptcy laws to make it harder to climb out of debt. They don’t represent ordinary Americans, they don’t fund my campaign, and they won’t drown out the voices of working families when I am President.
This is what’s been happening in Washington at a time when we have greater income disparity in this country than we’ve seen since the first year of the Great Depression. At a time when some CEOs are making more in a day than the average workers makes in a year. When the typical family income has dropped by $1,000 over the last seven years. When wages are flat, jobs are moving overseas, and we’ve never paid more for health care, or energy, or college. It’s a time when we’ve never saved less – barely $400 for the average family last year – and never owed more – an average of $8,000 per family. And it’s a time when one in eight Americans now lives in abject poverty right here in the richest nation on Earth.
At a time like this, it’s no wonder that the mortgage crisis was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The equity that people own in their homes is often their largest source of savings, and as millions upon millions have seen those savings and their home equity decline or disappear altogether, so have their dreams for a better future.
I realize that politicians come before you every election saying that they’ll change all this. They lay out big plans and hold events with workers just like this one, because it’s popular to do and it’s easy to make promises in the heat of a campaign.
But how many times have you been disappointed when everyone goes back to Washington and nothing changes? Because the lobbyists just write another check. Or because politicians start worrying about how they’ll win the next election instead of why they should. Because they’re focused on who’s up and who’s down instead of who matters – the worker who just lost his pension; the family that just put up the For Sale sign; the young woman who gets three hours of sleep a night because she works the late shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford her sister’s medicine.
These are the Americans who need real change – the kind of change that’s about more than switching the party in the White House. They need a change in our politics – a leader who can end the division in Washington so we can stop talking about our challenges and start solving them; who doesn’t defend lobbyists as part of the system, but sees them as part of the problem; who will carry your voices and your hopes into the White House every single day for the next four years. And that is the kind of President I want to be.
I didn’t spend my career in the halls of Washington, I began it in the shadow of a closed steel mill on the South Side of Chicago. We organized churches and community leaders; African-Americans, whites, and Hispanics to lift neighborhoods out of poverty; provide job training to the jobless; and set up after school programs so that kids had a safe place to go while their parents worked.
Those are the voices I carried with me to the Illinois state Senate, where I brought Democrats and Republicans together to expand health insurance to 150,000 children and parents; where I led the fight to provide $100 million in tax relief for working families and the working poor.
They’re the voices I carried with me to Washington, where the first bill I introduced was to make college more affordable; where I fought against a bankruptcy bill that made it harder for families to climb out of debt; and where I passed the most sweeping lobbying reform in a generation – reform that forced lobbyists to tell the American people who they’re raising money from and who in Congress they’re funneling it to.
So when I talk about real change that will make a real difference in the lives of working families – change that will restore balance in our economy and put us on a path to prosperity – it’s not just the poll-tested rhetoric of a political campaign. It’s the cause of my life. And you can be sure that it will be the cause of my presidency from the very first day I take office.
Now we know that we cannot put up walls around our economy. We know that we cannot reverse the tide of technology that’s allowed businesses to send jobs wherever there’s an internet connection. We know that government cannot solve all our problems, and we don’t expect it to.
But that doesn’t mean we have to accept an America of lost opportunity and diminished dreams. Not when we still have the most productive, highly-educated, best-skilled workers in the world. Not when we still stand on the cutting edge of innovation, and science, and discovery. Not when we have the resources and the will of a decent, generous people who are ready to share in the burdens and benefits of a global economy. I am certain that we can keep America’s promise – for this generation and the next.
So today, I’m laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It’s an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address – the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America– jobs that can’t be outsourced and won’t disappear.
The first challenge is to stem the fallout from the housing crisis and put in place rules of the road to prevent it from happening again.
A few weeks ago I offered an economic stimulus package based on a simple principle – we should get immediate relief into the hands of people who need it the most and will spend it the quickest. I proposed sending each working family a $500 tax cut and each senior a $250 supplement to their Social Security check. And if the economy gets worse, we should double those amounts.
Neither George Bush nor Hillary Clinton had that kind of immediate, broad-based relief in their original stimulus proposals, but I’m glad that the stimulus package that was recently passed by Congress does. We still need to go further, though, and make unemployment insurance available for a longer period of time and for more Americans who find themselves out of work. We should also provide assistance to state and local governments so that they don’t slash critical services like health care or education.
For those Americans who are facing the brunt of the housing crisis, I’ve proposed a fund that would provide direct relief to victims of mortgage fraud. We’d also help those who are facing closure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes. And I’d provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.
To make sure that folks aren’t tricked into purchasing loans they can’t afford, I’ve proposed tough new penalties for those who commit mortgage fraud, and a Home Score system that would allow consumers to compare various mortgage products so that they can find out whether or not they’ll be able to afford the payments ahead of time.
The second major economic challenge we have to address is the cost crisis facing the middle-class and the working poor. As the housing crisis spills over into other parts of the economy, we’ve seen people’s entire life savings wiped out in an instant. It’s the result of skyrocketing costs, stagnant wages, and disappearing benefits that are pushing more and more Americans towards a debt spiral from which they can’t escape. We have to give them a way out by cutting costs, putting more money in their pockets, and rebuilding a safety net that’s become badly frayed over the last decades.
One of the principles that John Edwards has passionately advanced is that this country should be rewarding work, not wealth. That starts with our tax code, which has been rigged by lobbyists with page after page of loopholes that benefit big corporations and the wealthiest few. For example, we should not be giving tax breaks to corporations that make their profits in some other country with some other workers. Before she started running for President, Senator Clinton actually voted for this loophole.
I’ll change our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity, not the agenda of some lobbyist. I am the only candidate in this race who’s proposed a genuine middle-class tax cut that will provide relief to 95% of working Americans. This is a tax cut –paid for in part by closing corporate loopholes and shutting down tax havens – that will offset the payroll tax that working Americans are already paying, and it’ll be worth up to $1000 for a working family. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because our seniors are struggling enough with rising costs, and should be able to retire in dignity and respect. Since the Earned Income Tax Credit lifts nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty each year, I’ll double the number of workers who receive it and triple the benefit for minimum wage workers. And I won’t wait another ten years to raise the minimum wage – I’ll guarantee that it keeps pace with inflation every single year so that it’s not just a minimum wage, but a living wage. Because that’s the change that working Americans need.
My universal health care plan brings down the cost of health care more than any other candidate in this race, and will save the typical family up to $2500 a year on their premiums. Every American would be able to get the same kind of health care that members of Congress get for themselves, and we’d ban insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t. Well I believe the reason people don’t have health care isn’t because no one’s forced them to buy it, it’s because no one’s made it affordable – and that’s what we’ll do when I am President.
If we want to train our workforce for a knowledge economy, it’s also time that we brought down the cost of a college education and put it within reach of every American. I know how expense this is. At the beginning of our marriage, Michelle and I were spending more to payoff our college loans than we were on our mortgage. So I’ll create a new and fully refundable tax credit worth $4,000 for tuition and fees every year, a benefit that students will get in exchange for community or national service, which will cover two-thirds of the tuition at the average public college or university. And I’ll also simplify the financial aid application process so that we don’t have a million students who aren’t applying for aid because it’s too difficult.
With so many mothers and fathers juggling work and parenting, the next cost we have to bring down is the cost of living in a two-income family. I’ll expand the child care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 a year, and I’ll double spending on quality afterschool programs. We’ll also expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include more businesses and millions more workers; and we’ll change a system that’s stacked against working women by requiring every employer to provide seven paid sick days a year, so that you can be home with your child if they’re sick.
In addition to cutting costs for working families, we also need to help them save more – especially for retirement. That’s why we’ll require employers to enroll every worker in a direct deposit retirement account that places a small percentage of each paycheck into savings. You can keep this account even if you change jobs, and the federal government will match the savings for lower-income, working families.
Finally, we need to help families who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don’t become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they’re signing up for, I’ll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we’ll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to a credit card agreement; ban rate changes to debt that’s already incurred; and ban interest on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but they should pay what’s fair, not what fattens profits for some credit card company.
The same principle should apply to our bankruptcy laws. When I first arrived in the Senate, I opposed the credit card industry’s bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt. Five years earlier, Senator Clinton had supported a nearly identical bill. And during a debate a few weeks back, she said that even though she voted for it, she was glad it didn’t pass. Now, I know those kind of antics might make sense in Washington, but they don’t make much sense anywhere else, and they certainly don’t make sense for working families who are struggling under the weight of their debt.
When I’m President, we’ll reform our bankruptcy laws so that we give Americans who find themselves in debt a second chance. I’ll close the loophole that allows investors with multiple homes to renegotiate their mortgage in bankruptcy court, but not victims of predatory lending. We’ll make sure that if you can demonstrate that you went bankrupt because of medical expenses, then you can relieve that debt and get back on your feet. And I’ll make sure that CEOs can’t dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. That’s an outrage, and it’s time we had a President who knows it’s an outrage.
Those are the steps we can take to ease the cost crisis facing working families. But we still need to make sure that families are working. We need to maintain our competitive edge in a global by ensuring that plants like this one stay open for another hundred years, and shuttered factories re-open as new industries that promise new jobs. And we need to put more Americans to work doing jobs that need to be done right here in America.
For years, we have stood by while our national infrastructure has crumbled and decayed. In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a D, citing problems with our airports, dams, schools, highways, and waterways. One out of three urban bridges were classified as structurally deficient, and we all saw the tragic results of what that could mean in Minnesota last year. Right here in Wisconsin, we know that $500 million of freight will come through this state by 2020, and if we do not have the infrastructure to handle it, we will not get the business.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs – many of them in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we’ll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It’s time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead.
It’s also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won’t stand here and tell you that we can – or should – stop free trade. We can’t stop every job from going overseas. But I also won’t stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that’s a position of mine that doesn’t change based on who I’m talking to or the election I’m running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she’s running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don’t know about a time-out, but I do know this – when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I’ll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I’ve been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate – we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America.
I believe that we can create millions of those jobs around a clean, renewable energy future. A few hours northeast of here is the city of Manitowoc [MAN-a-ta-WOC]. For over a century, it was the home of Mirro manufacturing – a company that provided thousands of jobs and plenty of business. In 2003, Mirro closed its doors for good after losing thousands of jobs to Mexico.
But in the last few years, something extraordinary has happened. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Doyle and Mayor Kevin Crawford, Manitowoc has re-trained its workers and attracted new businesses and new jobs. Orion Energy Systems works with companies to reduce their electricity use and carbon emissions. And Tower Tech is now making wind turbines that are being sold all over the world. Hundreds of people have found new work, and unemployment has been cut in half.
This can be America’s future. I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.
My energy plan will invest $150 billion over ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new jobs over the next two decades – jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. We’ll also provide funding to help manufacturers convert to green technology and help workers learn the skills they need for these jobs.
We know that all of this must be done in a responsible way, without adding to the already obscene debt that has grown by four trillion dollars under George Bush. We know that we cannot build our future on a credit card issued by the bank of China. And that is why I’ve paid for every element of this economic agenda – by ending a war that’s costing us billions, closing tax loopholes for corporations, putting a price on carbon pollution, and ending George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
In the end, this economic agenda won’t just require new money. It will require a new spirit of cooperation and innovation on behalf of the American people. We will have to learn more, and study more, and work harder. We’ll be called upon to take part in shared sacrifice and shared prosperity. And we’ll have to remind ourselves that we rise and fall as one nation; that a country in which only a few prosper is antithetical to our ideals and our democracy; and that those of us who have benefited greatly from the blessings of this country have a solemn obligation to open the doors of opportunity, not just for our children, but to all of America’s children.
That is the spirit that’s thrived in Janesville from the moment that first tractor came off the assembly line so many years ago. It’s the spirit that led my grandmother to her own assembly line during World War II, and my grandfather to march in Patton’s Army. When that war ended, they were given the chance to go to college on the GI Bill, to buy a house from the Federal Housing Authority, and to give my mother the chance to go to the best schools and dream as big as the Kansas sky. Even though she was a single mom who didn’t have much, it’s the same chance she gave me, and why I’m standing here today.
It’s a promise that’s been passed down through the ages; one that each generation of Americans is called to keep – that we can raise our children in a land of boundless opportunity, broad prosperity, and unyielding possibility. That is the promise we must keep in our time, and I look forward to working and fighting to make it real as President of the United States. Thank you.
