In an address recorded in Seoul, South Korea, the President discusses his trip to Asia. He talks about his push to stop nuclear proliferation in North Korea, Iran, and around the world. He talks about promoting America's principles for an open society in China while making progress on joint efforts to combat climate change. And talks in-depth about the primary objective of his trip: engaging in new markets that hold tremendous potential to spur job creation here at home.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
TPM: A Chief of Staff says it flat out...
All About the 60
Josh Marshall | November 20, 2009, 7:18PM
A Senate Democratic Chief of Staff chimes in ...
There is a lot of misplaced anger coming from many of our fellow progressives about Senate Democrats (which often is just shortened to "The Democrats") inability to pass a robust healthcare reform bill, climate change, etc.
However, I believe it's worth reminding folks that--as long as the Republican Senators hold together--we have to hold EVERY single Democratic Senator, including folks like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, which is usually impossible unless the legislation in question gets substantially watered down.
So, what we might end up with is a Senate Democratic Caucus that holds 98% of its members but still fails to pass healthcare reform, AND a mob of angry progressives who are screaming for the heads of "the Democrats." This isn't fair, but more importantly, it's self-defeating. If progressives REALLY want to transform America, they'll make an issue of the anti-democratic rules of the Senate which make real change virtually impossible. Blasting their elected Democratic officials, the vast majority of whom will vote for the Senate bill (and would also support a more robust public option if we didn't need 60 votes to achieve cloture), may make folks feel good, but is both short-sighted and stupid.
Couldn't resist (VIDEO)
You're going to be seeing these spots during the three Thanksgiving Day Football games. They star the President, Drew Brees, Troy Polamalu, and DeMarcus Ware.
Uh, Secret Service...you may not be aware of this, but there's a Cowboy on the White House grounds.
Uh, Secret Service...you may not be aware of this, but there's a Cowboy on the White House grounds.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
BREAKING: Racist Congresswoman passed Civil Rights Legislation in 60s...ALL BY HERSELF (VIDEO)
This from the woman who thinks "Tarbaby" is a proper noun, and not an racial epithet.
Lou Dobbs...the male Sarah Palin (VIDEO)
Lou Dobbs, late of CNN, was on the Daily Show last night. Jon greeted him, in fine style, with a Mariachi Band.
Ultimately, these long form interviews are always more informative than what they show on the TV. (Hey, TV is all about the clock, and the clock's word is law). Usually, you get to the heart of the matter in these extended interviews, and Jon's (actually considerable) interviewing skills usually bob to the surface.
That being said, Lou Dobbs is even more of a doucebag than I previously thought.
All the man does for the fifteen or so minutes he's on the air, is gripe and bitch. "Everyone" is getting it wrong. "Both sides" are to blame. "People" are frustrated.
And of course, he out and out lied about Health Care Polling.
All I saw, out of this toad of a human being is someone willing to exploit the fears, sorrows and anger of the moment, to drive a wedge between people, to say whatever he has to say, depending of course on stage he's on. All that matters to him is being in the spotlight. All that matters to him is being an alternative...but he doesn't say to what.
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
Ultimately, these long form interviews are always more informative than what they show on the TV. (Hey, TV is all about the clock, and the clock's word is law). Usually, you get to the heart of the matter in these extended interviews, and Jon's (actually considerable) interviewing skills usually bob to the surface.
That being said, Lou Dobbs is even more of a doucebag than I previously thought.
All the man does for the fifteen or so minutes he's on the air, is gripe and bitch. "Everyone" is getting it wrong. "Both sides" are to blame. "People" are frustrated.
And of course, he out and out lied about Health Care Polling.
All I saw, out of this toad of a human being is someone willing to exploit the fears, sorrows and anger of the moment, to drive a wedge between people, to say whatever he has to say, depending of course on stage he's on. All that matters to him is being in the spotlight. All that matters to him is being an alternative...but he doesn't say to what.
Part 1:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
Part 2:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2 | ||||
| ||||
Part 3:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3 | ||||
| ||||
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
"It means something more threatening..." (VIDEO)
From Rachel's show last night:
To correct one thing Mr. Schaffer said, the Secret Service recently stated that after the initial spike of threats, things seem to be cooling off.
They better be right.
I think that the situation that I find genuinely frightening right now is that you have a ramping up of Biblical language, language from the anti-abortion movement for instance, death panels and this sort of thing, and what it's coalescing into is branding Obama as Hitler, as they have already called him. And something foreign to our shores, we're reminded of that, he's born in Kenya. As brown, as black, above all, as not us. He is Sarah Palin's "not a real American." But now, it turns out, he joins the ranks of the unjust kings of ancient Israel, unjust rulers to which all these Biblical allusions are directed who should be slaughtered, if not by God, then by just men. So there's a parallel here with Timothy McVeigh's t-shirt on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing. He said the tree of liberty had to be watered by the blood of tyrants. That quote, we saw at a meeting where Obama was present carried on a placard by someone with a loaded weapon.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
To correct one thing Mr. Schaffer said, the Secret Service recently stated that after the initial spike of threats, things seem to be cooling off.
They better be right.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
The Fireside chat for November 14, 2009
The President looks back at a week where we honored those who serve on Veterans Day, and mourned those we lost at Fort Hood. He discusses the review he has ordered into the Fort Hood incident, and pledges to stand by our servicemen and women, as well as our veterans, as his most profound responsibility.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
MSNBC: Obama's Speech in Alaska on Afghanistan and the Veterans (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Joseph Cao actually comes through...
I reported in this space (back in August), Joseph Cao, the Republican Congressman from Louisiana who replaced the ultra-corrupt William Jefferson, was considering voting for the House Bill.
As much as I want many, many, GOP Pelts nailed to my wall come November, 2010, I'll admit that I'm considering giving him money for his re-election campaign. Cao may just be the only non-white face left in the GOP House. He represents an overwhelmingly black and liberal district, and actually represented the wishes of his constituents, which is what a Congressman is supposed to do. His reward for doing the right thing shouldn't be losing his job.
The Fireside chat for November 7, 2009
The President condemns the "despicable" attacks at Fort Hood, honoring those who were killed and injured. He also commends those who stood up to help and console those affected: "even as we saw the worst of human nature on full display, we also saw the best of America."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Please help the Spokesjerks (VIDEO)
From Think Progress:
Actor and comedian Andy Cobb, who used to be the spokesman for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, has teamed up with Robert Greenwald’s Brave New Films project “Sick for Profit” to produce a new ad in favor of health care reform. In the ad, Cobb calls himself a former “spokesjerk” for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and says that his job was to “sell you the worst product in American history: private health insurance.” Cobb calls attention to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) for his significant contributions from the health care industry, and asks him to vote in favor of health care legislation with a public option. Watch it:
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The Disadvantages of being the President's Daughter... (VIDEO)
In that, the President will discuss your grades in public:
Taking the time to read Audacity of Hope past page 10...
My main standard, in dealing with fervent opposition to the President, particularly as it comes to define itself from the left, is a simple one: Did any of y'all actually read Audacity of Hope?
Now, this is not an effort to boost Books Sales. I just figured that anyone who actually took the time to read Audacity of Hope (first published in 2006) wouldn't at all be surprised by the Barack Obama that is now the President of the United States.
Yet, we're suffering through a week long Woodstock of Misery, fearturing (frankly) whiny Liberals bitching and moaning about all that could have been with the Obama Administration.
And again, stop with the "One Year in..." crap. He was elected one year ago today. He didn't actually gain Executive authority until January 20th. Last I checked, we Liberals actually liked the Constitution. Skipping the fact of it now, for the sake of a week of bullshit stories seems a bit hypocritical.
In thinking about all this, I am reminded of two things. One is from a speech the future-President gave in Powder Springs, GA:
And of course, the statement he made on Page 11 of Audacity of Hope (apparently, Arianna and most of the Huffington inteligentsia stopped reading on Page 10).
I write all this because, I read a piece by John McQuaid in the Huffington Post today (as well as Bob Cesca, who's a reliable contributor).
Mr. McQuaid (and Mr. Cesca, too, I'd bet), actually read Audacity of Hope past page 10:
UPDATE: 1:24pm. Read Cesca's piece, and it's all right. I'm not a fan of "blame Rahm" ideology, and I wasn't comfortable with him even coming close to agreeing with Arianna (which he did), but hell...it's his piece.
Now, this is not an effort to boost Books Sales. I just figured that anyone who actually took the time to read Audacity of Hope (first published in 2006) wouldn't at all be surprised by the Barack Obama that is now the President of the United States.
Yet, we're suffering through a week long Woodstock of Misery, fearturing (frankly) whiny Liberals bitching and moaning about all that could have been with the Obama Administration.
And again, stop with the "One Year in..." crap. He was elected one year ago today. He didn't actually gain Executive authority until January 20th. Last I checked, we Liberals actually liked the Constitution. Skipping the fact of it now, for the sake of a week of bullshit stories seems a bit hypocritical.
In thinking about all this, I am reminded of two things. One is from a speech the future-President gave in Powder Springs, GA:
"You're not going to agree with me on 100 percent of what I think, but don't assume that if I don't agree with you on something that it must be because I'm doing that politically," he said. "I may just disagree with you."
And of course, the statement he made on Page 11 of Audacity of Hope (apparently, Arianna and most of the Huffington inteligentsia stopped reading on Page 10).
I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not ail, of them. Which perhaps indicates a second, more intimate theme to this book-namely, how I, or anybody in public office, can avoid the pitfalls of fame, the hunger to please, the fear of loss, and thereby retain that kernel of truth, that singular voice within each of us that reminds us of our deepest commitments.
I write all this because, I read a piece by John McQuaid in the Huffington Post today (as well as Bob Cesca, who's a reliable contributor).
Mr. McQuaid (and Mr. Cesca, too, I'd bet), actually read Audacity of Hope past page 10:
As Jon Stewart put it, "so when does 'hope' turn into 'change'?" As Arianna points out, we still don't know. To any outside observer it sure looks like Obama has lost his campaign mojo and gotten crushed in the whinging gears of Washington's political apparatus. But I'm not so sure.
I've been in Washington since the early 1990s. During that time, let's face it: very little happened. Well, that's not quite right: a lot of things happened, many of them consequential. There was a presidential impeachment, a government shutdown, and several military campaigns and wars. But when you get right down to it, what did all that mean in terms of the way the government ran and its basic priorities? Very little.
The basic structure of American politics -- the array of interest groups and party structures, the government's basic assumptions about what was politically possible and desirable -- didn't change much at all. Mainly, well, it got stupider. Media coverage got stupider. Electoral politics got stupider. And, especially during the Bush administration, government itself got stupider, or at least prone to spectacular breakdowns. With the assent and encouragement of the White House, large swaths of the federal government became hostage to narrow-minded interest groups of one kind or another that simply didn't have a stake in making it work.
Meanwhile, the world was changing. Fast. Big problems such as global warming and collateralized debt obligations emerged. They were catastrophic and just plain weird, and they didn't fit any of our usual political paradigms. When the government can't respond effectively to the real world, it's going to pile one disaster on another.
Obama clearly recognized this problem -- a government adrift in a revolutionary age, with all its constituent parts hardwired to stay that way -- and set out to change it.
But there was never going to be a revolution. Obama ran on change, but he also made clear that he is a centrist and an institutionalist. He believes in making things work, in practical results -- not in blowing things up and starting from scratch.
As a result, the poetry of the Obama campaign has been transformed into the software users manual of the Obama White House.
This is not to deride the software manual approach. Most of the work of actually reforming government is a) politically very, very hard and b) not especially inspiring or even interesting to the media or the public. That includes big stuff like guiding health care reform through Congress. Or lower-profile stuff like staffing scientific agencies with scientists rather than hacks. At every turn, there are obstacles large and small that have been in place for decades and can't easily be dislodged.
So I'm willing to cut Obama some slack. I think his approach is substantive where those of some of his immediate predecessors were variously incremental, empty or dangerous.
But Obama's problems are more than merely rhetorical. (Tom Friedman's suggestion for a lofty thematic fix, "Nation Building at Home," even if basically correct, was politically suicidal as slogans go.) I'm still wondering: Can someone who is temperamentally conservative and pragmatic, and who clearly doesn't relish political combat, ever make truly revolutionary changes? Or in our system, is this the only kind of president who can? That's the riddle we're all facing right now.
UPDATE: 1:24pm. Read Cesca's piece, and it's all right. I'm not a fan of "blame Rahm" ideology, and I wasn't comfortable with him even coming close to agreeing with Arianna (which he did), but hell...it's his piece.
Never let a good ego get in the way of the facts...
It's hard not to respect Daily Kos for starting a Liberal Revolution on the Internet, and for that, he has my thanks and respect.
But it's also hard to ignore when he lets his ego get in the way of the facts, which in my mind, he has a tendency to do:
Thus, I offer Kos's take on last night's elections:
Wow. While there's something to that in general, in reality, for this particular election...ehhhh, not so much.
1. Despite the "Republican Wave", and Democrats "abandoning their principles", the night wasn't a total disaster for Democrats. Besides the House victories (see below), we held onto Mayorships in the South that were supposed to go to Republicans in Charlotte and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Washington State passed Marriage Equality for Gay-Americans. Washington State and Maine both THUMPED Tea-Bagger favored Tax Resolutions, and the New Jersey Legislature managed to stay Democratic despite the Christie win.
Granted, these are small wins, but considering how animated the Glenn Beck crowd was, particularly in the "Obama-ain't-from-here" South, these wins shouldn't be discounted.
And you'll note the source for No. 1. Yeah, it was the Daily Kos.
2. And somehow in this "Republican Wave", the House Democrats snared themselves two more votes for Health Care, as both new Congressmen favor the House Legislation.
3. And sorry, Kos...I know you got a line to push, but exit polls are showing that Obama (of whom you were clearly speaking) was not a factor in either of the Virginia or New Jersey races.
But it's also hard to ignore when he lets his ego get in the way of the facts, which in my mind, he has a tendency to do:
Thus, I offer Kos's take on last night's elections:
This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
Wow. While there's something to that in general, in reality, for this particular election...ehhhh, not so much.
1. Despite the "Republican Wave", and Democrats "abandoning their principles", the night wasn't a total disaster for Democrats. Besides the House victories (see below), we held onto Mayorships in the South that were supposed to go to Republicans in Charlotte and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Washington State passed Marriage Equality for Gay-Americans. Washington State and Maine both THUMPED Tea-Bagger favored Tax Resolutions, and the New Jersey Legislature managed to stay Democratic despite the Christie win.
Granted, these are small wins, but considering how animated the Glenn Beck crowd was, particularly in the "Obama-ain't-from-here" South, these wins shouldn't be discounted.
And you'll note the source for No. 1. Yeah, it was the Daily Kos.
2. And somehow in this "Republican Wave", the House Democrats snared themselves two more votes for Health Care, as both new Congressmen favor the House Legislation.
3. And sorry, Kos...I know you got a line to push, but exit polls are showing that Obama (of whom you were clearly speaking) was not a factor in either of the Virginia or New Jersey races.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
"On Obama's First Year in Office..."
I was listening to the radio today, coming back from Costco. The Ron Reagan Show was on, and he was asking his callers to give Obama a letter grade for, and I quote, "his first year in office."
Okay, um...Math geniuses? The President was sworn in on January 20th (remember the Chief Justice flubbed the oath? A bunch of people with purple tickets -- sorry, Lonnee -- were stuck in the tunnel of doom? Me and Heidi were watching the parade from the comfort -- and warmth -- of my living room?)
Today is November 3rd.
(Sigh.)
Nevertheless, we are starting a process that is sure to be repeated three months from now...grading the President's first year in office.
Well, I'm going to ignore Arianna's bull@#$% column. It is the firm position of this blog that people who run for Office (as Arianna has), and wind up with .55% of the vote (as Arianna did) don't get to give Political advice to anybody, much less someone who figured out how to elect the first African-American guy President of the United States.
It is the stated mission of this blog to explain to people the "whys" of President Obama's decisions. I knew going in that he was going to take fire from the Right, but I also kinda knew it was going to come from the Left as well...and boy has it ever.
Thus, I leave you with two articles that are must-read, perspective-builders. The first is from Obama '08 Campaign Manager David Plouffe, who (as politely as possible) tells Arianna to stick it:
But there's another one from a guy named Dylan Loewe, who's a contributor to the Guardian Newspaper in London. He too had a very effective piece in today's Huffington Post, this time all-too-politely telling my fellow Liberals (and Arianna by default) to stick it:
Dylan also has this interesting bit about Triggers. Now, I still think they're worthless, but:
Okay, um...Math geniuses? The President was sworn in on January 20th (remember the Chief Justice flubbed the oath? A bunch of people with purple tickets -- sorry, Lonnee -- were stuck in the tunnel of doom? Me and Heidi were watching the parade from the comfort -- and warmth -- of my living room?)
Today is November 3rd.
(Sigh.)
Nevertheless, we are starting a process that is sure to be repeated three months from now...grading the President's first year in office.
Well, I'm going to ignore Arianna's bull@#$% column. It is the firm position of this blog that people who run for Office (as Arianna has), and wind up with .55% of the vote (as Arianna did) don't get to give Political advice to anybody, much less someone who figured out how to elect the first African-American guy President of the United States.
It is the stated mission of this blog to explain to people the "whys" of President Obama's decisions. I knew going in that he was going to take fire from the Right, but I also kinda knew it was going to come from the Left as well...and boy has it ever.
Thus, I leave you with two articles that are must-read, perspective-builders. The first is from Obama '08 Campaign Manager David Plouffe, who (as politely as possible) tells Arianna to stick it:
Frustration about the pace of change, even disagreement on select issues, of course is understandable. But stepping back a bit, as those of us in the Obama orbit have learned to do, reveals an administration that already has made a significant down payment on the change so many fought for last year. I remain confident in the president's unique ability not just to lead us through the many challenges and crises of the moment, but also to accomplish the tough, smart, long-term projects of energy and health care reform -- problems that Washington has long ignored but that will secure a more equitable and prosperous future for all Americans.
...
Arianna Huffington has written much that I agree with. But when it comes to her opinion on the president and his record so far, or her suggestion that there is some great difference between the president and the candidate, I have to register the strongest possible dissent. A year after our historic victory, I have never been more certain that Barack Obama is uniquely suited to lead the country at this unparalleled moment. His values; his ability and desire to think long term; his determination to avoid the easy road of political expedience and to rebuild trust between the American people and their government -- these are exactly what American needs right now. As on any journey, there will be twists and turns, ups and downs. But the change so many of us fought for so passionately last year is becoming a reality in front of our eyes, if we focus squarely enough to see it. And when the decisions he is making today finally resolve into a complete picture years down the road, we will find ourselves living in a stronger, fairer, and more prosperous America. And we will cherish the small part all of us played in electing this unique leader, a man befitting this critical moment in our history.
But there's another one from a guy named Dylan Loewe, who's a contributor to the Guardian Newspaper in London. He too had a very effective piece in today's Huffington Post, this time all-too-politely telling my fellow Liberals (and Arianna by default) to stick it:
What Arianna calls timidity, I call patience.
Campaigning is not the same as governing. In 2007 and 2008, Obama never needed Congressional approval for the executive decisions his campaign made. He never had to worry about securing Joe Lieberman's vote. Governing is more complex, certainly less pure, and noticeably more incremental than most of us would hope. But in American government, even in the midst of revolutionary progressive change, things take time.
It was the same way, by the way, with the Obama campaign. Judging Obama's presidency based on his first 9 months in office is like judging his campaign based on its first five. During that time, as Arianna notes in her column, Obama had difficulty connecting with voters and often felt that the campaign lacked the mojo he had hoped for. He was choppy in debates, often disappointing supporters and worrying campaign aides. And for months and months he trailed Hillary Clinton by double digits, causing such turmoil among his fans that he found himself surrounded by donors and top-tier supporters begging that he change course.
But he didn't change course, despite those who demanded it. He took the long view, saw the road to victory, and never took his eye off that ball.
In that sense, Obama has governed just as he campaigned. Despite calls for him to change strategy by those on the left, including many on this site, Obama has held steady to the strategy he and his team first envisioned.
Dylan also has this interesting bit about Triggers. Now, I still think they're worthless, but:
And of course, there is health care reform, which should pass by the end of this year, and will likely cover 95% of Americans. Any objective observer should consider such a feat to be the biggest domestic legislative accomplishment since Medicare in 1965.
There are those who will complain, as Arianna has, that Obama is more concerned with courting Olympia Snowe's vote than with providing the most progressive policy possible to the American people. But at this point, it's not clear that is what he's doing. We do hear that privately, the White House is pushing for a triggered public option, which would most likely earn Snowe's vote. But I have a hard time believing that winning Snowe's vote is the only reason the White House is pushing for a trigger.
The robust public option that Nancy Pelosi promised would be in the House bill just a week ago is so horribly watered down now that it will actually have higher premiums than private insurance. With higher premiums, there is no way that the public option will actually do anything to control costs. But many on the left would rather the symbolic victory than the policy victory. They would prefer a public option of no real value then a trigger that might have some teeth.
The White House surely must recognize that they are more likely to get a robust public option in the bill, one which will have the intended effect of reducing costs, if they tie it to a trigger. And if the left would stop criticizing the trigger and instead start pushing to define it as a progressive one, the best of both worlds could come to fruition. After all, a trigger that would require insurance companies to reduce costs over the next five years, or else risk a public option tied to Medicare rates, is more likely to actually reduce costs than the one in the current House bill. Does the White House want Olympia Snowe's support? Of course they do. (Let's not forget that that same campaign Arianna is such a fan of was big on bipartisanship.) But in this instance, it may well be that the best policy is aligned with bipartisanship - a true rarity in Washington.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
The Fireside chat for October 31, 2009
While there is nothing to celebrate until job numbers turn around, the President cites the recent dramatic turnaround in gross domestic product as a sign of better things to come. He also applauds the fact that the Recovery Act has now created or saved more than a million jobs.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Who ya gonna trust?
On Health Care Reform, we have to look at reality.
The current draft of the House Health Care Reform Bill is over 1900 pages long.
The Senate HELP Committee Bill was shorter (600 pages), but about as complicated.
There are going to be Lawyers (and Lawyers who I know personally) who are going to have a hard time slogging through this sucker, much less understanding all the bells and whistles associated with it.
I would put your chances of understanding the bill on your own, without aid of a summary or breakdown, as not very good.
I'm not saying you're stoopid, but hell...there are Senators who are going to be voting on the actual bill who don't have a clue as to what's its all about.
Yes, I'm talking to you Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut...
These people I would call stoopid, and do it to their face.
If you are a Single Payer advocate (like I am), and are generally in favor of Liberal Health Care Reform (like I am), and of course, a Public Option (which is a big HELL YES), watch three people:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Sen. Tom Harkin (IA)
Rep. John Dingle (MI)
If these three guys say the bill is okay, then the bill is okay. Period.
John Dingle was interviewed by Ezra Klein this afternoon. When asked about the House bill's shortcomings, he put it like this:
That's about how it breaks down.
The current draft of the House Health Care Reform Bill is over 1900 pages long.
The Senate HELP Committee Bill was shorter (600 pages), but about as complicated.
There are going to be Lawyers (and Lawyers who I know personally) who are going to have a hard time slogging through this sucker, much less understanding all the bells and whistles associated with it.
I would put your chances of understanding the bill on your own, without aid of a summary or breakdown, as not very good.
I'm not saying you're stoopid, but hell...there are Senators who are going to be voting on the actual bill who don't have a clue as to what's its all about.
Yes, I'm talking to you Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut...
These people I would call stoopid, and do it to their face.
If you are a Single Payer advocate (like I am), and are generally in favor of Liberal Health Care Reform (like I am), and of course, a Public Option (which is a big HELL YES), watch three people:
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (WV)
Sen. Tom Harkin (IA)
Rep. John Dingle (MI)
If these three guys say the bill is okay, then the bill is okay. Period.
John Dingle was interviewed by Ezra Klein this afternoon. When asked about the House bill's shortcomings, he put it like this:
Look my friend, I'm too smart to criticize a bill that has taken this much time, effort, and suffering to get to where it is. I will only say this: You know me, and you know I have always stood for a single-payer plan. In the process of compromise and legislating, I believe this is as good as can be done now. This is a plan that gives choice to our people and is peculiarly suited to the United States and the system of medicine we now have.
That's about how it breaks down.
Harry? Harry Reid?? The one in the Senate? (VIDEO)
Harry Reid...that Harry Reid...asking for the people to push the Senate.
Okay. Push!!
Okay. Push!!
Monday, October 26, 2009
TPM: Pawlenty no longer a "serious" candidate for President
If you're turning your back on your own party (in this case, what's left of the GOP), and supporting a "Conservative Party" whackadoodle for Congress, if you're going to align yourself with the Palins, the Birthers, the Tenthers and the like, I can safely assume should you be the nominee, Obama can start measuring the curtains for Years 4 through 8.
If the GOP is even halfway serious about unseating President Obama in 2012, the only person left on the radar is Mitt Romney (and even he's a stretch).
If the GOP is even halfway serious about unseating President Obama in 2012, the only person left on the radar is Mitt Romney (and even he's a stretch).
Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Fireside chat for October 24, 2009
The President restates his commitment to small business as key to economic recovery -- from the Recovery Act to Financial Stability to Health Reform -- and pledges more to come.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Kos: Whipping The Trigger...
Daily Kos's McJoan has a version of the article I put up a while ago. I think hers is just a bit better than mine.
Here's the Deal on the Public Option, as far as the White House goes...
I'm going to try to explain the White House's rationale...even though I think their rationale is mistaken.
Basically, there are reports that the White House is trying to water down the Public Option to keep Senator Snowe on board. These reports are mistaken, in that, it makes it sound like the White House is trying to destroy the Public Option. They ain't.
To them, the safest path to passage is to make sure that at least one GOPer is on board, because God forbid on the day of the vote, Robert Byrd is sick (as he has been for the last couple of months. I mean, crickey...the man is 96!) and makes it impossible to break a filibuster.
It's a real concern, but it's not worth passing shit legislation because of it.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid thinks he has an angle on getting an "Opt-Out" Public Option through the Senate...with 60 votes...all of them Democratic. Snowe says she's out if its a Opt-Out...which basically means she's only interested in a trigger that never fires. That makes her a worthless snake in the grass, whom I hope the voters of Maine take care of in 2010 (and if she helps scuttle reform, she won't be back).
Erza summarizes:
Basically, there are reports that the White House is trying to water down the Public Option to keep Senator Snowe on board. These reports are mistaken, in that, it makes it sound like the White House is trying to destroy the Public Option. They ain't.
To them, the safest path to passage is to make sure that at least one GOPer is on board, because God forbid on the day of the vote, Robert Byrd is sick (as he has been for the last couple of months. I mean, crickey...the man is 96!) and makes it impossible to break a filibuster.
It's a real concern, but it's not worth passing shit legislation because of it.
Meanwhile, Harry Reid thinks he has an angle on getting an "Opt-Out" Public Option through the Senate...with 60 votes...all of them Democratic. Snowe says she's out if its a Opt-Out...which basically means she's only interested in a trigger that never fires. That makes her a worthless snake in the grass, whom I hope the voters of Maine take care of in 2010 (and if she helps scuttle reform, she won't be back).
Erza summarizes:
On Thursday night, Reid went over to the White House for a talk with the president. The conversation centered on Reid's desire to put Schumer's national opt-out plan into the base bill. White House officials were not necessarily pleased, and they made that known. Everyone agrees that they didn't embrace Reid's new strategy. Everyone agrees that the White House wants Snowe on the bill, feels the trigger offers a safer endgame, and isn't convinced by Reid's math. But whether officials expressed a clear preference for the trigger, or were just worried about the potential for 60 votes, is less clear. One staffer briefed on the conversation says "the White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing.'"
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Obama refocuses Bailout on Small Business (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Telegraph of London is !@#$!%@
On October 14th, 2009, the Telegraph of London published the following:
You might have noticed that didn't happen.
Now, the Telegraph follows up with this headline:
Who's upset, exactly? Could it be the Telegraph's source who seems hell bent to leather to push a President who won't be pushed???
Seems to me its a Conservative Newspaper with an axe to grind, who might be made that their earlier bullshit prediction didn't come up aces.
United States to send 'up to 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan'
The US is expected to announce a significant surge of up to 45,000 extra troops for Afghanistan after Gordon Brown said that 500 more British troops would be sent to the country.
You might have noticed that didn't happen.
Now, the Telegraph follows up with this headline:
Barack Obama's Afghan troop decision delay provokes anger at Pentagon
President Barack Obama's decision to postpone responding to the military request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan the after next month's run-off election is heightening tensions between the White House and Pentagon.
Who's upset, exactly? Could it be the Telegraph's source who seems hell bent to leather to push a President who won't be pushed???
Seems to me its a Conservative Newspaper with an axe to grind, who might be made that their earlier bullshit prediction didn't come up aces.
David Vitter...racist (VIDEO)
Courtesy of Wonkette. Senator David "Diaper" Vitter refuses to condemn the Louisiana Justice of the Peace who refused to marry a interracial couple. In fact, he goes out of his way not to do so, when every other Politician in Louisiana (Republican and Democrat alike) has done so.
...and...
Maybe a guy who gets caught canoodling with D.C. Hookers shouldn't be telling other people how to be happy, or who to love.
...and...
Maybe a guy who gets caught canoodling with D.C. Hookers shouldn't be telling other people how to be happy, or who to love.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
The President's Speech in New Orleans (VIDEO)
Wish I could've gotten the whole Town Hall, but we do what we can.
Incidentally, a 4th Grader asked the President why does everyone hate him. I'll post video as soon as I can get it. Until then, it's at TPM.
UPDATE: 4:42pm Pacific. Here's the video.
Incidentally, a 4th Grader asked the President why does everyone hate him. I'll post video as soon as I can get it. Until then, it's at TPM.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
UPDATE: 4:42pm Pacific. Here's the video.
When my fellow Liberals lose their minds...
From Huffington Post. Actual headline:
Is Obama Uncomfortable Around Women?Amy Siskind, 10.15.2009President and Co-Founder of The New Agenda
Despite much talk of hope and change, President Obama seems largely tone-deaf to women and women's issues. Post-racial country -- yes. Post gender inequality -- not so much.
First act signed...Lilly Ledbetter Act. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. First Supreme Court Nominee, Sonia Sotamayor. His head of the Domestic Policy Council, head of his Communications Office, his head of Homeland Security (HOMELAND SECURITY!!!), all women...yet he's uncomfortable.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
CNN: WHAT THE--?!?!?!? (VIDEO)
CNN did nothing wrong here. They put up a good report...
...but Jesus H. Christ.
Count me as assuming the worst:
...but Jesus H. Christ.
Count me as assuming the worst:
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
WaPo: Dumbest...blogposting...ever.
I like Ezra Klein's work, and all...but...
Are you freakin' kidding me? Ease and WHAT?!?
Looks to me like the rest of the world is way used to Obama, its this country that has to catch up.
America has already gotten used to Obama. It's common to talk about the "overexposure" of the first African American president in history. It's ordinary to see him hedging on important political priorities, and failing to please his most ardent supporters. It's normal to see him called communist by his enemies and spineless by his friends. America, to its credit, has adjusted to its first black president with ease and swiftness.
But the rest of the world hasn't necessarily done the same. This prize, which came as Obama contemplates a troop build-up in Afghanistan and hectors the international community on financial regulation and global warming, suggests that there is some reservoir of relief and amazement for America's young president. The international gushing may seem absurd to us, as the schoolyard lionization of an older brother often seems funny to a sibling, but it can be used to our advantage. Leaders in allied countries no longer run against America, and now the Nobel Committee is attempting to welcome America back as the leader of the free world. And it didn't cost us anything. Would that life told more jokes like that one.
Are you freakin' kidding me? Ease and WHAT?!?
Looks to me like the rest of the world is way used to Obama, its this country that has to catch up.
MSNBC: Obama's Speech on the Consumer Protection Agency (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The World is watching...
The news that President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Peace has got tongues a-waggin’ and keyboards a-clickin’ just about all over the world. To me, the most extreme negative reaction to this news should be mezzo-mezzo; a “meh” if you will. If the Republican Party-slash-conservative movement had any brains left in it that’s how they would have played it.
Instead, we got Rush Limbaugh:
…and…
We got David Frum:
We even got a little racism from Erick Erickson (Redstate.com)
From the left, the response hasn’t been a hell of a lot better. The most quoted thing I’ve read has been douchebags like Glenn Greenwald (and yes, I reserve my right to call him a douchebag):
Some guy named Jesse Berney (Huffington Post Blogger):
Jake Tapper (ABC News...the links to his Twitter account, of which this is a tweet):
To top it all off, we even heard from the effin' Taliban:
Which made Rush follow up with this:
I get the feeling Rush is mad that he just bought his "I get to bash Obama about the Olympics toy" and now the Nobel Committee's taken it away from him.
It strikes me that both sides are missing the point in all this.
The Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t so much a message to President Obama, as it was to America.
It was…in short, the world telling us that this is our last chance with them.
Martin Luther King was awarded his Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 in the middle of the tumult of the Civil Rights Struggle. He would only (unfortunately) be with us for four more years. It’s not hard to imagine the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys and the Michelle Malkins of their day launching a non-stop assault on the integrity of the award just for giving it to King.
But think about what the award conferred on King; it conferred legitimacy. Not only that, it conferred global legitimacy. It was the rest of Planet Earth telling America that we approve of what Dr. King is trying to do.
The number one criticism of Barack Obama’s award is that he is not deserving of it, at least not yet. But, as the Nobel Committee noted themselves, it’s not about whether he deserves it now:
Again, as with his spiritual predecessor, the President’s award is about global legitimacy. It is another moment wherein the world (at least in the form of the Nobel Committee) is telling America, again, that they approve of what this man is trying to do; and that its time to get your act together.
So what does this do…to the people who hate the President? Is this message going to sink in?
Probably not. If anything, it's going to have the opposite effect in this country.
But the world is watching...
I’m not talking about people with legitimate Political disagreements over policy (like Glenn Greenwald…douchebag though he remains), I’m talking about the people who’s opposition is fueled by the visceral, by his political positions, by his name, and most of all, by the color of his skin; all of whom using the language of violence and threat to make their point.
But the world doesn't care what they think. They just reminded them that they are watching.
They’re watching the threats, the town halls, the guns at the President’s appearances, the Birthers, the Tenthers, the Teabaggers, the Glenn Beck horseshit, the threats against Congressmen and women, the threats against the President himself...
In truth, you want to know when I think the President won the Prize?
The moment Joe Wilson opened his damn mouth.
The moment this lowlife Congressman showed such open, defiant disrespect, unleashing such venom, displaying (sorry to disagree with you, Mr. President) such typical American racism; everything started to change...the health care debate, and the internal political dynamic in this country.
The quiet discussions about violence and threats to the President came out into the open. We had a U.S. Congressman willing to embarrass himself, and embarrass his country to show this in however small a way that he was somehow above or superior to the duly-elected President of the United States.
And the world was watching.
Today, the world decided to send a message right back to America: You did the right thing in electing this man. We respect you for it. We admire you for it.
But how you treat him in the future is going to weigh heavily on how we treat you
What happens now…what happens to our country…if the duly-elected President of the United States, the first African-American (and yes, I count him as one) to hold the position, and Nobel Laureate…is felled by an assassins bullet?
How the world going to look upon us…if we should so cavalierly spit on their judgment?
I don’t think their reaction to us will be kind, nor forgiving. In fact, there’s a part of me that suspects the world will say, “that’s it. You’re on your own.”
The world is watching, and now demands better of us.
And they expect better of Obama, too. Now, granted he has some really solid Foreign Policy successes on his curriculum vitae. Iraq is drawing to a close, however slowly. The President (along with Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell – who deserve a share of this award, if you ask me) is pushing Israel on the Peace Process (and pissing people off). He spoke to both the Muslim world, and to our own racial divide in ways that people are still talking about. He ramped down tensions with Russia. He’s made significant strides in relations with Iran, with a lot more work to come. His work on Environmental policy drew the notice of the Nobel Committee (and the ire of the Right). And his commitment to rid the world of Nuclear weapons is both good Politics, and good Foreign Policy.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there’s a flip side to this coin. He is on a path to accelerate things in Afghanistan (a plan I’m not completely against, to be honest). American Forces have killed far too many civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan (any number greater than one). American Special Forces delivered a lethal warning to Somali pirates (again, which I support). And he has unleashed our drones and our Pakistani allies in Waziristan and the Swat Valley.
The world is watching the President too. Unlike his radical foes, Obama seems to have gotten the message:
Yes, it is still early in his Administration, and not all of us are satisfied. But there is so much road to go, so many more things to build on and explore.
Can you think of a better man for the job?
I can’t.
(And if you can…odds are they don’t have a Nobel Peace Prize, so…SCOREBOARD!)
Instead, we got Rush Limbaugh:
Nobel Gang Just Suicide-Bombed Themselves.
…and…
They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too.
We got David Frum:
From the age of 20, Barack Obama has collected acclaim, awards and prizes not for his accomplishments (which have always been rather scanty), but for his potential. You think with the guy nearing 50 and elected president of the United States that the prizes for “most promising young man” would cease. But no! The Nobel Committee has just awarded him one more.
We even got a little racism from Erick Erickson (Redstate.com)
I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.
From the left, the response hasn’t been a hell of a lot better. The most quoted thing I’ve read has been douchebags like Glenn Greenwald (and yes, I reserve my right to call him a douchebag):
We're currently occupying and waging wars in two separate Muslim countries and making clear we reserve the "right" to attack a third. Someone who made meaningful changes to those realities would truly be a man of peace. It's unreasonable to expect that Obama would magically transform all of this in nine months, and he certainly hasn't. Instead, he presides over it and is continuing much of it. One can reasonably debate how much blame he merits for all of that, but there are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.
Some guy named Jesse Berney (Huffington Post Blogger):
Barack Obama's presidency is 17 days younger than my daughter, and she just figured out how to put Cheerios into her mouth. The Norwegian Nobel Committee made a grave mistake.
Jake Tapper (ABC News...the links to his Twitter account, of which this is a tweet):
Apparently the standards are more exacting for an ASU honorary degree these days.
To top it all off, we even heard from the effin' Taliban:
We have seen no change in his strategy for peace. He has done nothing for peace in Afghanistan.
Which made Rush follow up with this:
Something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award.
I get the feeling Rush is mad that he just bought his "I get to bash Obama about the Olympics toy" and now the Nobel Committee's taken it away from him.
It strikes me that both sides are missing the point in all this.
The Nobel Peace Prize wasn’t so much a message to President Obama, as it was to America.
It was…in short, the world telling us that this is our last chance with them.
Martin Luther King was awarded his Nobel Peace Prize in 1964 in the middle of the tumult of the Civil Rights Struggle. He would only (unfortunately) be with us for four more years. It’s not hard to imagine the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys and the Michelle Malkins of their day launching a non-stop assault on the integrity of the award just for giving it to King.
But think about what the award conferred on King; it conferred legitimacy. Not only that, it conferred global legitimacy. It was the rest of Planet Earth telling America that we approve of what Dr. King is trying to do.
The number one criticism of Barack Obama’s award is that he is not deserving of it, at least not yet. But, as the Nobel Committee noted themselves, it’s not about whether he deserves it now:
Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.
For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."
Again, as with his spiritual predecessor, the President’s award is about global legitimacy. It is another moment wherein the world (at least in the form of the Nobel Committee) is telling America, again, that they approve of what this man is trying to do; and that its time to get your act together.
So what does this do…to the people who hate the President? Is this message going to sink in?
Probably not. If anything, it's going to have the opposite effect in this country.
But the world is watching...
I’m not talking about people with legitimate Political disagreements over policy (like Glenn Greenwald…douchebag though he remains), I’m talking about the people who’s opposition is fueled by the visceral, by his political positions, by his name, and most of all, by the color of his skin; all of whom using the language of violence and threat to make their point.
But the world doesn't care what they think. They just reminded them that they are watching.
They’re watching the threats, the town halls, the guns at the President’s appearances, the Birthers, the Tenthers, the Teabaggers, the Glenn Beck horseshit, the threats against Congressmen and women, the threats against the President himself...
In truth, you want to know when I think the President won the Prize?
The moment Joe Wilson opened his damn mouth.
The moment this lowlife Congressman showed such open, defiant disrespect, unleashing such venom, displaying (sorry to disagree with you, Mr. President) such typical American racism; everything started to change...the health care debate, and the internal political dynamic in this country.
The quiet discussions about violence and threats to the President came out into the open. We had a U.S. Congressman willing to embarrass himself, and embarrass his country to show this in however small a way that he was somehow above or superior to the duly-elected President of the United States.
And the world was watching.
Today, the world decided to send a message right back to America: You did the right thing in electing this man. We respect you for it. We admire you for it.
But how you treat him in the future is going to weigh heavily on how we treat you
What happens now…what happens to our country…if the duly-elected President of the United States, the first African-American (and yes, I count him as one) to hold the position, and Nobel Laureate…is felled by an assassins bullet?
How the world going to look upon us…if we should so cavalierly spit on their judgment?
I don’t think their reaction to us will be kind, nor forgiving. In fact, there’s a part of me that suspects the world will say, “that’s it. You’re on your own.”
The world is watching, and now demands better of us.
And they expect better of Obama, too. Now, granted he has some really solid Foreign Policy successes on his curriculum vitae. Iraq is drawing to a close, however slowly. The President (along with Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell – who deserve a share of this award, if you ask me) is pushing Israel on the Peace Process (and pissing people off). He spoke to both the Muslim world, and to our own racial divide in ways that people are still talking about. He ramped down tensions with Russia. He’s made significant strides in relations with Iran, with a lot more work to come. His work on Environmental policy drew the notice of the Nobel Committee (and the ire of the Right). And his commitment to rid the world of Nuclear weapons is both good Politics, and good Foreign Policy.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there’s a flip side to this coin. He is on a path to accelerate things in Afghanistan (a plan I’m not completely against, to be honest). American Forces have killed far too many civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan (any number greater than one). American Special Forces delivered a lethal warning to Somali pirates (again, which I support). And he has unleashed our drones and our Pakistani allies in Waziristan and the Swat Valley.
The world is watching the President too. Unlike his radical foes, Obama seems to have gotten the message:
To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize -- men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.
But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build -- a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action -- a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.
These challenges can't be met by any one leader or any one nation. And that's why my administration has worked to establish a new era of engagement in which all nations must take responsibility for the world we seek. We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility to demonstrate their peaceful intentions.
Yes, it is still early in his Administration, and not all of us are satisfied. But there is so much road to go, so many more things to build on and explore.
Can you think of a better man for the job?
I can’t.
(And if you can…odds are they don’t have a Nobel Peace Prize, so…SCOREBOARD!)
HuffPo: The Arizona Threat Matrix...
Obama signs in Arizona vandalized...but with the violent rhetoric on overdrive:
PHOENIX, AZ -- "Kill Obama" was spray painted in purple on campaign signs at two locations in Cave Creek, a suburb of Phoenix, according to the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).
Rejected! (VIDEO)
This was originally posted on TPM (and by extension HuffPo), but I just had to pass it along.
MSNBC: Obama Nobel Acceptance Speech (VIDEO)
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, October 8, 2009
One more thing from Ezra...
From the same article, but a very important point:
[The Compromise] also creates a neat policy experiment: We can see, over time, what happens to state insurance markets that include the national public option and compare them with those that don't. We can see whether the worst fears of conservatives are realized and private insurers are driven out and providers are forced out of business due to low payment rates, and we can see whether the hopes of liberals are right and costs come down and private insurers become leaner and more efficient. Or both, or neither. It's an opportunity to pit liberal and conservative policies against each other, rather than just pitting liberal and conservative congressmen against each other.
Erza Klein on the Public Option Compromise...
Ezra likes it. I'm sensing a trend.
[The Public Option Compromise] gives you an essentially national administrative structure, but also gives states the right to reject the option entirely. It means, in other words, that the blue states get the public option at full strength and the red states get to ignore it entirely.
Nate Silver on the Public Option Compromise...
Nate likes it.
Some of the usual suspects are out this morning with criticism of Tom Carper's compromise proposal to insert a robust public option into the Democrats' health care bill, but allow states to opt out of it by legislative or popular action. I'm not going to call these people out by name because I consider some of them friends and they're doing good, important, productive work. But this compromise is leaps and bounds better than most of the others that have been floated, such as Chuck Schumer's proposal to have a public insurance option that would be forced to negotiate at private market rates.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
MSNBC: I'm in... (VIDEO)
And for the record, Keith, I'm in.
Confused? Watch the Special Comment. The complete video is below, take a moment when you can, then donate what you can, when you can. It has the added benefit of being both Political and Chartiable.
The Text of the Special Comment is here.
Confused? Watch the Special Comment. The complete video is below, take a moment when you can, then donate what you can, when you can. It has the added benefit of being both Political and Chartiable.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Text of the Special Comment is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)