Comments on: Yes we can. - why I’m voting for Obama http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/ turning the tide upstate Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:36:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: army42 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109968 army42 Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:32 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109968 Great detailed research, jiminy. Great detailed research, jiminy.

]]> By: stlo7 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109955 stlo7 Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:31:33 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109955 <blockquote>because I think I’m already beginning to wear out RT’s welcome</blockquote> Ha Ha Ha Anna - Thank you for this solid well written piece.

because I think I’m already beginning to wear out RT’s welcome

Ha Ha Ha

Anna - Thank you for this solid well written piece.

]]> By: jiminybizbo http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109905 jiminybizbo Mon, 04 Feb 2008 21:05:23 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109905 With all due respect Anna, I can appreciate your good efforts, and I realize and feel the passion you have for your candidate. Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughts and convictions as well. Allow me as a co-author and equally passioned grassroots participant in helping to promote and create change to take issue with some of the points you have made. I could not, in all fairness, not comment on your points as it is some of the <b>exact</b> points you make that convince me that Hillary Clinton is better equipped to serve as President. <blockquote>these three words promise to remake America.</blockquote> Your first paragraph is my biggest argument. I don't want to remake America. I want someone who can <b>heal</B> the enormous problems this country currently is facing. It's going to take alot more than "Yes we can" to accomplish that goal. This country needs more than a cliche. This country needs experience. <blockquote>He moved Geri Punteney, who I met in July when she came into our office out of curiosity and broke down sobbing when she told us about her brother who couldn’t get health insurance because he had been diagnosed with stage four cancer. </blockquote> Others more qualified than probably either of us have evaluated Barack Obama's proposed health care and have come to this conclusion, an opinion shared by many: <i>"I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security 'crisis.' Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care... <b>What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan...</b> Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. "</i> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin A deeper look at Obama's actions while in the Senate would take argument with this statement: <blockquote>Throughout this entire campaign, Senator Obama has not taken a penny from PACs, corporations or federally registered lobbyists. Barack has been committed to ethics reform in the in Senate, working with Senator Feingold of Wisconsin on legislation that mandated disclosure of bundling and restricting DeLay-style trips sponsored by lobbyists to, say, go golfing in Scotland But he also hasn’t waited for ethics laws to change, or for his convictions to become safe. Instead, he took a political risk, and made it work, raising more money than any other candidate in the second quarter, and keeping pace with Hillary Clinton throughout the rest of the year.</blockquote> <i>When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause. Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.” “I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate. “Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.” <b>The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money. Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers. Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate. In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues. . . . </i></b> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp On Healthcare Reform (one of the issues I consider extremely important in dissecting: <blockquote>The strength of Barack’s message should not be mistaken for a lack of substance. He has laid out an extensive plan for universal health care, under which every single person in this country will be able to afford coverage, and also a plan to focus on preventative care and public health.</blockquote> <i>"I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security 'crisis.' Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care... <b>What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan... </b> Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. "</i> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Obama is by no means "new" in the concept of enacting and enabling youth to act upon their <b>constitutional</b> right to vote and assemble in this country. In the 1960's, young people helped shape this country and change dramatically the direction our government had taken with regards to the Viet Nam War - a war where a draft <b>gave NO option</b> as to whether or not a young person served or did not - when LEAVING your country was the only option available</b> and many of those same young people now 40 years later make up the largest group of voters in this country. Adding age differentiation at this critical point in our nations history, and our country's future is, in my opinion, is not truly saliable: <i>Goodbye to the ageism . . . <b>How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?</b> Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back! We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote. We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters. </i> http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html And finally (and I do apologoize for the length of this post)... <blockquote>For me, the choice on Tuesday is between two good Democrats.</blockquote> <b>I couldn't agree with you more. May the best candidate win!</b> With all due respect Anna, I can appreciate your good efforts, and I realize and feel the passion you have for your candidate. Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughts and convictions as well.

Allow me as a co-author and equally passioned grassroots participant in helping to promote and create change to take issue with some of the points you have made. I could not, in all fairness, not comment on your points as it is some of the exact points you make that convince me that Hillary Clinton is better equipped to serve as President.

these three words promise to remake America.

Your first paragraph is my biggest argument. I don’t want to remake America. I want someone who can heal the enormous problems this country currently is facing. It’s going to take alot more than “Yes we can” to accomplish that goal. This country needs more than a cliche. This country needs experience.

He moved Geri Punteney, who I met in July when she came into our office out of curiosity and broke down sobbing when she told us about her brother who couldn’t get health insurance because he had been diagnosed with stage four cancer.

Others more qualified than probably either of us have evaluated Barack Obama’s proposed health care and have come to this conclusion, an opinion shared by many:

“I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security ‘crisis.’ Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care…

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan…

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

A deeper look at Obama’s actions while in the Senate would take argument with this statement:

Throughout this entire campaign, Senator Obama has not taken a penny from PACs, corporations or federally registered lobbyists. Barack has been committed to ethics reform in the in Senate, working with Senator Feingold of Wisconsin on legislation that mandated disclosure of bundling and restricting DeLay-style trips sponsored by lobbyists to, say, go golfing in Scotland But he also hasn’t waited for ethics laws to change, or for his convictions to become safe. Instead, he took a political risk, and made it work, raising more money than any other candidate in the second quarter, and keeping pace with Hillary Clinton throughout the rest of the year.

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”

“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money.

Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.

In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Mr. Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other nuclear issues. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?hp

On Healthcare Reform (one of the issues I consider extremely important in dissecting:

The strength of Barack’s message should not be mistaken for a lack of substance. He has laid out an extensive plan for universal health care, under which every single person in this country will be able to afford coverage, and also a plan to focus on preventative care and public health.

“I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security ‘crisis.’ Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care…

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan…

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Obama is by no means “new” in the concept of enacting and enabling youth to act upon their constitutional right to vote and assemble in this country. In the 1960’s, young people helped shape this country and change dramatically the direction our government had taken with regards to the Viet Nam War - a war where a draft gave NO option as to whether or not a young person served or did not - when LEAVING your country was the only option available and many of those same young people now 40 years later make up the largest group of voters in this country. Adding age differentiation at this critical point in our nations history, and our country’s future is, in my opinion, is not truly saliable:

Goodbye to the ageism . . .

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?

Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!

We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.

We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.

http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

And finally (and I do apologoize for the length of this post)…

For me, the choice on Tuesday is between two good Democrats.

I couldn’t agree with you more. May the best candidate win!

]]> By: Rottenchester http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109902 Rottenchester Mon, 04 Feb 2008 20:58:17 +0000 http://rochesterturning.com/2008/02/04/yes-we-can-why-im-voting-for-obama/#comment-109902 Great post. In case anyone thinks that Anna's experience is a fluke, here's an interesting article about the grassroots strategy employed by the Obama campaign: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_year_of_the_organizer Great post.

In case anyone thinks that Anna’s experience is a fluke, here’s an interesting article about the grassroots strategy employed by the Obama campaign:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_year_of_the_organizer

]]>