Insuring The Elderly, Insuring The Poor

Insuring The Elderly, Insuring The Poor | The New Republic



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Lawmakers Won't Miss a Paycheck in Government Shutdown

Under United States law, elected Representatives and Senators are exempt from government furloughs. Thus, if the bickering children on Capitol Hill cannot come to some budget agreement, and the government shuts down, members of Congress and their $174,000 a year pay checks would keep flowing.

Yes, you read that right. While thousands of government employees would be furloughed, federal agencies and parks would close, and the paychecks of Hill staff (who will probably work anyway) would stop, elected reps and senators, as well as the president, would still get paid.

Meanwhile, a confidential new report from Goldman Sachs has found that the GOP House spending cuts, passed last week, would cut economic growth by about 2 percent of GDP. This at a time when we are just starting to see a glimmer of recovery. Way to go boys.

Congress, especially the Republicans, have lost their ever-lovin' minds. Just sayin'.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/50050.html#ixzz1EuGyzSAr


The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Great Rant about the Asshattery in Wisconsin

Friends, I'm sure you have also been watching the events as they unfold in Wisconsin. It's democracy at work, and much is at stake. I am so frustrated, because the unions have agreed to the benefit cuts so long as they can keep their collective bargaining rights. However, the new asshat of a governor has said he will not negotiate. How crazy. That's not democracy, and he's not a dictator. Other rallies are happening across the country. You can also sign this petition for fair pay and workers rights, that will go to all 50 state legislators. Please do. This fight will affect us all, and it's headed to your state next.



Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

RNC Changes Presidential Primaries, Process to Avoid Winner-Take-All

The Republican National Committee "has approved a resolution making dramatic changes to the way the GOP picks a presidential nominee, moving primaries to later dates and requiring states to allocate their delegates on a proportional basis," The Hotline reports.

"The proposal will move the earliest nominating contests -- in IA, NH, SC and NV -- back from early Jan. to Feb. It will also require states that hold nominating contests in March to award delegates based on the proportion of votes candidates win, eliminating the prospect of an early winner-take-all state that would effectively end the nominating process."

Meanwhile, the St. Petersburg Times reports the 2012 Republican National Convention will be held in Tampa. I won't mind going there.

On June 30, 2010, the Democratic National Committee announced that four cities had been chosen as finalists to hold the convention: Charlotte, Cleveland, Minneapolis and St. Louis. I hope its in Cleveland!! Meanwhile, the DNC has also decided to retain its ridiculous superdelegate process, the one that made the 2008 primary so unnecessarily prolonged. Bad move, guys. You're supposed to learn from your mistakes.

The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Timeline of GOP Opposition to Extending Unemployment Insurance in 2010 Alone

3/9/2010 Cloture vote to end GOP Filibuster and Move to Up or Down Vote
80% GOP No Votes

3/10/2010 Temporary Extension of UI
85% GOP No Votes

4/12/2010 Cloture vote to end GOP Filibuster and Move to Up or Down Vote
93% GOP No Votes

4/15/2010 Temporary Extension of UI
93% GOP No Votes

6/17/2010 Cloture vote to end GOP Filibuster and Move to Up or Down Vote
93% GOP No Votes

6/24/2010 Cloture vote to end GOP Filibuster and Move to Up or Down Vote
98% GOP No Votes

6/30/2010 Cloture vote to end GOP Filibuster and Move to Up or Down Vote
88% GOP No Votes

7/20/2010 Temporary Extension of UI
?

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Preliminary Target List to Stop Stupak Amendment in Senate

It's my understanding that Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Bob Casey (D-PA) are considering proposing an amendment to the Senate's healthcare reform bill that would resemble the disastrous anti-choice Stupak-Pitts Amendment that passed in the House bill. The strategy to defeat this middle class abortion ban must have several prongs.

First, we must convince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), an anti-choice member in the re-election race of his life, to NOT put any Stupak-like provision into the Senate bill. He is currently working to combine the HELP committee bill and the Finance committee bill, neither of which has a Stupak-like provision. If Reid is truly just the "mixer" as he says, then adding Stupak should not even be a question -- he can only combine the bills, not add new elements. In fact, the Finance bill has already addressed this question by including the House's Capps abortion-neutral language, so if Reid were to add Stupak-like language it would be a radical change to the combined bill. You can call the Majority Leader's office at 202-224-5556, and ask that he not add a Stupak-like language to the combined Senate bill.

Second, at this point it looks like there are roughly 31 senators who would likely agree to a Stupak-like amendment. That means, for an amendment strategy (assuming Reid does not add Stupak to the underlying reform bill), the anti-choicers would need to find at least 29 more votes to clear the Senate's 60 vote cloture hurdle. So, calls need to be made to senators to firm up their support against the addition of any Stupak-like provision in the Senate healthcare reform bill. Given the confusion many of the House members have expressed post-Stupak vote, its critical senators understand that Stupak IS NOT HYDE codified. It is a monumental overreach, and results in not only a middle class abortion ban but leaves poor women out in the cold as well. Further, the Stupak amendment would make abortion the only legal medical procedure expressly forbidden in the healthcare reform bill, leaving women worse off before reform when it comes to reproductive health than they are now.

See the list below:

Senate Target List
Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Ben Nelson (D-NE)
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Mark Warner (D-VA)
Jim Webb (D-VA)

Call the Capitol Hill Switchboard at 202-224-3121, and ask for your senator's office. Tell them you opposed the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House, and are calling to urge the senator to NOT support the inclusion of any such provision in the Senate healthcare reform bill.

Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Stop the Stupak Anti-Choice Amendment to Health Care Reform!

House Democrats bowed to pressure from anti-abortion rights Democrats and the Council of Catholic Bishops early this morning and agreed to let the Stupak amendment be offered to their healthcare bill. This anti-choice amendment will ban the public plan from covering abortions and prohibit insurance companies who participate in the new exchanges from offering abortion coverage.

Here is the target list for the Stupak Amendment, which would actually leave women worse off under health care reform -- when it comes to abortion care -- than we are now!! Call 202-2234-3121, and ask for the office of your representative and tell them VOTE NO on Stupak!

Target List
Arcuri (D, NY-24)
Bean (D, IL-08)
Bishop, S. (D, GA-02)
Boswell (D, IA-03)
Butterfield (D, NC-01)
Cardoza (D, CA-18)
Chandler (D, KY-06)
Cooper (D, TN-05)
Costa (D, CA-20)
Doyle (D, PA-14)
Edwards, C. (D, TX-17)
Etheridge (D, NC-02)
Gordon (D, TN-06)
Kratovil (D, MD-01)
Langevin (D, RI-02)
McMahon (D, NY-13)
Michaud (D, ME-02)
Minnick (D, ID-01)
Neal (D, MA-02)
Nye (D, VA-02)
Obey (D, WI-07)
Owens (D, NY-23)
Ruppersberger (D, MD-02)
Ryan, T. (D, OH-17)
Salazar (D, CO-03)
Space (D, OH-18)

Unknown

Biggert (R, IL-13)
Carney (D, PA-10)
Castle (R, DE-AL)
Cuellar (D, TX-28)
Davis, A. (D, AL-07)
Dent (R, PA-15)
Ellsworth (D, IN-08)
Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11)
Kirk (R, IL-10)
Lynch (D, MA-09)
Pomeroy (D, ND-AL)
Snyder (D, AR-02)
Tanner (D, TN-08)
Visclosky (D, IN-01)

Leaning anti-choice

Altmire (D, PA-04)
Barrow (D, GA-12)
Berry (D, AR-01)
Boccieri (D, OH-16)
Bright (D, AL-02)
Capito (R, WV-02)
Donnelly (D, IN-02)
Hill (D, IN-09)
Jenkins (R, KS-02)
Kildee (D, MI-05)
Lance (R, NJ-07)
Lee, C. (R, NY-26)
Matheson (D, UT-02)
Mollohan (D, WV-01)
Ortiz (D, TX-27)
Paulsen (R, MN-03)
Perriello (D, VA-05)
Rahall (D, WV-03)
Ross (D, AR-04)
Spratt (D, SC-05)
Wilson, C. (D, OH-06)

I hope EMILYs List recruits a primary opponent for Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). Also, you can give Rep. Stupak a great wake up call by calling Stupak for Congress at 906-863-2800 and telling them you're digusted and plan to give generously to a prochoice opponent!


Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Newest Progressive Superstar in Congress: Rep. Alan Grayson Tells it Like It Is on Healthcare

Freshman Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) made waves a week or so ago by characterizing the Republicans health care plan as the "hope you die quickly" plan. House Republicans demanded that he apologize, and not only did he not cave in, Rep. Grayson has picked up the gauntlet and smacked the Republicans upside the head. Just Thursday, Rep. Grayson, now also an Internet sensation, made another floor statement and put forward some hard truths to both Democrats and Republicans. Bravo to the distinguished gentleman from Florida. Take a look.



Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The US Senate: Where All Good Bills Go To Die

Much attention has been paid to the House and its accomplishments, and its historic first-ever woman Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But to my mind, the House is in generally good shape -- except for some pesky Blue Dogs,of course. For those of you looking for more progressive changes -- health insurance reform, energy bills, immigration reform, improving No Child Left Behind, pay equity advances -- keep your eyes on the real legislative prize: the Senate. And, more specifically -- the number 60.

Here's the scoop. Right now, the Senate is split -- 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 Independents (Sens. Bernie Sanders [VT] and Joe Lieberman [CT]) who caucus with the Democrats. Now, on the surface that might seem golden -- for all intents and purposes, there are 60 votes in the Democratic column. But, remember, this is Washington, DC -- where alternate realities often rule. Just ask Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) how easy its been trying to herd these 60 cats. Getting a simple majority of 51 votes is a minor miracle!

But in the Senate, it's typically not about a simple majority -- if only that were the case! It's all about cloture -- it's all about 60. That's because the Senate is a body of continuous debate -- and made up of 100 very, very important people who like to talk. A lot. Constantly. Even if the room is empty. Even better if there are balloons, cameras and small children.

In order to move to a final vote, the Senate literally must agree to shut up -- to stop talking. This is called a cloture vote, and to be successful it must win a super majority of 60 votes -- it's such a big deal to get senators to agree to stop talking, a simple majority won't do. That means anytime the Democrats want to do anything, they all need to agree. With Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) in poor health, Sen. Joe Lieberman being his usual pain-in-the-ass self, and conservative Blue-Dog-ish Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Kent Conrad (D-ND), and Kay Hagan (D-NC) -- to name a few -- getting to 60 is not only not guaranteed, it's damn near impossible. As a result, the Democratic "Majority" tend to need a few Republicans. It's why Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) are now the homecoming queens at everyone's football game. The Republicans are busy keeping them in line -- when before they kinda ignored and ostracized them, calling them RINOs (Republicans in name only). Meanwhile, the Democrats are busy courting them -- and often giving in to their sometimes ridiculous demands (witness the extraordinary power Collins had over the ARRA/recovery bill, and the sway Snowe has had over healthcare reform).

The Senate has not been able to get to 60 on a lot of things that matter. Cloture is a longstanding part of procedure, and not likely to go anywhere. Oh, and technically, when a cloture vote fails, that issue is now being filibustered -- they might not roll in cots and read from the Betty Crocker Cookbook on the Senate floor, it won't look like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but in function it's a filibuster -- the issue is blocked. This is why the Senate has become obstruction central -- the great black hole where all good bills go to die.

Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

FLOTUS Wows with Speech on Women and Health Care Reform

Finally, the health insurance reform debate turned its focus -- albeit briefly -- on women and girls. About time. Women make most of the health care decisions in American families, and because of our longevity we tend to use more health care services as well. Further, because a persistent wage gap deprives many women of fair pay, women also have a harder time paying for health care and health insurance. And, to add insult to injury, insurance is typically more expensive for women. Without commonsense reform, insurance companies could continue the discriminatory practice of gender rating, and women could continue to pay monthly premiums ranging from four percent to 48 percent higher for individually-purchased health care plans than men. FLOTUS Michelle Obama's first foray into the health care debate was quite welcome, and could not have come at a better time.

Enjoy a clip, and read the full text below.



REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
ON WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM MEANS
FOR WOMEN AND FAMILIES

September 18, 2009
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
Room 450

11:33 A.M. EDT

MRS. OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you all. Please, sit. Rest. (Laughter.) First of all, good morning. I am so thrilled to see so many of you here this morning at the White House. Welcome. And that’s including my good friend, Dr. Dorothy Height. (Applause.) You know, she is always there, for the past eight months and before. If there was a big event, an important event, she finds a way to be here. She is my inspiration, and it is wonderful to see you again today. Thank you so much. (Applause.)
�
Thank you all for joining us today for the outstanding work you’re doing every day on behalf of women and families all across this country. I have to thank our extraordinary Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, for taking the time to be here. (Applause.) And for her tireless efforts to keep our nation healthy. And that includes not just pushing for health insurance reform but preparing us for H1N1, pursuing cutting-edge research to find treatments and cures for tomorrow. Clearly this is not the easiest portfolio she could have, but she is doing a terrific job, and we are grateful for her leadership.

And I also want to thank Tina Tchen, who you all know, for emceeing today. (Applause.) She, too, is doing a fabulous job as Director of our Office of Public Engagement, and she played a critical role in pulling together today’s event — not just as an emcee but as a key figurehead, making sure that we’re all aware of what’s going on.

And finally, I want to thank the three women behind me — to Debi, Easter, and Roxi. (Applause.) It is not easy to come here and tell your story. And these stories aren’t new. You know, these stories are happening all over this country, not just for thousands of women — for millions of them. For two years on the campaign trail, this was what I heard from women, that they were being crushed, crushed by the current structure of our health care. Crushed. But these stories that we’ve heard today, and all of us — if we’re not experiencing it, we know someone who is. These are the stories that remind us about what’s at stake in this debate. This is really all that matters. This is why we are fighting so hard for health insurance reform. This is it. This is the face of the fight.

And that’s why I’d like to talk to you today. That’s why I’m here. That’s why reform is so critical in this country — not tomorrow, not in a few years, but right now. People are hurting in this country right now.

But there is also a reason why I invited this particular group to talk today. There’s a reason why we’ve invited the leaders not only from family advocacy groups and health care advocacy groups, but for so many organizations that have been fighting for decades for empowerment for women. And that’s because when it comes to health care, as the Secretary said, as we all know, women play a unique and increasingly significant role in our families. We know the pain, because we are usually the ones dealing with it.

Eight in 10 women, mothers, report that they’re the ones responsible for choosing their children’s doctor, for getting them to their checkups, for managing that follow-up care. Women are the ones to do it. Mothers are the ones that do it. And many women find themselves doing the same thing for their spouses. (Laughter.) And more than 10 percent of women in this country are currently caring for a sick or elderly relative. It’s often a parent, but it could a grandparent, or a mother — or a relative of some sort — but it’s often a parent. So they’re making critical health care decisions for those family members as well.

In other words, being part of the sandwich generation, is what we are now finding, raising kids while caring for a sick or elderly parent, that’s not just a work/family balance issue anymore. It’s not just an economic issue anymore. More and more it is a health care issue. It’s something that I have thought a great deal about as a mother.

I will never forget the time eight years ago when Sasha was four months that she would not stop crying. And she was not a crier, so we knew something was wrong. So we fortunately were able to take her to our pediatrician that next morning. He examined her and same something’s wrong. We didn’t know what. But he told us that she could have meningitis. So we were terrified. He said, get to the emergency room right away.

And fortunately for us, things worked out, because she is now the Sasha that we all know and love today — (laughter) — who is causing me great — excitement. (Laughter.)

But it is that moment in our lives that flashes through my head every time we engage in this health insurance conversation. It’s that moment in my life. Because I think about what on earth would we have done if we had not had insurance. What would have happened to that beautiful little girl if we hadn’t been able to get to a pediatrician who was able to get us to an emergency room? The consequences I can’t even imagine. She could have lost her hearing. She could have lost her life if we had had to wait because of insurance.

And it was also fortunate that we happened to have good insurance, right? Because if we hadn’t had good insurance, like many of the panelists up here, we would have been saddled with costs for covering that emergency room visit for her two days in the hospital. We would have still been paying off those bills.

And this issue isn’t something that I’ve thought about as a mother. I think about it as a daughter. As many of you know, my father had multiple sclerosis. He contracted it in his twenties. And as you all know, my father was a rock. He was able to get up and go to work every day, even though it got harder for him as he got sicker and more debilitated. And I find myself thinking, what would we have done as a family on the South Side of Chicago if my father hadn’t had insurance, if he hadn’t been able to cover his treatments? What would it have done to him to think that his illness could have put his entire family into bankruptcy? And what if he had lost his job, which fortunately he never did? What if his company had changed insurance, which fortunately never happened, and we became one of the millions of Americans, families, who can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition?

So these are the thoughts that run through my mind as I watch this debate and hope that we get it right.

But let’s be clear: Women aren’t just disproportionately affected by this issue because of the roles that we play in families. As Tina and Kathleen mentioned, women are affected because of the jobs that we do in this economy. We all know that women are more likely to work part-time, or to work in small companies or businesses that don’t provide any insurance at all.

Women are affected because, as we heard, in many states, insurance companies can still discriminate because of gender. And this is still shocking to me. These are the kind of facts that still wake me up at night; that women in this country have been denied coverage because of preexisting conditions like having a C-section or having had a baby. In some states, it is still legal to deny a woman coverage because she’s been the victim of domestic violence.

And a recent study showed that 25-year-old women are charged up to 45 percent more for insurance than 25-year-old men for the exact same coverage. And as the age goes up, you get to 40, that disparity increases to 48 percent — 48 percent difference for women for the exact same coverage in this country.

But it’s not just women without insurance, as we’ve heard, as we know who are affected. Plenty of women have insurance. But it doesn’t cover basic women’s health services like maternity care or preventative care like mammograms or pap smears, which we all know we have to have. We can’t go without these basic services. But many insurance policies don’t even cover it.

Or policies cap the amount of coverage that you can receive, as you’ve heard, or it drops coverage when people get sick and they really need the care. Or maybe people have coverage but they’re worried about losing it if they lose their jobs or if they change jobs or if the company changes insurance carriers. Out-of-pocket costs get higher and higher. It’s hard to be able to plan your monthly bills when you don’t know what your premiums are going to be. So a lot of people find they have to drop their insurance because they can no longer afford it.

Just think about it. Many women are being charged more in health care coverage, but as we all know, women are earning less. We all know that women earn 78 cents on the dollar to every men — to a man. So it’s not exactly surprising when we hear statistics that more than half of women report putting off needed medical care simply because they can’t afford it.

Now, we have trouble putting ourselves first when we have the resources — just making the appointment when you have insurance to get your regular screenings, to take care of those illnesses, those bumps and lumps and pains that we tend to ignore. But then not to be able to do it because you can’t have insurance, you don’t have insurance — it’s not surprising that so many millions of women around this country are simply going without insurance at all.

See, and the thing that we all know is that the current state — this current situation is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. (Applause.) No one in this country should be treated that way. It’s not fair. It’s not right. And these are hard-working people we’re talking about, right? People who care about their kids, care about their lives. And these circumstances could happen to any of us. This is one of those, “There but for the grace of God go I” kind of situations. None of us are exempt — ever.

So I think it’s clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our families is very much a women’s issue. It is very much a women’s issue.

And if we want to achieve true equality for women, if that is our goal; if we want to ensure that women have opportunities that they deserve, if that is our goal; if we want women to be able to care for their families and pursue things that they could never imagine, then we have to reform the system. We have to reform the system. The status quo is unacceptable. It is holding women and families back, and we know it.

Fortunately, that is exactly what my husband’s plan proposes to do, and it’s important for us to understand some of the basic principles of that plan. Under his plan, if you don’t have insurance now, or you lose your insurance at some point in the future, you’ll be able to purchase affordable coverage through an insurance exchange — a marketplace with a variety of options that will let you compare prices and benefits. This is exactly the approach that is used to provide members of Congress with insurance. So the thought is that if it’s good enough for members of Congress, it should be good enough for the people who vote them in. (Applause.)

And this is also an important part of the plan. If you already have insurance — and it seems that there are a lot of people who are worried that they’ll lose what they have under this plan — but under this plan, if you already have insurance, you’re set. Nothing changes. You keep your insurance, you keep your doctors — and you’re blessed. (Laughter.) This plan just puts in place some basic rules of the road to protect you from the kinds of abuses and unfair practices that we’ve heard.

Under this plan, insurance companies will never again be allowed to deny people like Debi and her son coverage for preexisting conditions. Sounds like a good thing. So whether you have breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, or hypertension — or even just had a C-section, or some mental health treatment that you had in your past — none of that will be a reason to refuse you coverage under the plan that my husband is proposing. Because when you’re fighting an illness, he believes that you shouldn’t also have to be in the process of fighting the insurance companies at the same time. (Applause.) It’s a basic idea.

Under this plan, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop your coverage when you get too sick, or refuse to pay for the care that you need, or to set a cap on the amount of coverage that you can get. And it will limit how much they can charge you for out-of-pocket expenses, because getting sick in this country shouldn’t mean that you go bankrupt. That’s a basic principle of this plan.

And finally, this plan will require insurance companies to cover basic preventative care. Seems simple. (Applause.) From routine checkups, to mammograms, to pap smears — and this would come at no extra charge to the patient, so folks like Roxi can get the chance to get the kind of screenings that she needs to save her life, because we already know that if we catch diseases like cancer early — we know this — it’s much less costly to treat, and we might just be able to save some lives. We know this.

So, under this plan, we can save lives and we can save money. It’s not just good medicine but it’s good economics as well.

So I think this is a pretty reasonable plan. I don’t know about you. (Applause.) But I know many of you believe it’s a good plan as well. And I know that many of the groups that you represent believe that what we’re doing here, this fight, is important. It’s important to this country, it’s important to women, it’s important to families that we succeed.

And now more than ever, as Tina said, as Secretary Sebelius said, we need to act. No longer can we sit by and watch the debate take on a life of its own. It is up to us to get involved, because what we have to remember is that now more than ever, we have to channel our passions into change.

That’s nothing that you all haven’t done before, right? (Laughter.) You all have been the driving force behind so many of our greatest health care achievements, whether it’s been children’s health insurance; to funding breast cancer research, stem cell research; to passing the Family Medical Leave Act. The folks in this room, you’re the ones that made those phone calls, right? That you wrote those letters, you knocked on those doors. You’re the ones that helped make that happen.

And that’s exactly what we need you to do today for health insurance reform. We are going to need you over the next few weeks to mobilize like you’ve never mobilized before. We need you to educate your members about what the plan really is and what it isn’t, because education is the key to understanding, and it’s going to take phone calls to explain, to talk things through, to make sure that people understand not just what’s at stake but what this all means.

And we know there will be all sorts of myths and misconceptions about what the plan is and isn’t, so it’s so important that you make sure that people know the facts, and at least they make their decisions based on the truth of what this plan is and isn’t. We need you to make your voices heard right here in Washington. And you all know how to do that. (Laughter.)

And no, it won’t be easy, because there are always folks who are a little afraid of change. We all understand that. We talked about this all during the campaign. Change is hard. Sometimes the status quo, even if it isn’t right, feels comfortable because it’s what we know. So it is understandable that people are cautious about moving into a new place in this society. There will always be folks who will want things to stay just the way they are, to settle for the world as it is. We talked about that so much. This is one of those times.

But look, I am here today, standing before you as the First Lady of the United States of America, because you all didn’t settle for the world as it is, right? (Applause.) You refused to settle. And as a result of many of your efforts, as a young girl, I was able to dream in ways that I could have never imagined, that my mother could never have imagined, that my grandmother could never have imagined. And thanks to so many of you, I am raising these beautiful young women, you know — (applause) — who are going to be able to think so differently about their place in the world because of the work that you’ve done.
�
Health care reform is part of that movement. Health insurance reform is the next step. So we’re going to need you all, focused and clear, picking up the phones, talking, calling, writing your congressmen and women, making this something that is the highest priority for all of us, so that we can make sure that every single family in this country can move forward as we hope that they can; that they don’t have to worry about whether they can insure themselves. They don’t have to worry about whether their kids are going to break an arm. That’s what kids do, they break stuff. (Laughter.)

So I am grateful for all of you, for the work that you’ve done, and for what I know that we can do together over the next several weeks. But we have to be, what, fired up and what?

AUDIENCE: Ready to go!

MRS. OBAMA: And ready to go. A little fired up and ready to go. So thank you so much. God bless you all, and God bless America. (Applause.)



Copyright 2009. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Why We Need More Women in Congress: Watch This Kyl-Stabenow Exchange

Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Democrats Face Referendums in Govenors' Races

While health insurance reform is the talk of the town when it comes to policy, it's the off-year gubernatorial races that have the politicos buzzing. Why? Well, they help the parties and pundits and the wonks read the tea leaves for the 2010 midterms elections. At the moment, the tea is something of a bitter brew for the Democrats.

In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine (D) is in serious trouble against Republican Chris Christie. Corruption and an a recession have dogged Corzine, previously a senator and former CEO of Goldman Sacks. He has traditionally self funded his races -- but not this time around. Christie may have more money that Corzine does. And, while Jersey is known for its rough and tumble politics, it's getting uglier than usual in the Garden State. Take a look at this Corzine ad.



Meanwhile, in the land for lovers, the Virgina governor's race is also making headlines. This purple state, won by Barack Obama in 2008 and led by popular Democratic governors for the past 8 years, is seen as a bellwether for 2010. The race is a rematch of the state attorney general race four years ago, when Republican Bob McDonnell beat out state senator Creigh Deeds. Deeds won the Democratic primary against party mover and shaker Terry McAullife, but has been less than sparkling. While polls are close, Deeds has a GOTV problem. His voter mobilization network is not as strong as it should be, and he finds himself having to distance himself from a President whose 2008 coattails were golden.

Deeds has made up some ground thanks to a 20-year-old thesis written by McDonnell while at Regent University. According to the Washington Post,

in his thesis: "The Republican Party's Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade," McDonnell described working women as "detrimental" to the traditional family. He criticized a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing contraception for unmarried couples and decried the "purging" of religion from schools. He advocated character education programs in public schools to teach "traditional Judeo-Christian values," and he criticized federal tax credits for child care expenditures because they encouraged women to enter the workforce.

See some of the news coverage of the thesis:



Both parties are pouring dollars and people into the two states, knowing that pundits and the public will see the outcomes as a first test of of the efficacy of Obama's presidency -- fair or not.

Copyright 2009 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Got a Question? The Obama Transition Team has Answers -- and Plenty of Sunlight

The Obama Presidential Transition continues to be one of the speediest ever -- this bodes well for the new president's ability to decisively govern in these chaotic times. While the team as tried to keep some things -- like the vetting of potential cabinet officers -- close to the vest, in other ways the transition process has been one of the most open and interactive in history. The Obama team is playing it smart, and converting their grassroots machinery from that of a get-out-the-vote operation to policy participation. This also bodes well for the new president's style -- because when it's all said and done, people just want to know they've been heard. Folks want a forum to vent, share ideas, connect -- and even if they are not happy with the end decision they are still much more likely to be supportive simply because they were part of the process. I expect this formidable machine will also soon be aimed at Congress -- in the form of constituent email and phone calls -- as the Obama administration seeks to implement some of its proposals.

Have you been participating in the transition process? I have -- through work via many many meetings, but also personally through the change.gov website. My professional interactions with the team have been productive and useful. The Transition Team clearly wants to hear from constituency groups, and are interested in concrete ideas -- not rhetoric. I have found this to be very refreshing -- I don't have to prove to them there's a (healthcare, economic, housing, crime, education, etc,) crisis -- they know this already. What the team cares about are serious suggestions for righting the ship. These meetings are public, in a sense, because of the Your Seat at the Table feature. Here you can view information submitted to the Transition Team -- they post EVERY document they get, so much so that advocacy organizations are now careful about what they give the team in writing. At the very beginning of the transition process, some stuff that was intended to be confidential -- that details strategy and opposition research, for example -- was posted, much to the senders' chagrin. Still, is there such a thing as too much sunlight? People are adapting, trust me.

The agency review teams are also drawing to a close, and their work has been critically important. The reviews teams are responsible for essentially evaluating the agencies to see what is happening as well as what is NOT happening, including what has been discontinued, shelved, overly politicized, or just plain screwed up beyond all recognition. From the web site:

The Agency Review Teams for the Obama-Biden Transition will complete a thorough review of key departments, agencies and commissions of the United States government, as well as the White House, to provide the President-elect, Vice President-elect, and key advisers with information needed to make strategic policy, budgetary, and personnel decisions prior to the inauguration. The Teams will ensure that senior appointees have the information necessary to complete the confirmation process, lead their departments, and begin implementing signature policy initiatives immediately after they are sworn in.

Impressively, most of the folks on the review teams are volunteers. Highly connected, very experienced, committed volunteers. Many used to work for the federal government before the Bush administration scared away anyone who was even remotely progressive, cared about good government, disagreed with them or, god forbid, were "out" Democrats. Yep, openly blue Democrats were often ousted after witch hunts -- you think it only happened at the Department of Justice? If only that were the case -- these last eight years have seen the most severe, crippling brain drain and loss of institutional memory the federal government has ever experienced, brought to you by Bush/Cheney and their minions. Now, these good people on the agency review teams -- some Democrats, some not, but all part of a Democratic government in exile -- have returned to try to clean up the mind-boggling mess that has been left for Obama and company.

You might already know that the Transition Team has also recently launched a new feature called Open for Questions. Thousands of people responded, asking more than 10,000 questions and voting nearly a million times on questions from others -- dictating which ones people most want the Transition Team to address. Now that the team has answered some of the most popular queries from the last round, the team is up for Round Two. You can ask whatever you like -- and are encouraged to go back to vote on the questions submitted by others. Answers to this latest round of questions will be posted after the New Year.

The Transition Team is also particularly interested in personal stories and feedback about the healthcare system, and ideas for reform in that area. Now through Dec. 31, healthcare discussions are being held throughout the country to help inform the new administration's plan. If you can't make it to one of these healthcare house parties, you can submit your own comments quite easily through the website.

You really should take a gander at the transition web site if you haven't already. You'll be pleasantly surprised -- perhaps even amazed -- at the open, interactive process that's been constructed. I think all this sunlight -- after eight years in the dark, being force fed fertilizer like a mushroom -- will make for a refreshing, productive change. But, it only works if you take part -- and speak your mind!


This blog has been nominated for the Bloggers' Choice '09 awards. Vote for The Zaftig Redhead!

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Barney Frank: The Smartest Man in Congress

Barney Frank (D-MA) has long been one of my favorite members of Congress. He's a character, no doubt. Yeah, yeah, he's gay, and there was that whole bit of scandal more than a decade ago -- who gives a crap? Actually, he is an eloquent and sincere advocate for gay rights, and has done much to change a lot of otherwise rigid minds. Most importantly, he's quick-witted, he's anti-social and impatient -- he doesn't suffer fools even a little bit -- and he's smart as hell. In fact, he is often called "The Smartest Man in Congress," and it's a moniker that fits.

Back in 1995, after Newt Gingrich's "Republican Revolution," it was Frank that the shell-shocked Democratic Leadership, now in the minority for the first time in 40 years, sent to the floor to bedevil the new Republican Leadership -- and bedevil he did. Frank knows legislative procedure, is fast on his feet when it comes to House debates, and made Newt and Company's life pure hell as they settled into figuring out how to lead. Frank challenged and disagreed at every opportunity, turning the House floor into a chaotic jumble those first few months until newly-minted Speaker Gingrich got his leadership sea legs. It was a beautiful thing -- to watch Frank literally make his Republican colleagues sputter in impotent frustration at his antics -- something the other side of the aisle still does to this day, although there is muted respect for his leadership and keen intellect as well.

This Sunday, 60 Minutes did a great piece on Frank and his enormous role in getting us through out current quagmires -- as House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank oversees Wall Street and housing issues. He also has a hand in the auto bailout discussion. Yeah, he's been a bit busy in the last several months -- and as far as I'm concerned, I'm just glad we've got Frank at the helm. He's unabashedly liberal, but he's got a pragmatic bent that gets things done -- my kinda guy. Take a listen to the interview, and you'll get just a flavor of why Rep. Barney Frank is one of my favorite members of Congress.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Redhead Rant: Dems Wuss Out, Lieberman Bailout Passes 42-13

Paybacks are ... negotiable? All's well that ends... without retribution? Sen. Joe Lieberman (turncoat-CT) apparently kissed and kinda-sorta made up with the Senate Democrats today. The wishy-washy caucus voted 42-13 on a resolution condemning statements made by Connecticut's infamous pain in the ass during the campaign. I'm sure that very firm slap on the wrist struck fear in the heart of any straying caucus member. But wait, that same resolution allowed good ol' Joe to keep his precious Homeland Security Committee gavel, though he will lose an Environment and Public Works subcommittee chairmanship. The Zaftig Redhead's reaction to these developments? Well, pardon my French, but whoopie-fuckin'-do.

As many of you know, I have been loudly, vociferously whining about Joe for a while -- with good reason. So let's just recap Joe's transgressions, shall we? He conducted no serious oversight of the Bush Administration despite his bully pulpit as chairman of the committee specifically charged with oversight -- kiss those checks and balances goodbye! In December, as we all know, Joe turned his back on Democrats (again) when he endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Never mind that Joe caucuses with the Democrats or that it's our majority which provides him with the committee chairmanship that he loves so much. It seems sadly appropriate that good ol' Joe gave the Dems the cold shoulder from the frozen tundra of New Hampshire -- where McCain credited Joe's endorsement for putting the wheels back on the straight talk express. Way to go, Joe!

Oh, and don't forget that good ol' Joe lent his weighty support to McCain instead of home state primary candidate Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), as is traditional. Remember, Joe, when Dodd was the only senator who endorsed your also-ran candidacy back in 2004, when you had your own delusions of grandeur about calling the Oval Office home? Now, I know Dodd endorsed Ned LaMont after he beat you in the Democratic primary -- as did the rest of the Democratic Party. You lost the party's nomination fair and square and for good reason, Joe -- them's the breaks. Dodd was just playing by the rules, but you cried sour grapes like a third-grader. By the way, I still can't believe -- after all this -- that it was Dodd (again) that came to your aid to keep you in the caucus despite all your crazy-making. Dodd's either just a really, really, really nice guy or you've got the goods on him -- I'm not sure which.

I'm pissed, Joe, that you kept calling yourself a Democrat during your speech at the Republican National Convention. You are not a Democrat. In fact, you are listed as an "Independent Democrat" on Senate rolls -- whatever the hell that is -- at your own behest. Listen, Joe, you don't get to use our party label just when it's politically expedient. You certainly don't get to use the label in the same breath as you endorse the other party's candidate, in a speech that's the rhetorical equivalent of a stab in the back to the Blue Nation that once nominated you for vice president.

While Reid and Company did not get a clue and boot your double-agent ass out of the Democratic caucus, I sincerely hope that what goes around really does come back 'round again -- and slaps you upside the head. But the sad fact is, for now, we need your sorry ass to get to 60 in the new Congress, just like we needed you to keep the Dems in power in the 110th Congress. You must have a great numerologist, Joe, cuz it's the numbers that keep saving you from getting what you deserve.

So you snaked the Democrats again, Joe. And the Senate Democrats -- well, they deserve what they'll get, keeping a snake such as yourself in their midst and in a position of power. Bunch of wusses. Obama too -- though Obama now owns you, Joe -- you owe him big because it's thanks to his intervention that you're still alive in the caucus. But, given your turncoat ways, I doubt you'll honor your debt to the President-Elect.

Still, the ramifications are clear: if we can't discipline our own, if we can't hold you accountable, Joe, how the hell are we supposed to herd the rest of the cats and actually get some meaningful work done? Senate Democrats now have absolutely no leverage to stiff arm their colleagues and keep 'em on the reservation. And god knows Harry Reid doesn't need any further handicap cuz he was no great shakes prior to the Lieberman defection. Once again, the Democrats talk a good game, but don't put their money where their mouth is.

My only consolation is that what goes around comes around, karma sucks, etc. -- meaning someday, somewhere, Joe, this nasty bit of business will catch up with you. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy -- and I hope I'm there to see it.

Warning: Watch this video only if you wanna throw up a little bit in your mouth.



NOTE: Major props to the two senators who spoke out in favor of removing Joe: Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders, and thanks to the 11 courageous senators who joined them in doing the right thing.

Read here to find out what happened to Lieberman's McCain 2008 bumper sticker?

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Time for a Tea Party on the Potomac: On Election Day, DC Demands the Vote

Tomorrow's the big day. The Election Day we've all been waiting for, the one that couldn't come soon enough -- if only to cease the endless commercials, robocalls, and shredding of trees for campaign fodder. Those of you lucky enough to live outside the boundaries of the District of Columbia will also be electing House and Senate candidates in addition to a president. Lucky you. I'm soooo jealous.

As a resident of our nation's capital, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the rest of the country that while DC votes will help to send the next guy to the White House, the same folks who go to the ballot box in the District today have no voting representation in Congress.

Really. It's true. Taxation without representation is alive and well and being inflicted upon the denizens of Washington, DC. Imagine my surprise, moving here as I did to work on Capitol Hill, to find that my newly-minted DC driver's license also instantly disenfranchised me. Yeah, yeah -- we have a non-voting Delegate, but Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is only allowed to vote in committee and then only if she doesn't cast the tie-breaking vote. In other words, she only gets to vote when it can't make a difference. She has no vote on the House floor whatsoever -- she's not allowed to vote on amendments or legislation, even final passage.

Meanwhile, DC residents -- many of whom are also, ironically, involved in politics like myself -- have no senators whatsoever. Well, we have a "shadow" senator who has even less clout than our non-voting delegate -- at least Norton gets a salary and has a staff. The District of Columbia, in other words, has the same congressional status as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. But, um, those folks DON'T PAY TAXES to the United States Government. DC residents do.

How can this be, you ask? Well, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a recent decision, said it's because DC is not a state. The justices were sympathetic to our plight, I'll give 'em that -- but the U.S. Constitution says only states get Congressional representation. So, the only alternative is for DC to become a state, or to amend the Constitution to allow DC representation without statehood.

There has also been this fairly silly compromise that was voted on in the House and the Senate this Congress that would give DC voting rights in the House in exchange for Utah also getting an additional seat. Why? Well, the Republicans would only go for the radical idea of DC voting rights if the additional vote -- most assuredly a Democratic vote -- would be a wash. Utah has been whining since the last census -- they felt they got the shaft, with all the Mormons off on missions -- and that they actually should have gotten another congressional seat back in 2002. Of course, this compromise comes with all kinds of Constitutional questions, a limited shelf life given the decennial census is just around the corner (making this compromise moot), and of course does nothing whatsoever for the District's Senate representation.

That particular conundrum is further complicated by both politics and procedure, since the Republicans do not want the Democrats to gain two Democratic senators from the District, and Senate rules allow filibusters and holds that would make any kind of vote on this issue -- voting rights, a constitutional amendment, whatever -- a very, very high hurdle indeed. The fact that my voting rights, however, are subverted for such narrow partisan interests is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The worst part about all this is that, despite the lack of representation, Congress still feels free to impose its will on Washington, DC in the worst ways possible. They like to use us as an incubator for their crazy ideas -- the Republicans are particularly good at that. Can't get school vouchers that siphon off public monies to private schools, that bypass civil rights, passed nationwide? Nope -- but go ahead, impose them on the District, whose people don't want them. Mad that those same people voted in a gun ban, which has made the streets safer and kept the nation's capital from being the murder capital of the country as well? Sue the city, and take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (who overturned the ban) because you don't think district residents have the right to govern themselves -- never mind that the gun ban has been in place for decades. Oh yeah, and forbid DC from doing any kind of needle exchange program, too, despite the fact that 1 in 20 residents is infected with HIV. There are lots and lots of examples where congressional conservatives try -- and sometimes successfully -- impose their narrow will on a population that doesn't even have a vote in their chambers. How friggin' insulting is that?

Remember what happened the last time Americans got fed up with that kinda treatment from the powers that be? With taxation without representation? Patriots dumped a bunch of tea into Boston Harbor and the rest is history. My friends, after almost 12 years in DC with very little progress made on DC voting rights, not to mention being treated like a guinea pig by Congress whenever they can't manage to impose their will nationwide, I'm about to throw some Lipton in the Potomac River and see if I can't foment a little rebellion myself. It's past time for real DC voting rights.

Here's a fun video about DC voting rights... get past the bit in the beginning, and it's actually a good song and video.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Pundits Make Their Election Day Calls: How Does Your Crystal Ball Compare?

Less than 48 hours from the election of our lives, here is what some of the best known minds in the business are predicting. What does your crystal ball say? Better yet, what does your gut say? And, if you're that confident, enter the Washington Post's Pick Your President Contest. Remember, a presidential candidate needs 270 votes to carry the Electoral College.

Fred Barnes, executive editor
The Weekly Standard
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 50%/252 vs. McCain 50%/286
Senate: 55 Democrats vs. 43 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 255 Democrats vs. 180 Republicans

Paul Begala, Democratic strategist and former presidential adviser
CNN political analyst
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 325 vs. McCain 186
Senate: 58 Democrats

Donna Brazile, Democratic strategist
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 343 vs. McCain 195
Senate: 59 Democrats vs. 39 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 264 Democrats vs. 171 Republicans

James Carville, former presidential adviser
Democratic media consultant
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 365 vs. McCain 173
Senate: 60 Democrats
(Sources: washingtonpost.com, CNN)

Chris Cillizza
Washington Post politics reporter
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 52%/312 vs. McCain 48%/226
Senate: 57 Democrats vs. 41 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 266 Democrats vs. 169 Republicans

Eleanor Clift, McLaughlin Group contributor
Newsweek contributing editor
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 52.1%/349 vs. McCain 46.5%/189
Senate: 58 Democrats vs. 40 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 265 Democrats vs. 170 Republicans

David Gergen, former presidential adviser
CNN political analyst
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 338 vs. McCain 200
Senate: 59 Democrats

Mark Halperin, TIME Magazine
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 349 vs. McCain 189
Senate: 58 Democrats vs. 40 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 263 Democrats vs. 172 Republicans

Arianna Huffington, editor-in-chief
Huffington Post
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 51.1%/318 vs. McCain 45.6%/220
Senate: 58 Democrats vs. 40 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 254 Democrats vs. 181 Republicans

Morton Kondracke, executive editor
Roll Call
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 54%/379 vs. McCain 45%/159
Senate: 57 Democrats vs. 41 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 269 Democrats vs. 166 Republicans

Bill Maher, host and comedian
HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher"
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 52.5%/375 vs. McCain 46%/163
Senate: 57 Democrats vs. 41 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 259 Democrats vs. 176 Republicans

Chris Matthews, Host
MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews"
Presidential (Popular/Electoral): Obama 52%/338 vs. McCain 46%/200
Senate: 56 Democrats vs. 42 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 264 Democrats vs. 171 Republicans

Markos Moulitsas, DailyKos founder
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 54%/390 vs. McCain 45%/148
Senate: 58 Democrats vs. 40 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 268 Democrats vs. 167 Republicans

Ed Rollins, GOP strategist
Campaign chair for Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR)
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 52%/353 vs. McCain 45%/185
Senate: 57 Democrats vs. 41 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 249 Democrats vs. 186 Republicans

George Stephanopoulos, host and former presidential aide
ABC News "This Week"
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 353 vs. McCain 185
Senate: 58 Democrats vs. 40 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 263 Democrats vs. 172 Republicans

George Will, Conservative columnist
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 378 vs. McCain 160
Senate: 57 Democrats vs. 41 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 256 Democrats vs. 179 Republicans

Juan Williams, NPR news analyst
Presidential Race (Popular/Electoral): Obama 51%/326 vs. McCain 47%/212
Senate: 58 Democrats vs. 40 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 258 Democrats vs. 177 Republicans

The Zaftig Redhead
Blogger Extraordinaire
Presidential Race (Electoral): Obama 321 vs. McCain 217
Senate: 56 Democrats vs. 42 Republicans vs. 2 Others
House: 259 Democrats vs. 176 Republicans

While the overwhelming majority of the pundits are seeing good things for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and his Democrats, don't count your chickens based on these foxes -- they've been known to be wrong, a lot. But if you really want more, you can find more pundit predictions here.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Rats are Jumping Ship: High Profile Republicans Endorse Obama, McCain Campaign Concedes Key States

People do not like a loser, and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is starting to be a stinker -- if you go by his own party's behavior.

First, well known conservative pundit George Will seems to have had it with The Maverick -- McCain's deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the economic crisis seems to have sent Will over the edge. Then, in the course of a week, Christopher Buckley -- columnist for the Weekly Standard, a conservative handbook founded by his famous father William F. Buckley -- broke ranks and endorsed Sen. Barack Obama. By the way, Buckley got fired for his trouble. How dare he exercise independent thinking!

Then, Gen. Colin Powell, a respected former military man and Bush 43's first secretary of state, came out on Meet the Press for the junior senator from Illinois -- and Rush Limbaugh pretty much called Powell a racist for his trouble. Also this past week, conservative Philadelphia talk show host Michael Smerconish endorsed Obama, live on his WPHT show on Friday (you can listen to his rationale here). Truly, you cannot make this stuff up.

Then, just today, CNN reported that top McCain campaign officials are "making tough decisions" -- pulling campaign staff about of states they no longer see as winnable: Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa. Instead, the campaign is counting on Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and an improbable comeback in Pennsylvania to tip the electoral college balance. In defense, the McCain campaign said: "We see the race tightening both internally and in public polling. We are within striking distance in the key battleground states we need to win." One clearly has to wonder -- what kinda crack are the McCain people smoking?

Frankly, why do they bother to announce this kinda stuff? Talk about scary red flags. Holy smokes, Batman, this campaign's on fire -- and the rats are leaving the ship. Worse, in key states, the McCain campaign is literally giving up the ship.

Lest you think The Zaftig Redhead is becoming overconfident regarding an Obama victory, au contraire. I have no illusions about the dirty tactics and shady voter suppression efforts headed our way. That's why I am encouraging everyone who can to take part in early voting or absentee balloting. This will minimize the impact of these last ditch, underhanded efforts to swing or suppress the vote, and will help to minimize the lines at the polls on election day -- which by all accounts are going to be long. Let's beat them at their own game folks -- for those of you who can, get out there and vote, NOW!

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

An Interactive Timeline: Eight Years of Republican Failure

For those waffling voters out there wondering what four-to-eight years of McSame might look like, let's take a moment to recap the last eight. If you're like me, you'll probably throw up a little bit in your mouth as you literally gag over the disaster of the past two presidential terms, courtesy of Bush 43, Cheney and Company.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama, Condemns Robocalls -- but will not Campaign for the Democrat

In 2007, Gen. Colin Powell gave a political donation to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Yes, in the primary, Powell was pulling for the Maverick -- and calls him a "dear friend." But Powell has become increasingly concerned about the direction that the Republican party has taken, and Powell cites Gov. Sarah Palin's selection as further evidence of that troubling shift. On the subject of Palin (R-AK), Powell said, "She is a very distinguished woman and should be admired, but after watching her for the past six weeks I don't believe she is ready to be president. And that is an issue of McCain's judgement."

In coming to his decision, Powell said he watched both candidates over the past few weeks -- as a part of a sort of "final exam" as they dealt with the economic crisis. He talked about his concerns that McCain seemed less sure of himself in taking on these bread and butter economic issues, while Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) showed intellectual rigor and a steadiness that impressed W's former secretary of state.

As a result, Powell announced Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press that he will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama, citing the Democrat's "ability to inspire" and the "inclusive nature of his campaign."

"He has both style and substance. I think he is a transformational figure," the former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. Powell expressed real frustration and disappointment about the McCain campaign's overuse of 1960's radical William Ayers, and was genuinely troubled by their focus on such an inconsequential matter -- the RNC and McCain are still doing Ayers robo calls in many states -- while so many more important issues were begging for attention.

Powell also shared his concern about the Republican party's not-so-subtle pushing of the myth at Obama is Muslim -- and was eloquent in saying, "no, he's not, he's a Christian. But so what if he was? Why do we care? That's not American, that's not what this country is all about." Right on, General.

"Both John McCain and Barack Obama would be a good president. It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain has I have this morning," Powell went on to say. "Barack Obama will not only electrify the country, he will electrify the world."

Powell said he was not interested in returning to government, but out of respect would talk to any president who wished to speak to him. Powell in an Obama Administration -- in some way, shape, or fashion? It could happen, folks. It could happen. And the country would be better for it.

Take a listen to the inflammatory robocalls McCain-Palin and the RNC are making across the country.




Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.