Michelle Obama Visits Columbia, Orangeburg
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s wife Michelle
will stop in Orangeburg and Columbia Tuesday, November 20.
Ticket locations for Orangeburg
event:
Von & Rick's Touch of Class
9411 Neeces Hwy.
803-258-1307
New Edition Beauty & Barber Shop
1701 East Bridge St., St. Matthews
803-655-5532
Marsharell's Barber and Styling Shop
158 Dixie Ave., Bamberg
803-245-9171
Obama Regional Office
1168 Magnolia St., Orangeburg
803-531-2808
The Quick Pantry
6619 Charleston Highway, Bowman
803-829-2470
Persona Barber
Shop
4900 Carolina Highway, Denmark
803-793-4458
Magnificent Barber Shop
7413 Freedom Rd., Branchville
803-274-8958
SL's Barber Shop
63 Allen St., Barnwell
803-259-5972
1025 Calhoun St., Columbia
803-255-8008
1529 Hampton St., Columbia
803-799-7798
Macs on Main
171 Main St., Columbia
803-929-0037
Dreher High School (students only)
3319 Millwood
Ave., Columbia
Clark Law Firm
22 East Liberty St., Sumter
803-775-1234
5454 Sunset Blvd
803-996-3336
1410 Laurel St. Columbia
803-252-4848
1607 Harden St., Columbia
803 -256-3462
3800 N. Main St., Columbia
803-929-0980
Last week, John Edwards launched a series of ads across Iowa promising that if he were elected and Congress didn't pass his healthcare plan, he would strip lawmakers of their own coverage (you can view the ad in the window to your right).
Arguing that ordinary Americans deserve access to healthcare that's just as good as what members of Congress get is a devastatingly effective message and has long been a crowd-pleaser among progressives. Edwards told radio talker Ed Schultz, "There's no excuse for politicians in Washington to have heathcare, but America doesn't have healthcare, and I think we have to shake this place up a little bit. What we would do is we would submit legislation saying if universal healthcare is not passed by this summer, that the Congress and members of the administration would lose their healthcare coverage."
It's a beautiful piece of populism -- a message that appeals to an American Main Street that polls show to be as disdainful of Congress as it is hurting from spiraling healthcare costs in the face of stagnant wages. It's a campaign that can showcase how much lawmakers appreciate the kind of coverage they receive and just how hard they'd fight to keep it, and, importantly, will make it that much harder for opponents to mouth the inevitable blather about the perfidy of "government-run," "socialized healthcare" with a straight face.
But while the ads represent a very nice piece of political rhetoric by Edwards, make no mistake: It's also the public presentation of a serious and thoughtful healthcare proposal (PDF) -- one that would cover every American -- that is both pragmatic in its approach and also the most progressive in the field after Dennis Kucinich's.
Edwards's plan, like that available to members of Congress, is built around a lot of choice. Employers would have the option of either covering employees privately or sharing the costs of purchasing coverage from among a menu of state-run plans -- called "health markets" -- with different amounts of coverage and at different prices. These would all have the advantages of economies of scale and of spreading risk out over large insurance pools. All of the plans would be "open to everyone," regardless of "pre-existing conditions, medical history, age, job and other characteristics."
Some single-payer advocates have criticized the plan because, unlike Dennis Kucinich's call to establish a not-for-profit health system, Edwards' plan would leave the insurance industry in place to suck patients dry and add enormously to the nation's healthcare tab.
But while it's well-intentioned, most of the criticism misses a crucial aspect of the plan.
The key to Edwards' approach is that it mandates the creation of at least one health market that's fully public, based on the Medicare model and available to all. That means that the public sector would be allowed to compete with private insurers -- a concept that's anathema among conservatives -- and consumers would be able to choose the option, public or private, that gives them the best bang for the buck.
The idea is that once the benefits of a single-payer system become clear -- especially the lower costs advocates predict -- eventually most people would move, voluntarily, from the private health markets to the fully public one, and the politics of the transition to single-payer would be infinitely more manageable.
That Edwards' healthcare plan anticipates that transition is no secret; it's spelled out explicitly:
Health Markets will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare, but separate and apart from it. Families and individuals will choose the plan that works best for them. This American solution will reward the sector that offers the best care at the best price. Over time, the system may evolve toward a single-payer approach if individuals and businesses prefer the public plan.
Some observers have argued that Edwards' threat is a nice piece of political theater -- a means of making a point -- but not much more. When blogger Ben Smith asked University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein about some legal questions surrounding Edwards' proposal, he said that the question was irrelevant. "It's a stunt," he replied, "Congress isn't going to enact legislation taking away its own healthcare."
But the campaign is adamant that this is a very real proposal -- one that Edwards feels strongly about -- and not a mere stunt. "He's deadly serious about passing this," a senior staffer with the campaign told me. "And, contrary to what many are saying, I don't see how Congress could not pass it."
That may just be true. As blogger Ezra Klein noted: "The idea behind this bill is that it will ratchet up political pressure for change, creating a situation in which congressmen come to the table because they fear losing their seats if they don't. It's a strategy based on the application of political pressure, not legislative finesse." Edwards promised Ed Schultz that if he's elected and Congress doesn't pass his bill, "I'm going to go as president into their congressional district, into their Senate states and say your senator or your congressmen is supporting healthcare for himself and against healthcare for you."
One thing is clear about Edwards' proposal: Audiences in Iowa eat it up. What remains to be seen is whether it's enough to give him some traction in a race that's seen Hillary Clinton build a commanding lead nationwide. Edwards trails Clinton by 15 points in New Hampshire, but is statistically tied with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, where the first primary (caucus) will take place in about seven weeks. According to a recent New York Times poll, primary voters in Iowa and New Hampshire prefer both Edwards and Obama on the issues -- and say they're more likely to speak honestly to voters -- but favor Clinton in terms of electability. While that's probably a dubious means of evaluating a candidate's strength, it does indicate that some portion of Clinton's support is purely tactical and not deeply held.
That's an opportunity. Momentum can shift quickly in those early primaries and, with a bit more smart politics like Edwards' latest campaign on healthcare, we could be looking at a very different race in early 2008.
Posted by: DemoTaker | 15 November 2007 at 06:04 PM
I find it amusing that ALL of the Democratic candidates preach to their choirs in practically ALL BLACK areas. They obviously feel that blacks are their greatest base in the South for 08 and are thus promising their version of a "chicken in every pot" politics. Of course I hear no one in the media complain about the political rallies being directed from the pulpits of large black churches for Democrats. Were these white churches stumping for Republicans,everyone from the justice department to the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder about "separation of church and state."
Lastly, if Obama can't answer with a yes or no a simple question as to whether or not he would issue drivers licenses to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, he most assuredly does NOT need to even be considered for President. Of course he does do well with Opra , Ellen, Larry King and The View light weights. God help this country if we get one of these loons in the White House!!!!
Posted by: Bob | 17 November 2007 at 09:30 PM
I find it amusing that ALL of the Democratic candidates preach to their choirs in practically ALL BLACK areas. They obviously feel that blacks are their greatest base in the South for 08 and are thus promising their version of a "chicken in every pot" politics. Of course I hear no one in the media complain about the political rallies being directed from the pulpits of large black churches for Democrats. Were these white churches stumping for Republicans,everyone from the justice department to the ACLU would be screaming bloody murder about "separation of church and state."
Lastly, if Obama can't answer with a yes or no a simple question as to whether or not he would issue drivers licenses to ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, he most assuredly does NOT need to even be considered for President. Of course he does do well with Opra , Ellen, Larry King and The View light weights. God help this country if we get one of these loons in the White House!!!!
Posted by: Bob | 17 November 2007 at 09:31 PM
Bob, wake up and smell the bacon grease in your argument. The address by Michelle Obama was in Dreher High School before a very enthusiastic mixed race audience. I think if you had heard her message, and the message that Senator Obama delivers in his campaign speeches you will find it totally the opposite of what you claim in your comment. She spoke about the struggles, hard work, and sacrifices of her father to take care of his family and send his children to Princeton University; about the challenges that most Americans face in trying to make ends meet and hold on to their values; and she spoke about a change in American government and society that will end some of the divisiveness that exist which stand in the way of improving this country. Her message, and the message of Barack Obama is for all Americans, and is very inspiring. You might think of opening up a bit and breaking out of your stereotyping tendency. You might also refresh your knowledge of the separation of church and state, which refers to governing without church interference and practicing religion without government interference.
The license plate issue is a very complicated one like the whole immigration issue is. It makes no sense to give an unqualified yes or no answer to a question that is so important. There is no simple answer. In the debate situation why should the moderator be the one to decide when a candidate should simply say yes or no? Someone asks a question and tells you how you should answer? I don't think so. I think, Bob, that you should visit Mr. Obama's web site and the web sites of all of the candidates in order to really understand what their views on the issues are.
Posted by: GW | 21 November 2007 at 09:55 AM
http://www.aztlan.net/anchor_baby_power.htm
by
Ernesto Cienfuegos
La Voz de Aztlan
General Francisco VillaLos Angeles, Alta California - 1/15/2002 - (ACN) "Villa is everywhere but Villa is nowhere" was the telegraphed message sent to Washington D. C. by General John J. Pershing after failing to capture the elusive and brilliant military strategist of the Mexican Revolution. Pershing and his Punitive Expedition, that included a young lieutenant by the name of George S. Patton, had gone deep into Mexico in search of General Francisco Villa after Villa and about 485 of his "Dorados del Norte" had successfully crossed the U.S./Mexico border and raided the small border town of Columbus, New Mexico on March 9, 1916 to collect a debt owed him by two unscrupulous, in Villa's own words, "judio" (jewish) brothers, Sam and Louis Ravel. The scammers had failed to deliver arms, ammunition and supplies they had been paid for with gold bars. The U.S. Army Punitive Expedition consisting of 10,000 troops went as far south as Parral, Chihuahua but gave up catching General Villa after an 11 month search. General Villa, "El Tigere del Norte", proved too evasive for John "Black Jack" Pershing. General Francisco Villa knew every rock, every stream, every cave, and every cactus of the immense sierra of Chihuahua.
Today, we are hearing similar accounts concerning the search for Osama bin Laden by the U.S. Special Forces expedition into Afghanistan under the command of General Tommy Franks. Yesterday General Franks as well as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sent a message to President George Bush that they believe that Osama bin Laden has managed to escape. The message by the CIA said that Osama bin Laden may not be in Afghanistan or in Pakistan and that he may have escaped by sea. Like Pancho Villa, it looks like Osama bin Laden has outsmarted the U.S. military generals. Reports now being broadcast by the mainstream media say that Osama bin Laden fooled the CIA and Special Forces by "planting" videos as well as Osama bin Laden voice tape recordings that were used by Taliban soldiers over "cellular phone" communications to make the CIA think that he was at a certain location when in fact he was somewhere else. General Villa utilized similar tactics to fool Pershing. Pershing and the U.S. Punitive Expedition were chasing phantom Villas all over Chihuahua and finally became exhausted and gave up. His last telegraph to Woodrow Wilson was "Villa is everywhere but Villa is nowhere".
Osama bin LadenThere are other uncanny similarities between Osama bin Laden and Francisco Villa. Both are revered by the common people of each respective community. Both are seen as Robin Hoods by the poor and oppressed. Both were construction contractors at one time in their lives. Francisco Villa was a general contractor on the construction of the railroad through Chihuahua's majestic Copper Canyon. Both Osama bin Laden and General Francisco Villa were indirectly fighting those whom they perceived to be lackeys of the United States. General Villa was fighting Venustanio Carranza, who had a cozy "sellout" relationship with Woodrow Wilson, and Osama bin Laden is fighting the Saudi Royalty who have a very cozy relationship with US oil interests to the detriment of the overall disenfranchised Arab population.
The U.S. military expedition to capture Francisco Villa was doomed to failure because Pershing and his Punitive Expedition where unfamiliar with the territory, were up against a very clever military genius, and were operating within a very hostile local population who had come to see the revolutionary as a folk hero and national symbol of defying America. General Francisco Villa was seen by Mexicans as a clear winner, emerging triumphant from a battle with the powerful United States and assumed legendary status that endures till this day. It certainly appears today, that Osama bin Laden is headed for the very same legendary and folk hero status in Islam.
OBAMA THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO OPEN OUR BORDERS TO?
Posted by: JESUSA | 22 November 2007 at 10:34 PM