About Last Night

The long nightmare is almost over. Last night, the Obama juggernaut blew the doors off the Straight Talk Express. No surprise there; it was obvious to anyone who was paying attention that the wheels had come off that bus long before it ever left the depot.

Last night, Senator Barack Obama became President-elect of the United States of America.

Last night, Senator John McCain delivered what was probably the finest speech of his political career.

Last night, our nation took its first tentative steps into the 21^st century.

Last night delivered hope for a better future.

At this time I’d like to extend my sincere congratulations to the Obama campaign team for a hard-won victory, and to express my best wishes to Obama for much good luck and many successes. He’s going to need an abundance of both to erase the ill effects of eight years of the Bush League’s bad decisions and failed policies.

And for those of you who were disappointed or outraged by the election results—especially if you cringe at the mention of the name Barack Hussein Obama—repeat after me: Barry “who’s sane” O’Bama, Barry “who’s sane” O’Bama, Barry “who’s sane” O’Bama.

Chant it like a mantra for the rest of the day. By tomorrow, he’ll seem just like reg’lar folks, and you’ll begin to realize how fortunate the nation is to have this exceptional man as our next President.

As I said at the beginning, the long nightmare is almost over. Now, let the dreaming begin.

Election Selection

Color played a big role in who I voted for in this election. No, it’s not what you think. Let me explain.

Not race nor skin color nor ethnicity had a part in helping me decide which candidates to vote for. The contenders could all be purple with orange polka-dots and green racing stripes for all I care. The important thing for a candidate to earn my vote is to share my ideals and represent my interests.

Although Obama is a better choice for President than McCain (and I fully expect him to win the Presidency by a decisive margin), I voted for Cynthia McKinney. And that’s where color enters the picture; she’s got the “green” racing stripes.

Healthy Choices

Hillary Clinton has a national healthcare plan. Barack Obama has a healthcare plan, too, although his is somewhat less comprehensive than Hillary’s. John McCain has no plan, save for one to keep the U.S. Military engaged in Middle East affairs for as long as it takes to defeat global terrorism—a mammoth undertaking with a high probability of failure, given the climate of violence arising out of ongoing clashes of ideologies. But, I digress; McCain and global terrorism are not part of this discussion.

No, this discussion is about devising an affordable healthcare plan that’s inclusive of all Americans. While both the Clinton and Obama plans are better than the current one, neither of them goes the full distance. Each relies on a mish-mash of obsolete ideas and outdated methodology to achieve less-than-perfect results.

Although most everyone agrees that the healthcare system needs an overhaul, few agree on how to do it. Granted, it’s a complex subject not given to quick or easy fixes, so maybe it’s better to drop the notion of an overhaul and begin thinking in terms of designing a new system from the ground up.

The first consideration in devising a new healthcare plan is trimming costs without paring away essential services. Make every healthcare dollar count by adopting more efficient methods, eliminating wasteful spending, and by taking advantage of numerous medical and medicinal alternatives.

A single-payer system seems like the best option for providing broad-spectrum healthcare coverage to all citizens at the lowest possible cost. Private and group health insurance carriers need to make a profit in order to survive, and every dollar that goes toward insurance company profits is a dollar not spent directly on medical services. At least 30% of the money now spent on healthcare insurance is essentially wasted because it disappears into the black hole of insurance company profits.

Prevention is almost always cheaper than the cure, but vast sums of money are wasted because preventive medicine is often disallowed, thereby assuring that preventable or easily cured illnesses evolve into ailments that are both more difficult and more expensive to treat. Could annual health checkups for everyone ultimately result in lower healthcare costs due to early detection and treatment of potentially life-threatening or life-changing illnesses?

The uninsured also contribute to rising medical costs because they tend to delay seeking treatment until an ailment becomes life-threatening, at which point they enter the healthcare system through a hospital emergency ward, where medical costs are among the highest, but where, by law, treatment can’t be refused because of an inability to pay.

Over-reliance on prescription drugs is another factor in rising medical care costs. Natural remedies are sometimes as effective as their Big Pharma-supplied counterparts, and they’re almost always less expensive. Unfortunately, lower-cost alternatives are either ignored or banned outright while high-priced pharmaceuticals drive healthcare costs ever higher.

Personal choices also affect the cost of health care. Emphasize health education by making health studies a mandatory part of the school curriculum at every grade level. An increase of health awareness will surely lead to better diets and nutrition, optimal physical fitness, and smarter lifestyle choices, all of which have the potential to extend life expectancy while lowering overall healthcare costs. Personal responsibility for one’s health is not something that can or should be left out of the healthcare equation.

Financing and administering a universal healthcare plan pose the greatest challenges to providing comprehensive care to everyone. To simplify things, why not roll universal health care under the Social Security umbrella? Create a new healthcare fund to co-exist side-by-side with the Social Security retirement fund (but in a separate account), with both employers and employees paying into it, just as they now pay into the Social Security fund. Employers and employees alike will pay substantially less to a single-payer insurer than they now pay to group insurers, and get a better level of healthcare in the bargain.

The foregoing ideas are preliminary, basic, and intended only to provide the barest framework around which to build a viable, comprehensive healthcare plan that works for everyone. No doubt that much work remains to be done. Others will have different ideas, perhaps better ideas, but all ideas must be considered until such time that our political leaders, grassroots activists, and citizen voters pool their collective resources to devise and implement a workable healthcare package that leaves no citizen behind.

Of Tangled Webs and Weaving

Even though Hillary’s campaign seems to be losing momentum, might in fact be dead, it refuses to grind to a dead stop. Hillary bravely soldiers on, much to the delight of dwindling numbers of supporters—and GOP members made ecstatic by the continuing divide within the Democratic Party. At this point, by remaining in the race she does the party more harm than good.

Frankly, I can’t understand why so many people continue to sing Hillary’s praises. Why would anyone vote for a proven liar who campaigns mostly in the State of Denial? Wait! Let me answer my own question: For the same reasons many of them voted for George W. Bush. But possessing great mass appeal is not the same as possessing the qualities found in great leaders, and (to use Bush in another example) having shit for brains does not automatically endow one with a fertile imagination or advanced critical thinking skills.

There’s no doubt that Hillary is smart, I’ll give her credit for that. But she’s also ambitious, power-hungry, disingenuous, manipulative and conniving; her unwarranted attacks against Senator Obama did nothing so much as reveal her true character—junkyard dog attributes of ferocity and tenacity, with none of the endearing qualities such animals possess. That she vastly overstated both her experience and her accomplishments present other obstacles to her ascension to the Presidency. In short, a surplus of negatives and a dearth of positives tend to distance her from the office she covets.

As if things couldn’t get any worse, her statement about coming under fire in Bosnia was over the top. The news video of her arrival in Bosnia, which was re-released shortly after she made the sniper comment, clearly showed her strolling serenely away from the aircraft while daughter Chelsea stopped to greet a Bosnian child. If fusillades of snipers’ bullets threatened them, everyone pictured in the video was oblivious to the danger, including Hillary.

A question that has never been answered to my satisfaction is what part would Bill play in a Hillary Clinton administration. Would his proximity to the White House cast him in the role of de facto President, de facto Vice President, or some other influential position? Sorry, but Bill served two terms as President; he’s not eligible to serve another.

Although I think the time is right for a woman to occupy the White House, I don’t think Hillary is the right woman. If you’re bent on voting for a woman in this election, why not vote for Cynthia Ann McKinney, the 6-term Georgia Congresswoman and Green Party candidate? She has more practical political experience than Hillary, and she better represents progressive values.

Blame Hillary for her campaign’s steady reversal of fortune. Last June, she led in the polls by a wide margin, but then she started talking and it was game over. Perhaps Hillary does that shot-to-the-foot thing as a prelude to—and justification for—inserting her foot in her mouth.

Did Hillary flunk Ethics 101? Apparently so! It appears she forgot her lessons about tangled webs and weaving and the downside of the practice of deceiving.

I wish I could say that I wish Hillary well, but in truth I wish she’d just go away.

Addendum: Head on over to Chuck for . . . to see what Chuck Butcher said about Hillary in his latest blog post.

Should Dynasties Rule the United States?

If, as I strongly suspect, George H.W. Bush was to Ronald Reagan as Dick Cheney is to George W. Bush, one family (plus a couple of well connected players—one a puppet, the other a puppet-master) has occupied or otherwise controlled the White House for 20 of the past 28 years. Only one other family—the Clintons, for eight years—claimed 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as its mailing address during that time.

And now, former First Lady Hillary Clinton would have us return the Clinton Family to the White House for a third term, which would give just two families a combined total of 32 years in the nation’s highest office. A two-family dynasty of consecutive Presidents over a nearly three decade time span is unprecedented in U.S. history. It’s a precedent that should not have been allowed to happen and should not be allowed to continue.

And no, I’m not opposed to a Hillary Clinton Presidency because Hillary’s a woman, but because she’s Hillary Clinton. To clarify, I’m opposed to Clinton because of who she is, not because of what she is.

There are several compelling reasons why all Americans should hope that Hillary fails in her bid to capture the Democratic nomination, foremost among them her deplorable environmental LCV score of 73% (2006) compared to Obama’s 100%. Yeah, folks, the environment is a very big deal, and Hillary is not the candidate best equipped to address the many problems it faces.

Hillary’s support for the Iraq war and the ensuing occupation is also problematic. I see no reason to believe that Clinton has any intention of diverting our nation away from the course that the Bush Crime Family so unwisely set for it. Pursuing failed policy is not a strategy for success, nor is it the way to achieve world peace.

Clinton’s bid for the Democratic nomination is all the more troubling since Ralph Nader threw his hat in the ring. That Nader would siphon more votes away from candidate Clinton than he would from candidate Obama is almost certain, and my gut feeling is that if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination the election will tip to John McCain. Sure, that would break the chain of dynastic rule, but it would put yet another Republican in charge of the White House. We have to ask ourselves if we can afford to have either one of these corporate shills ascend to the nation’s top position of power.

Finally, there’s my suspicion that Clinton’s run for the Presidency is but a poorly disguised attempt to give Bill a third term in office by letting him in through the back door. Slam that door, chain it, double bolt it, and set the alarm—before he gets in.

• • •

The problem with dynasties is that you tend to get the same stilted thinking, the same lack of vision, and the same corrupt policies from one administration to the next. The only thing that matters to the power elite is maintaining the status quo.

So, what would a continuation of the Bush-Clinton Dynasty look like in the years ahead? Hillary Clinton, two terms; Jeb Bush, two terms; Neil Bush, two terms, Chelsea Clinton; two terms; Jenna Bush, two terms; Barbara Bush, two terms. That’s another 48 years added to the 28 years already savaged by two-family dynastic rule. And who knows what future Bush/Clinton offspring will be waiting in the wings, awaiting their turn to occupy the Oval Office?

Okay, I’ll admit that this a little extreme. Chances are slim that this scenario will ever play out. Still, the potential is there, the possibility exists. Better to stop that juggernaut now, while we still have Constitutional protections—and voting rights.

Clinton Campaign in Meltdown Mode?

The tide seems to be turning against Hillary’s campaign, which can only be construed as a sign that sanity and reason are once again making inroads into the nation’s collective political consciousness. Despite Hillary’s specious claims of 35 years of political experience (do the years she spent sleeping with former Arkansas Governor/former US President Bill Clinton count as actual political experience?), her accomplishments as a US Senator seem to pale in a side-by-side comparison with Senator Barak Obama’s.

According to a comment posted on Hart Williams’ blog, over a full six-year term Clinton pushed through some 20 pieces of legislation, all but a handful of them so inconsequential (in my opinion) as to not be worth a serious politician’s time. In contrast, during his first year as a US Senator Obama wrote 152 bills and co-sponsored 427. Clearly, the facts contradict Ms. Clinton’s rhetoric that she’s a doer and Obama’s a talker.

Nor do Ms. Clinton’s verbal assaults against Obama cast her in a favorable light or win support for her from a majority of Democrats. Instead, she comes across looking like a shrewish, vindictive harridan flirting ever closer with the edge of psychological meltdown.

To his credit, Obama seems to be taking it all in stride, for the most part maintaining his composure while the Clintons, Hillary and Bill, berate his qualifications. Staying cool under pressure is a hallmark of leadership ability—something Hillary would do well to learn.