Time for Action - Why you should nominate "Gore-Feingold" for the Democratic Party?

My Dear America,

Yet another twist and dilemma to the already chaotic Democratic Party nomination!

“Pennsylvania Primary Results” – Belated Congratulations to Senator Hillary Clinton!

The race continues to allow participation of the electorate in the remaining states. As democrats we are all learning a great deal of “Politics” from the current “Presidential race”.

Should we learn more about “Politics” or the “Politicians”? Some say both and others think the latter is important to understand the former.

It is evident from these results that the people across the nation are desperately seeking effective policies to alleviate major problems confronting their lives?

The relevant and daunting aspect of this “Presidential race” is electability that is directly related to credibility, competence, character and most importantly policies of their candidacy.

Can the candidates deliver what is required of them?

Right now, they are busy delivering explosive rhetoric and negative campaign tactics much to the advantage of the relaxed and well rested presumed Republican nominee Senator John McCain who has been around the world in 80 hours as the future “President” and currently touring the “forgotten places” to project himself as the formidable candidate.

The economic, social and political commitments of the three “Presidential candidates” fail to strike a chord with the people on or off the campaign trail. The reason being the lack of transparency with respect to “Special Industry / Corporate Lobbyists” vested interests in their respective campaigns and reluctance to transform “Washington Politics” in domestic and foreign policy.

As stated earlier, the current “Presidential race” is tough because of the enormous challenges at present time. The serious job demands serious qualifications.

The controversial contender Senator Hillary Clinton has urged the media and the electorate to draw distinction between herself and her opponent, Senator Obama. Even though the distinction is obvious in terms of gender and race, the commonality between them is they both represent “Symbolic Politics”.

Let us compare and contrast “Yes we can” with “Yes we will”, the campaign slogans of the present democratic challengers, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton respectively.

The economic and health care policies of both candidates with slight variations are intended to target their respective goals of providing “Universal Health Care” and salvation from the current economic and energy crises. The strength and statistics of their policies are revealed by them against one another in the popular campaign dictum “Kitchen Sink” strategy undermining external evaluation by experts and electorate alike.

The voters’ unanimous choice - “Single Payer Health Care Policy” is rejected by all three “Presidential Candidates” for their own validation of product that is unequivocally acknowledged by experts as “inadequate”. The political maneuvering is a good example of products and services marketed aggressively against the will of the electorate or offering a “placebo” for the current ailing economy to benefit the “Special Interests” group behind their candidacy.

Source: Democracynow.org February 08, 2008 (Thank you.)

Examining Clinton & Obama’s Stances on the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Universal Healthcare, Privatizing Social Security and Nuclear Energy

“Amy GOODMAN: It’s interesting to note something Hillary Clinton says in that clip. When she mentions a single-payer system, the audience applauds and cheers, even though it’s an option rarely seriously discussed by politicians or the corporate media. And Hillary Clinton acknowledges the applause by saying, “I know a lot of people favor [it], but for many reasons [it’s] difficult to achieve.” She doesn’t explain why she thinks it’s difficult to achieve. And polls repeatedly show a majority of Americans favor it. An A.P. poll in December found nearly two-thirds of voters want universal healthcare, in which everyone’s covered in a Medicare-type program, while more than half of voters explicitly said they support single payer. But it’s the insurance companies that are against it. Robert Kuttner, can you talk about that?

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, one of the reasons that it’s difficult to achieve is the lack of leadership on the part of leaders like Hillary Clinton and, for that matter, Barack Obama. I mean, if you had Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say, “You know, this is an intramural debate that we should not be having, this debate about mandates; we should do this right: we should have national health insurance,” public opinion would turn around on a dime. And instead of it being this fringe idea, all of a sudden, just because the two of them had blessed it, it would become a mainstream idea, and we would be having a debate that we should have been having all along.”

----------------------------------------------------
In terms of the Subprime mortgage crisis, if one candidate’s proposal is to “freeze” increase in mortgage payments for a limited period on “negative amortization loans”, the other candidate beg to differ with an alternative approach of “moratorium” on foreclosures for a limited term as well. The end result of both proposals is the eviction of homeowners by lenders within the timeframe resembling the margin of their polling status.

Other major issues such as “Social Security” the lifeline for baby boomers and Senior Citizens, job security for all workers color coded in this campaign as white, blue and green according to the primary results, escalating education costs for the youth expected to be future tax payers of this economy and astronomical energy prices debilitating the nation and global community have been currently superceded by dramatic rhetoric contributing to major entertainment for news media and political circus.

Is there any opportunity to discuss other real issues such as time line for troop withdrawal from Iraq, drastic measures to defense cutback on military spending, dealing with present burgeoning international food crisis and inflation, focus on national security and environmental policy, restoration of human rights and world peace?

How about a proposal for complete disarmament of nuclear weapons by all nations with United States in the leading role to eliminate the threat of nuclear arsenal being acquired by the potentially dangerous elements in the world?

The candidates have discussed some of the above mentioned issues during “Presidential debates” and on the campaign trail. However, none of them have offered a firm commitment or a permanent solution to any of the problems facing our nation and the international community.

Should we wonder why? The truth of the matter is, all three “Presidential Candidates” have ducked and dodged on issues concerning the American people and the rest of the world for the survival of their candidacy.

It is important to ask all three remaining contenders on their position regarding the electorate proposals on health care, housing, energy, education, environment, troop withdrawal, serious commitment against human right violation such as torture, invasion and illegal occupation of foreign lands, cutback on military spending and investment in peace and diplomacy and finally complete disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Please remember, the “Presidential Candidates” are vying for the highest office on land and planet earth. They want to control our destiny but decline to be subject to any scrutiny. An active democracy must constantly seek truth, transparency and integrity from any and all prospects running for public office.

After relentless pursuit for disclosure of personal income tax returns by Senator Clinton and others, the nation had the opportunity to view the stark contrast in the “socio-economic status” between the candidates and the mainstream population notably classified as “Elitist vs. Populist” in their personal attacks against each other.

The amazing performance to relate to the people struggling to meet both ends in Pennsylvania and elsewhere is evident in the income tax returns and gaffes by the candidates.

It is important for the electorate in a democratic society to seek yet another full disclosure of “Special Interests” investment details, their association, affiliation and alliances in the current “Presidential Campaign” from all three candidates.

The incumbent administration flaunted the militaristic might in the disastrous Iraq war through “Shock and Awe” and now, not surprisingly Senator Hillary Clinton is enthusiastic to display the “Nuclear Capability” upon becoming “President” by vowing to the following action;

“Source: (Good work on the explosive topic!) – Thank you.

Los Angeles Times:

IRAN: Hillary's threat to "obliterate" in war reverberates-------

Better be careful what you say in the heat of a political campaign. It could have global repercussions.

Presidential contender Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's vow to "obliterate" Iran, presumably with nuclear weapons, if it attacked Israel on her watch was duly noted in the U.S.

[UPDATE: To see a video and full transcript of the comment, click here.]”

“Source: Democracynow.org February 06, 2008

Super Tuesday Roundtable with Bill Fletcher of The Black Commentator, Sociologist Frances Fox Piven, Roberto Lovato of New America Media, and Progressive Democrats of America Director Tim Carpenter

BILL FLETCHER: Senator Obama has been a motivational and inspiring speaker, but on some issues, particularly on foreign policy, he has not particularly distinguished himself from Senator Clinton. I mean, he was reluctant—although he supported or has supported a withdrawal from Iraq, he was reluctant to pin a date down. He, on Iran, seemed to believe, along with the Bush administration, that Iran represents some sort of threat. And then he made that statement about making a unilateral attack against al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan, which was, I think, a reckless statement when you consider the state that Pakistan is in and the anti-US sentiment there.

How will this be fundamentally different than his predecessors?

FRANCES FOX PIVEN: I certainly don’t think that race is going—the race issue is going—disappearing from American society as a result of this election campaign. That is not what I meant.

But I wanted to comment on the question of program that everybody—all of us have brought up. Whose program do we like? Who is stronger, Hillary or Barack? Or was it Edwards in an earlier phase? I think that, look, these are all ambitious people. They all take money from unsavory sources. They’re all determined to win, to beat out their competitors. They all evade the troublesome issues in American society, if they can.

ROBERTO LOVATO: Well, Hillary Clinton gets a lot of money from military-industrial interests. Barack Obama’s, contrary to what he said on that clip you showed, his main group of funders is Goldman Sachs, according to Open Secrets.

AMY GOODMAN: We have a roundtable discussion on this post-Super Tuesday. Tim Carpenter, I wanted go back to you in Massachusetts—you came out very clearly strongly for Senator Barack Obama—and ask you questions about your concerns about his record. For example, the strong support for the nuclear industry. The New York Times had a piece this weekend talking about Obama falsely claiming during a campaign debate that he had passed legislation in the Senate at the request of Illinois anti-nuclear activists to require better public disclosure about nuclear plant leaks, when in fact the legislation never passed, that while he did initially introduce legislation, his staff repeatedly watered it down after meeting with the nuclear industry. Among Barack Obama’s top contributors are nuclear power industry, Exelon, the corporation. Your thoughts just on that. Then we’ll talk about health insurance with everyone.

TIM CARPENTER: I’m not here to defend Senator Obama and his record. Like you, I’m challenging him, as well. I think we need to distinguish Senator Barack Obama and the movement for Barack Obama, as Frances said earlier. The movement for Barack Obama represents those Democrats, like you said, that are disappointed in Senator Obama and his nuclear record. I think in Nevada, that was exposed when you look at Yucca Mountain. And like you, Amy, I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed in Senator Barack’s stance.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Fletcher—let me go to Bill Fletcher on the issue of war. Barack Obama makes a very strong case for not just being ready on day one, but being right. Yet he has called for expanding the size of the military by 92,000. Then there’s the issue of healthcare. Neither candidate, Obama or Clinton, have called for single-payer, though Hillary Clinton has presented a plan that would cover 45 million Americans to Obama’s something like, what, twenty-two, twenty-three. Your comments on this?

BILL FLETCHER: Building on what Frances said, I think that Senator Obama, as much as I respect him, has been very wobbly on a number of these issues. And so, in that sense, I think it’s critically important that those of us that are supporting Senator Obama not try to make him something that he’s not.

I’ve heard a number of commentators over the last number of weeks, and some good people that I respect, attempt to change or turn Senator Obama into someone who is far more progressive than I think that he actually is. We can support him, and we can support him critically, but I think that that means that when there are issues like around military spending or the Middle East or healthcare, that we have to come after him, and we have to insist that he get off the fence and that he advance politics that his base is really looking for him to espouse. And that’s what I think is really incumbent upon us, rather than just simply falling over in favor of him because of our excitement with his campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Why, when we’re having this discussion about progressives pushing Obama, do you not feel the same way about Hillary Clinton?

ROBERTO LOVATO: I think that Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that in one debate she called herself progressive, she’s really not. She’s, I’d say, a neoliberal candidate that represents, you know, Goldman Sachs, military-industrial interests, and others, and so—

AMY GOODMAN: Isn’t Goldman Sachs one of the top contributors to Obama?

ROBERTO LOVATO: Yeah. They’re all—I mean, they’re all in the same bag. I’m not—look, I’m not pitching one candidate or the other. I think—

Source: Democracynow.org February 08, 2008 (Thank you.)

Examining Clinton & Obama’s Stances on the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, Universal Healthcare, Privatizing Social Security and Nuclear Energy

PAUL GUNTER: Both Obama and Clinton are hedging.

Actually, both are, you know, remaining open to one of the largest managerial disasters in US business history, where, you know, we—if we repeat that mistake, it’s a little like seeing Lucy offer Charlie Brown this football again. You know, we know what’s going to happen. Why the Clinton and Obama campaigns should remain open to, you know, making that mistake again and falling flat on our back, while we’re facing the imminent and rising risks of rapid climate change—we need leadership now to make decisive policy that sets us on a course where, you know, we’re not going to be faced with climate change, nuclear waste and more nuclear weapons.

AMY GOODMAN: Paul Gunter, in looking at this New York Times piece of February 3rd by Mike McIntyre, he also talks about the chief political strategist of Barack Obama, David Axelrod, who has worked as a consultant to Exelon. A spokeswoman for Exelon said Axelrod’s company had helped an Exelon subsidiary, Commonwealth Edison, with communications strategy periodically since 2002, but had no involvement in the leak controversy or other issues. If you can you comment on that and what the leak controversy was all about?

PAUL GUNTER: Well, you know, basically what the story is is that, you know, for more than a decade, Exelon Nuclear, chiefly at nuclear power stations in Dresden and Braidwood, have been experiencing leaks of radioactive tritium into groundwater, where, at least at Braidwood, on two occasions, more than three million gallons of radioactive water was spilled out onto the surface, where it soaked into groundwater, ran offsite over shallow drinking water wells in neighboring residents, and did not disclose these spills until a constituency of community organizers began to raise this issue, noting that they were really concerned about not only these spills, but cancer clusters and pediatric brain cancers that—around the facilities. And, you know, I think the issue—

AMY GOODMAN: We just have thirty seconds, so if you could—

PAUL GUNTER: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —tell us what—how Barack Obama was involved with this?

PAUL GUNTER: Well, you know, they came to Barack Obama, and basically he set out with strong legislation that would have required mandatory reporting by these utilities to local communities, you know, to basically alert them to these leaks. But as the influence of the Nuclear Energy Institute and Exelon began to come into play, the legislation was basically pulled—all the teeth were pulled out of it and, you know, again leaves these communities vulnerable.

AMY GOODMAN: The YouTube debate in Utah in July. Paul Gunter also joins us, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear, an advocacy group that’s opposed to nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Your—can you talk a little about their positions on nuclear power and nuclear weapons?

PAUL GUNTER: Well, both Senators Obama and Clinton have basically displayed a lot of indecisiveness about all the concerns with nuclear power—its cost, the inherent dangers, the unsolved nuclear waste issue, the proliferations issue. But I think that what’s most notable about that clip is the evasiveness, the indecisiveness, that the campaigns have taken. And it’s also been reflected in legislation with both Senators Obama and Clinton.

One of the main concerns is that both Clinton and Obama have very strong backing, financial backing, from the major CEOs from the nuclear industry. For Senator Obama, the chief executive officer, John Rowe, with Exelon Nuclear, Chicago-based, largest nuclear utility in the country; and Senator Clinton has strong financial backing from David Crane, who’s the CEO for NRG Energy, which is based in New Jersey. Both Exelon and NRG right now have got applications before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build new nuclear power stations in Texas. So it’s disturbing that both Senators Obama and Clinton left out nuclear in their Utah speech, but we’ve seen that basically this kind of indecisiveness, you know, being all over the board indicates that influence-peddling with the nuclear power industry is alive and well on Capitol Hill and in these presidential campaigns”.

______________________________________

Why is this election so important and crucial for mankind?

Who is the “qualified ruler” of the contemporary world equipped with dangerous nuclear arsenal and challenged with serious economic, energy, environmental and political crises?

It is none of the three Presidential candidates i.e. Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain or Senator Barack Obama.

The ideal and peaceful solution for the Democratic Party is to nominate the former Vice President Al Gore and Senator Russ Feingold as “President and Vice President” and take the “White House” back honorably for the good of humanity.

The dire economic status combined with spiraling energy crisis triggered by illegitimate Iraq war and other monumental issues such as nuclear management facing our nation and global community are few reasons for the electorate to exercise diligence and judgment in choosing a leader as the “President of the United States”.

So, given the limited choice and unlimited controversies and mysteries surrounding the present Democratic Candidates and the imminent continuation of Bush legacy with McCain Presidency, it is important for the electorate to consider this “Presidential race” seriously.

The economically devastated people and militarily exhausted troops of this great nation are yearning for a decisive, rational and responsible leadership committed towards revival of economic prosperity, peace and diplomacy and not nuclear war as recklessly declared by Senator Hillary Clinton or affiliations with nuclear industry by Senator Barack Obama.

It is not that we are devoid of options within Democratic Party. Please review my earlier blog “Crisis Remedy” offering alternatives to the current democratic dilemma. We have “proven” candidate such as the former Vice President and Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore who won the popular vote and the general election in the year 2000.

The polarization within Democratic Party is inevitable regarding “Florida and Michigan” delegates close to the Democratic Convention. According to the news media in the year 2000, 1.7 million Floridian voters were disenfranchised through the undemocratic nomination of the “President”.

It is a great opportunity for the Democratic Party to heal the wounds of the democrats, independents and disenchanted republicans in Florida and Michigan by bringing the “Gore-Feingold” team on the ballot to beat the Republican Party in the general election.

It is absolutely important for democrats to win the election at all costs to save this great country and the world from further carnage, chaos and catastrophe. If the Democratic Party does not win in November 2008 despite economic disaster, unpopular war and national reputation at stake, it would be a tragedy for the Party and the future of the democratic society.

Senator Russ Feingold will be a formidable candidate on “Gore-Feingold” ticket due to the exemplary Senatorial record in most issues concerning all citizens of this great nation.

Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold#Bills_and_policy_positions for the preview of his Senate record.

So, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, Oregon, Puerto Rico and all other remaining primary states, please get involved in signing a petition to bring “Gore-Feingold” on the ballot and lead Democratic Party to a spectacular victory in November 2008.

Please note the “Grand Old Party” is up to their “Grand Old Plan” to win the general election by 40 states to 10 against Senator Clinton or Senator Obama due to the “damaged” reputation by both democratic contenders. It would be naïve to take the GOP challenge for granted considering the history in the year 2000 and 2004 and the Republican strategy to win elections by any means.

It is imperative for the American electorate and unpledged delegates otherwise known as “Super Delegates” to rise up to the occasion and turn the recommended “possibility” into a “reality”. Sometimes unpopular decisions have to be made for a noble cause such as defending the honor and future of the country.

You should never forget that “People” have the “Power” in a democratic society to transform “failure” into “success”.

Please contact Democratic National Committee, your Congressional representatives and the prospective candidates the former Vice President Al Gore and Senator Russ Feingold and urge them to honor the will of the electorate and restore democracy, peace and prosperity for all.

Make your vote count by joining the American electorate for "Gore-Feingold" nomination. Please spread the message around vigorously and make this a reality. Our nation cannot sustain any more wars, economic downturns and most importantly polarized society.

You must do this for yourself, your children, family and everything you live for.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Padmini Arhant

Voice for Humanity

P.S: Please read my earlier blog “Crisis Remedy” on www.padminiarhant.blogspot.com for further compelling reasons to win the election by the Democratic Party.