The Republicans and conservatives have never liked Social Security.  They see it as an entitlement program rewarding those who are "not deserving enough" to make their own investments in retirement.  George W. Bush tried to destroy social security by trying to gamble it in the private market.  Perhaps he was thinking abut lending it to Bear Sterns so they can buy risky mortgages, who knows.  Thankfully, the Democrats stopped him.

But even most Democrats were too scared of being called "tax raisers" to call for a real long term solvency solution for social security: make the ultra rich pay their fair share of payroll taxes!  The injustice and economic travesty of having the poor and the middle class pay social security taxes on the entirety of their incomes while the super rich pay their social security taxes on pennies on each dollar they make is glaring but goes unnoticed.

I don't write this diary lightly.  For a long time now, while I have been disgusted at Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics, I have given her supporters the benefit of the doubt that they truly believe in their candidate as the best candidate.  That they are good, intelligent people who I happened to disagree with.  That they too, care more about our country than any particular candidate.  I know how difficult it is to lose with a candidate you really believe in, and I have tried to put myself in their shoes and sympathize with their feelings.

And even today, I hold that belief about most of them.  But sadly, not all.  I cannot, after their reaction to Hillary Clinton's references to Bobby Kennedy's assassination.  I can no longer give the benefit of the doubt, nor hold their integrity without question.

This diary is in response to Would you buy insurance from Barack Obama? by dhonig.  It was a very thoughtful, logical diary, and not a run-of-the-mill candidate hit peace that pops up way too often here.  But I did feel some need to present some counter arguments in defense of Obama's plan.

First let me say that I had been an Edwards supporter until he suspended his campaign, and now I am supporting Barack Obama.  Let me also say that I would prefer a mandate on health care.  However, a mandate is not required or crucial to universally affordable, accessible health care.

My #1 choice in the Democratic nominating race, John Edwards, has now withdrawn from the race. As a result, I am left in a tough situation - having to choose between two candidates - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have both caused me grief at times. Hillary Clinton used to be my second choice, and I thought I could never vote for Obama - not even in the general election.

Let me say something clearly. The hurt Obama has caused by putting Donnie McClurkin on the stage has not gone away. I am not going to forget. But while I cannot forget, I can forgive. I can forgive because when Barack Obama says that he talks about tough issues not just in front of friendly audiences but audiences that need to hear it, he is not talking bull. He does go to African American churches in the south and talk about embracing gay Americans - not a particularly convenient thing to do. While it didn't lesson the sting that he had caused with his concert with McClurkin, it did make me realize that he's got some courage of his convictions.

About a week and a half ago, I wrote Sen. Feinstein about the current Intelligence Committee version of the FISA bill, and asked her to join Sen. Dodd in filibustering the bill as well as stand with Sen. Dodd in case the Democratic leadership decided to retaliate against Sen. Dodd.

To her credit, Sen. Feinstein's office always responds to my messages, and with substantial responses.  She did this time too.  She is introducing an Amendment that she claims will "limit" the grant of immunity.  But I was very troubled by her core argument: let the phone companies off the hook if they had a "good faith" belief that what they were doing - e.g. copying entire voice and data traffic on a network without a warrant - was legal.  I thought, how nice!  Next time I get stopped by the cops for speeding, I will just tell them "I thought I wasn't speeding."  Read on to see Feinstein's response and my reply back to that response.

Yes, I know. I'm not from New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Primaries were held yesterday, and Hillary Clinton achieved a stunning comeback and defied all expectations, winning the race, eeking out a 2-point victory over Barack Obama. But like I said, I don't live in New Hampshire. But I voted for John Edwards yesterday.

How? I'm a California voter, and in California, you can become a mail-in voter, or a "permanent absentee voter" by checking off a box in your voter registration form or filling out a blue card afterwords. I am a permanent mail-in voter in California. While all the New Hampshire and hoopla was going on, California started mailing out these ballots on Monday, January 7. Lucky me, I received my ballot in Monday's mail. And yesterday, I filled out my ballot. And I proudly marked John Edwards.

Why did I do this? The media is writing off Edwards, we have people on blogs calling for Edwards people to jump on the Obama train before the Hillary train takes off, thus having the "status quo" beat "change." Why waste my vote on Edwards if he is so far behind, and he can't win. Well, let me tell you why.

I actually posted this as a comment but I felt the need to do a short diary on the subject.  There is a fair bit of "Edwards Up!" "Edwards down!" going on due to the release of two conflicting poll numbers - one from InsiderAdvantage showing Edwards leading the field in Iowa by a 30-27-24 lead over Obama and Clinton, respectively.  Another poll was released from ABC News showing Edwards lagging behind at 20%, with Obama leading the field in Iowa with 33% and Clinton a close second at 29%.  So who's more reliable?  Which one is the most recent snapshot?  Which one can you trust?

Crossposted on my blog, Unconventional Wisdom.

In last night's Democratic Presidential debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer raised the most ridiculous of questions - is Human Rights more important or is National Security, when they are in conflict. The question came up in the context of a discussion about Pakistan's current military rule, its violation of human rights, and American support for Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharof. Bill Richardson answered it would be human rights, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton came down on the side of national security.

Bullshit. This very question is an affront to the people who put on the uniform of our country every day, and those who have done so in the past. If America is willing to sacrifice our status as the beacon of freedom, our national security will be in far more jeopardy. Those who are bold enough to defend freedom are protected by it. Without human rights, freedom is a hollow word. Our soldiers serve the cause of this freedom world-wide. They believe that our flag stands for the principles of freedom, human rights, and justice.

Dear Martin and Harold,

In response to your letter in the Washington Post warning about the "dangers" of the Democratic party moving away from what you, in your tired old on-life-support frame, call "the vital center", I felt compelled to write you and politely ask you to get out of the way of the progressive movement.  If you don't, the stream of populism will wash you down, too.  If I were impolite, I'd tell you to go straight to hell, or pull your Washington-bubble-inflated heads out of your proverbial asses.  Hell, let me be impolite.  Go to hell.

Many in the Daily Kos community and the blogosphere have taken you to task on your insane insistence on triangulation, compromising on our most cherished principles and adopting the right wing frame in the debates, or on your clever-as-a-moose plan to claim credit for liberal influences on the Democratic filed (like universal healthcare, workers' rights).  I am not here to restate those objections.  But for a good measure, do some reading:

Democrats in Congress are leading on trade.  That much is clear.  For all the alarmists' (yeah, I'm talking about David Sirota) jumping up and down earlier about how the Democrats selling us down the river by making their trade deal with the Bush administration and how they wanted to keep us in the dark of night about everything, the House has passed nothing in that regard, and today it seems Democrats are not - I repeat, NOT - going to let the Bush administration run roughshots with these "free" trade deals that kill American jobs and allow multinational corporations to enslave people in the third world.

Reuters is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have told the White House the following:

I have a simple standard for debate - whether the debate be on Iraq policy or trade policy.  And that standard is that the debate be grounded in fact, not in fictional assumptions and assertions made by anyone, including David Sirota.  As I see it, David Sirota is either incredibly mistaken, or is trying to run a misinformation campaign.  In his most recent diary, David lays out an array of claims, some of which are outright false, and the others are misleading.  I intend to set the facts right, and let the debate go forward based on those facts.  I remind everyone the old adage: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own set of facts.

Ok, after the two-day assault by David Sirota on the pact that Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Rangel and Sen. Baucus made with the Bush administration about including and expanding international labor and environmental standards in America's trade agreements, I was compelled to write this diary.  First of all, David keeps peddling an International Harald Tribune article as a New York Times article (IHT article, David's latest diary - go and click on his third bullet link, and look at what site it leads you to) that says that a majority of Democrats do not support this pact, and even that article only quotes an anonymous source that says that it may be the case.

Now, let's see what the deal actually does and says, instead of all the alarmism.  The AP reports it as follows:

This is going to be a short diary.  I am a delegate at the California State Democratic party convention, and one of the causes I was part of yesterday was the LGBT caucus.  At the caucus, after official business, representatives from the Clinton, Obama, Edwards and Richardson campaigns spoke, and answered questions.  They were all asked the same 2 questions:

1. If elected President, will the candidate sign Hate Crimes and non-discrimination legislation that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity?

2. If elected President, what would the candidate do to give legal recognition to same sex (and gender differential) families?

Carl Levin, the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is making me nervous.  With his much publicized comment that the Democratic Congress is "not going to vote to cut off the funding for the troops" and is "going to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period."  Will somebody please tell the Senator from Michigan to cool it?  This is not how you negotiate - letting the other side know that you will ultimately back down and do what they want.  Carl Levin is blinking in a tough negotiations battle.  I hope he is never appointed the Secretary of State.

George Bush's lackies never cease to amaze me.  The same whack-o-doodles who scream about taxpayers' rights now are telling us that the White House has the right to kick out peaceful dissenters from a opublic event where the President is speaking at taxpayer expense.  Listen to this:

White House officials can exclude dissenters from taxpayer-funded appearances by President Bush without violating the protesters' rights, according to lawyers for volunteers who helped eject three people from a hall where Bush was to speak.

With all the news today about The Iraq funding bill with "strings attached" passing by a hair, I thought I would check in with our friends (well, for the sake of argument, let's assume) on the right.  That is, what's been happening in our favorite wingnutosphere.

Like their dear leader, the right wing "blogs" are running afoul of logical sense.  So let's see.

I have seen a lot of back and forth on this site about whether or not the current war funding resolution under consideration by the US House of Representatives should be supported or opposed.  Early on, I was dead set against the resolution, because of the usual "toothless" ground, but then my pragmatic side took over.  Let me explain why.

Many have said here that there is no real enforcement of the bill.  The troop readiness requirements, for example, can be waived by the President.  Simply by certifying that benchmarks are being met and have been met, Bush is able to continue the war.  And we all know what a smart idea it is to trust Mr. "Iraq is trying to acquire yellow cake uranium for Niger."  And then, After September of 2008, the bill simply declares the wall illegal.  So what, you might ask, is making my crazy head support this bill.

First and most obvious reason?  Because first and obviously, this may be the only bill that can pass right now.  Here are the other reasons.

NOTE: Yes I realize another short diary was made on Cheney's reaction, but mine's a bit more about our reaction, too.

For all of the bitching and moaning we do about how Democrats aren't strong enough in trying to get our troops out of Iraq tomorrow, Democratic attempts on Capital Hill to attach provisions to end the war by next year to the war funding is catching the attention of the President of the United States Vice President of the United States.  The AP is reporting that in a speech to AIPAC, everyone's favorite Dark Side character Dick "Go-Fuck-Yourself" Cheney had a hissy fit over how the Congress is daring to talk about putting restrictions on the funds it appropriates.

In the tried and true Rovian style, the Veep comes out swinging

"When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called 'slow bleeding,' they are not supporting the troops, they are undermining them," Cheney said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

The rest of the juice under the fold.