Glenn's Daily Script » News

Health care reform

Glenn — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 04:18:19 +0000

I just finished listening to Meet the Press and a good portion of the hour was on health care reform.

My problem with the direction that Congress and the President is taking is that they are talking about compromise and secondarily about the ultimate cost.

I, as a voter, don’t care about compromise. I care about a program that works. To me, there should be a way to get health care from the government. It could be some sort of fall back program but it needs to be there as a safety net. Also, a government or one-payer program is likely to cause some sort of price competition amongst the retailers of health care insurance. As a buyer of such programs, they need something that can control costs. I’m not saying that a company shouldn’t make money but when a company can up rates by 40%, that isn’t right. Compromise isn’t going to get us something that works. What it’s likely to do is force Congress into trying some crazy program that is only supported by some crazy theory that has little or no evidence that it works.

I do care about the cost of a program like this but I’d like more thinking going into how this program can affect cost to the tax payer both directly and indirectly. If the above government or one payer program exists, it is likely to spurn competition in the health care insurers and lower cost indirectly through that competition. Also, if this government or one payer program exists, it’s likely to require some control over actual health care costs (such as prescriptions, doctor charges, hospital charges, …) and that would be a more direct cost benefit to me as a tax payer.

Ideology and partisanship is causing the elected officials to forget what they are responsible for and that is producing legislation that works and benefits the tax payer. Right now, I’m not confidant that we will see this instead we are likely to see something that doesn’t work and satisfies no one.

Post from: Glenn's Daily Script (c)2007 Glenn Thompson. For Downloads, Pictures, and other great content go to Glenn's Daily Script. See Glenn's Daily Script Legal Information Page for Disclosure, Fair Use, Copyright, Creative Commons notices.

Health care reform

Money Discipline

Glenn — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:21:35 +0000

No one would ever mistake me for an ultra frugal person. Most of my life if I saw something I wanted, I bought it (maybe not right away but soon). That is not to say I haven’t bought those things by looking for the best deal because I have. But someone who buys everything they want (ok that’s more than I did but not far off) is not someone truly out to save money.

The current economic situation has me concerned though. Kathy and I decided that spending time with our kids as they grow up was the most important thing. About 6 years ago, we looked at our finances and figured that if we watched our money closely we could make it work so that we both could be at home. The current economic situation means 1 of 2 things for us. One option would be to cut to the bone which drastically changes our lifestyle (I don’t mean to imply a poverty like lifestyle but any drastic change in one’s lifestyle is hard on individuals and families). The second option would be to have one or both of us go back to work which in most ways is also a drastic lifestyle change.

We are waiting a few more months to see how this settles out.

I have notices in my personal behavior though that I am starting to have some modicum of money discipline. I have noticed over the last 4 months or so that when I see something that looks useful, interesting, desirable that I look into it and research it a bit just like I always have. The difference though is that I ask myself the question is do I need it, truly need it. As more time passes, the answer is more and more often no and I close out all my research and forget it.

This behavior change is drastic.

My motivation is many fold. It includes that I’ve grown fond of how life is working for myself but the really big point is the effect that it would have on my family if I needed to change our lifestyle in a radical way (i.e. going back to work). My boys wouldn’t get to have me walk them to school. I probably wouldn’t be able to do projects with them like building skateboards. Many other impacts too numerous to mention too.

The market changes are starting to become smaller but I can’t tell if we are near the �bottom�. I know many people have things worse so I have a lot of empathy for them and hope for all of us that we start leveling out soon.

Taxes

Glenn — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:26:22 +0000

Yes, as an individual I would love to have less taxes. Less taxes give me more spending and saving money which makes life simpler.

In reality though, I am a bit of an altruist. This streak in me makes me want the appropriate amount of taxes for everyone.

I bring this up for 2 reasons.

First, President-Elect Obama has a recovery plan that includes tax cuts and tax credits for most of the citizenry. Yes, money for the lowest income earners could get them to spend a bit but for the middle class it won’t. Those people will spend on mortgages, food, car payments and things they are already spending on. If there is money left, they will save it in our current environment. Obama is doing what politicians always do and giving us something that he thinks will make us happy regardless of the true impact. I think given the current situation, most voters want something that will really fix the problem and not just a sugar pill.

The second reason is that I’ve seen Pelosi bring up the tax cuts that Bush gave the wealthy. She wants them repealed right now. Obama wants to wait until he has the lay of the land. Again, most of the voters want a real solution. My favorite is to get rid of special interest in taxes and just go flat. It may not happen but let’s go do something real and change the tax code to get rid of special interest.

Listen to the people – don’t placate us!

Bailouts

Glenn — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 07:37:45 +0000

In watching various interviews regarding the US Government Bailouts of the Financial Industry and the one being discussed for the Auto Industry, I have some thoughts.

One assumption that seems to be at the center of all of these bailouts is that these companies are too large to fail. I don’t agree. When a person goes into bankruptcy, they come out of it on the other end with a different perspective on money. It seems that many of the companies management teams don’t treat the money as if it was their own and so have been loose with risk. They need a perspective change. This includes executive management compensation.

Does that mean we shouldn’t do something about the situation? No, there are possibilities.

Loans are not bailouts and could go to companies that change practices. Some changes could include elimination of predatory lending and increase focus (greater than 50%) on greener transportation options. I’m sure there are other business practices that should change to but given my limited understanding of these businesses, these seem like a good start.

Also, what about buying troubled mortgages from the financial industry and then negotiating new terms for the mortgages so that people can stay in their homes. These troubled mortgages would then be healthy and can be resold back to the financial industry (yes, some cost would be involved).

We should be more cautious with the numbers that are being bandied about. A trillion dollars is a lot and we should treat it that way. It’s too much debt for our government and ourselves, children, grandchildren and so on. Our government and elected officials need a perspective change too.

Movie/Film Reviews

Glenn — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 09:30:27 +0000

Reviewers, in general, are there to get as big of an audience as they can. Since I love movies, reviews, spoilers and the like, I have had a great deal of opportunity to listen, read, view many reviewers. In that time, my observations lead me to believe that most of them try to achieve audience size by making extreme statements.

One style of reviewer is a �Film� reviewer. This kind of reviewer believes that all movies should present art. These reviewers often favor foreign movies and they almost always refer to movies as �Film� (and yes they use a capital F). Movies that ultimately are popular are rarely reviewed favorably by this style of reviewer.

Another style of reviewer has broad coverage in movies. They let their emotions drive them and so aren’t always locked into foreign movies. If a movie moves them, they give it a more favorable review. Some of this category loves depressing movies. These depressing movies definitely move a person but if you want to kill yourself after watching a movie, is that really entertainment.

There are many other styles of reviewers. I find the rarest one can fit into the categories above but they will often insert statements about different viewers and how they may or may not enjoy the movies. If the movie is an action film, they may review it negatively but will include statements about action film fans liking the movie. Some of these statements are not always accurate but at least the approach is the least biased.

I was motivated by the reviews of Quantum of Solace that I’ve read, heard, viewed. I haven’t seen the movie myself (yet!). I heard a few reviewers that negatively commented on the film and gave no other details. I heard that thought it was awful but loved the next 2 foreign movies. I only heard one that came at it from a Bond movie fan point of view. In this view, it came out as not one of the best Bond movies but still entertaining and perhaps a necessary transition movie till this next iteration of Bond goes to the next level.

This empathetic perspective would help me as a movie fan to try different movies.

What is Change?

Glenn — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:26:30 +0000

Ok, we’ve just elected someone who defined himself and his candidacy based on change. What is it or really, what should change be?

I’ve heard and read discussion that change is about bringing new approaches to everything. I think these written and spoken conversations define new approaches as something truly new and never been tried.

I think that definition is inadequate. I think this for 2 reasons. First, new approaches that are untried and untested and by those definitions very risky. We want change not failure. Second, the last eight years and to some degree the last 16 (because Clinton exhibited some of these traits too) had an uncooperative legislative and executive branch that not only bordered on hostility but crossed that border often. I think based on that the change we want is something different that these last 8-16 years.

Now, that being said, I do believe that some new approaches that are untried and untested are good additions to a whole and complete approach that includes these new approaches as well as tested and true approaches.

What I’d like to see is a positive and cooperative Washington that looks out for it’s citizens rather than focusing on corporations. What I’d like to see is a Washington that has some strong successes on the issues that are important to the citizens and are not overly compromised on making the results non-useful to it’s citizens.

Change needs to be something that works for our country and it’s citizens.

Dear Mr. Obama

Glenn — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:12:02 +0000

I voted for you.

I saw and heard lots about hope and change. I certainly believe in these times we could use both.

I saw and heard bits and pieces of your policies. Many of them sound smart.

What I hope that you can deliver on though is something else.

I would like to see and hear about integrity. I would like to see and hear that the citizens of this great country are put before the interests of large corporations or the government itself. I would like to see and hear about keeping promises that are made.

Citizens have not been supported by our elected officials for far too long. This includes areas like copyright enforcement to rights to privacy.

When you make a promise, I would like to see you keep it. And when circumstances force compromises that eliminate promises or compromise the intent of the promises, I would like to see you not go the exact direction.

Integrity is difficult when you are in the position of compromising in order to do important work but still, I would like to see you act in the highest integrity. That means not compromising in the wrong areas or compromising too much. It’s a tough balance but as has said about the job you are about to take: �The buck stops here!�

Yes, I hope that you can get our troops home and help unify the world. Yes, I hope that you can solve our financial issues.

But don’t forget that while you take on these challenges, we (Americans) are looking for a rebirth of integrity, honesty and putting our interests ahead of others.

Good luck! Sincerely,
—- Glenn

Imperfect Candidate for President

Glenn — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:48:56 +0000

I was talking Presidential politics with my brother today. My brother is very opinionated and even passionate in his cynicism…errrr…viewpoint. I can’t say that all that cynicism is unfounded though.

As I’ve stated in past posts, I am rooting for Barak Obama. I even spent a bunch of time this week watching the DNC showing off. It was a good show.

Now, my viewpoint starts with the likelihood that John McCain will continue with the policies and actions of Bush. That just frightens me. I mean our economy is either in the toilet or heading there. Our rights that the Founding Fathers gave us through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being pushed aside because we, the citizens, are too fearful of things that are less likely to happen to any of us than getting stuck by lightning. Living with someone who will carry on these trends would be about the worst that I could see from our government.

Next, I see Barak Obama as an inspiring speaker. I think we’ve missed that in our President for quite a while. He talks about health care. He talks about a better focus for our military. He talks about responsibility for citizens and government. He does it in a way that inspires us to be better.

Yet, I worry that he still does things like other politicians. He promised he wouldn’t give immunity to the Telecoms yet did. He talks about the evil of ignoring Constitutional rights by Bush and his administration yet he gave them increased rights to do so (same bill actually). My brother claims that he promised gun rights but didn’t deliver (I’m not sure how true this is as I don’t follow gun rights much and I saw/heard him indicate – tonight – a clear position to ensure gun rights though not without some control/restriction). This worries me though I suspect given comments I’ve seen/heard John McCain give that McCain would be worse.

Anyway, while I support Barak Obama I understand the he is an Imperfect Candidate for President.

Pixar doesn’t care about Copyrights

Glenn — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:50:41 +0000

What a great post that Crunchgear made regarding how Pixar violated copyright law.

Apparently, they don’t respect the current copyright laws and are, by example, telling us to not respect the laws either. Maybe we should re-write the existing laws so they work in today’s world to increase content creation rather than limit it.

The Pixar copyright violations stem from the use of a movie and it’s soundtrack being copied and replayed many times. This element of Wall-E were important at first to show loneliness and later to show romance.

FISA, Renewal, and Obama

Glenn — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:42:19 +0000

There have been some negotiations in Congress regarding the FISA renewal.

FISA is the law put into place after 9/11 that gave US Government agencies extraordinary powers to investigate people. To me, the law is not only not necessary but also puts our government on a direct path to a police state. No, it’s not one with this law but once you enable the discardment of individual rights, you will start asking for more invasive and offensive rules.

The renewal is bad enough since we have a Democratically controlled congress. Democrat’s seem to be unable to distance themselves from the tactics of fear that we have seen from Bush’s administration. Yes, we need tools to investigate crimes, terrorism and such but those tools existed before and FISA, for the most part, just eliminated oversight.

Not only is FISA being renewed but they are adding immunity to the Telephone Companies for participating in an illegal activity. Our representatives in political office are finding it impossible to not to take the interests of Corporations over the citizens that elect them. Even candidates that start off talking the talk about citizens and their rights make too many compromises for Corporations.

The most disappointing person to do that recently has been the Democratic presumptive nominee, Barak Obama, who has come out in support of the current FISA Renewal bill which again is bad in what it enables but also includes immunity for the Teleco’s.

When will we get a politician that can be elected, stay elected, and have influence over other politicians and the electorate that will stand up for citizens rights including privacy, fair use, and the multitude of other issues that have been sacrificed to the Corporations?

UPDATE: Ok, here is at least one politician out there doing the right thing. Check out NM Sen. Tom Udall via Daily Kos and here is some of what he said:

The FISA bill we considered today would compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights that make America a beacon of hope around the world.

UPDATE 2: I just saw that Barak Obama has issued a statement (perhaps to clarify) that he supports the FISA renewal bill but will work to remove the section granting immunity to the Telephone Companies. This is partially good news but again, he’s taking fear pressure and accepting that we need the FISA rules at all.

Running Thoughts

Glenn — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:05:36 +0000

For most of the week, I’ve been busy with working on the multitude of Guitar Scale Sheets (I talked about them in the last post) and so had no clear ideas for posts. I’ve always worked with the notion that I must have some additional ideas to bring to any conversations that I jump in on (with the exception of posts that are short and links into conversations that I think are important to at least observe). When I get busy, it is harder to add my voice and ideas to these conversations, at least in a timely manner.

I still need to upload my Guitar Scale Sheets so I hope to do that shortly but this next week is also busy. I have a meeting with our financial advisor and I’m going on a field trip with Xander’s class. Hopefully I can jump in on a conversation or two during the week.

This past week has had several conversations that were worth jumping in on.

One issue that popped up was that Obama talked about his observation that people who are not getting their issues addressed by our Governments are bitter about elected officials. Clearly, he chose some inappropriate peripheral observations – or at least was careless about the words he chose – whether or not they were true (I’m specifically referring to the notion that bitter people cling to other areas of their life and he noted that this often is guns, religion, and fear of those who are different – again this may be true but …). Clinton and McCain both jumped in to criticize Obama though to me, their observations were pretty empty. I do think that Obama’s opponents discussing this is OK though again, their thoughts being added were empty/hollow.

Another issues that was discussed in the media is our local NBA basketball team (Sonics) was planned from the get go to be moved by the owners that bought them. Well DUH! The owners were from Oklahoma and they wanted the team local. Clearly the owners lied and misrepresented everything but it was obvious what they wanted from the outset. The state government is trying to try some legal wrangling to get them to stay. I will be sad to see them go though nothing has surprised me. I do believe that we shouldn’t build a new stadium though a few dollars put into improve the existing arena would be fine.

I’m sure there are other items but that is quick glimpse into a couple that I thought were important this week.

Clinton caught but redirects

Glenn — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:20:13 +0000

I don’t get to watch news programs much because my boys are busy with homework and such around news time. I did read on a few blogs that today Hillary Clinton was asked about Reverend Wright. Up till now, she has deftly avoided answering these questions. It was the right thing to do to stay out of the race issue and also stay away from the perception of slinging mud. Today was different though.

Over the last year, Clinton has been spinning a story about how she was in a war zone under sniper fire and how brave she was. The problem was that it wasn’t true. Over the course of the year, more and more evidence mounted against her. Some of it was from people who went on the trip with her like the comedian Sinbad and the most recent was video show the actual incident that she described totally wrong. The problem is that she claims she misspoke. I would agree if she told the story once but over the course of the year, she told the story many times (I’ve seen it reported that she told it more than 4 in public speeches). That is not misspeaking. That is a planned wrong doing.

Now that she has been outed though, she needed to redirect attention from her to someone else. Even though Barack Obama has done very well to show that race should be placed in a different conversation with perhaps the best speech in a generation, Clinton is showing that she will do anything including the destruction of her own party to redirect bad attention from her.

I truly hope (and I believe) that the American voters are too smart to fall for this deception even if there will be members of the press who will be intentionally or un-intentionally duplicitous in the deception.

Democrats vs McCain

Glenn — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 01:34:04 +0000

I’ve been seeing a lot of polls stating that both Clinton and Obama are below McCain nationally lately. Now I’m not a well known or respected pundit but I am a voter and I have a thought on this that has not seemed to occur to the Democrats in charge.

McCain is ahead in the polls because he is the only fully established candidate – meaning the only candidate that has the full backing of his party. That means that there is no ambiguity about his candidacy. Clinton and Obama are still fighting for their parties nomination and that means that McCain has free play to get the national press to plug his Republican message.

Now, as I’ve read Obama is the one who will be ahead for voter pledged delegates in the end. That means unless the Democrats intend to overthrow the voters will for some wisdom that they will have to very thoroughly and quickly explain to their Democratic constituency, then Obama is the person who will be the Democratic Party’s nominee.

My point here is not to argue for Clinton or Obama (I’ve made my views known in other posts), but rather point out that the Democratic leadership needs to get off their behinds and make the call sooner rather than later (meaning now!!!). If they believe that they have some innate wisdom that leads them to overturn the voters will then get to it and throw their hat to Clinton so that Obama will do the right thing and pull the party together. If they don’t, then put they votes behind Obama and pull the party together (and hopefully Clinton will do the right thing).

It seems that giving all this advantage to McCain is just wrong and they need to get out their with the Democratic candidate so that we can replace this awful leadership with something that will hopefully improve the state of the country economically, internationally, and morally.

Obama on Race in America

Glenn — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 03:36:08 +0000

Today, Barack Obama made an amazing speech on Race in America today (3/18/08) though it was far more personal to him and to anyone who reads it (see the link above) or anyone who watches it (youtube).

I find it hard to say anything about this speech that I haven’t already read. It is worth reading or watching.

Olbermann on Ferraro

Glenn — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:33:13 +0000

I’m a pretty big fan of Keith Olbermann. His show format is not my favorite but he is a straight shooter and doesn’t put his foot in his mouth as often as other new commentators (they all do it eventually so that’s about the highest praise I can give them – heck, it’s about the highest praise I can give anyone cause we all eventually put our feet in our mouths if truth be known!). Anyway, Keith Olberman has occasionally done “Special Comments” on various Republican issues or more specifically, President Bush issues. This one is the first where he lays into a Democrat and even though his views obviously tend towards the Democrat side of the isle, it is clear they deserve this lashing (in my view too!). You should catch the video of his Special Comment on Ferraro here. I also have included the text of his Special Comment below which I got from the Huffington Post (same place as the video). Enjoy and let me know your thoughts:

Here it is:

KEITH OLBERMANN: “Finally, as promised, a special comment on the presidential campaign of the junior senator from New York. By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton and the senator’s mother and the senator’s brother were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty and the most anger. My gratitude to them is unbiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama`s nomination, nor suggesting in it is inevitable. Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything. Events insist.

Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president. Senator, their words and your own are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama. You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation letter.

But, in fact, senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, senator, “that way madness lies.” You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right. No matter what Miss Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context. She had made them on at least there separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning. Just hours ago, on “NBC Nightly News,” she denied she had made the remark in an interview, only at a paid political speech.

In fact, the first time she spoke them was 10 days before that California newspaper published them, not in a speech, but in a radio interview. On February 26, quoting, “if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary. If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”

The content was inescapable. Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton’s finance committee, one of her Hill-Raisers had bemoaned the change in allegiance by super delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama and also the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd; “I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it`s the guys sticking together.”

A minute after the color remark, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket purely as a woman politician, purely to make history. She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Senator Obama`s candidacy as nothing more than some equal opportunity stunt.

The next day, she repeated her comments and a reporter from the newspaper in Torrence, California heard them; “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept.”

And when this despicable statement, ugly in its overtones, laughable in its week grip of the facts, and moronic in the historical context, when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisers have their candidate do? Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis (ph) talking on “Nightline” on Jackie Robinson Day about how blacks lack the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of affirmative action plan?

Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama’s, while she points out that FDR had served only six years as governor and state senator before he became president? Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four and a half years before the White House? Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon 14? And Calvin Coolidge 25?

Do these advisers have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power, gone by sunrise after she used the word monster, and have Senator Clinton say, this is how I police my campaign, and this is what I stand for, while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role in the campaign? No, somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with, then rejecting the remarks is sufficient. She should then call regrettable words that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox on both your houses plea to stick to the issues, and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition into Senator Obama’s fault. And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton`s campaign back into the vocabulary of David Duke; “anytime anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, let`s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you`re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they are attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

How’s that? Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNab, apart from sounding exactly like what Miss Ferraro said about another campaign nearly 20 years ago, quote, “President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jesse Jackson tough questions because of his race. Former Representative Geraldine A. Ferraro said Wednesday that because of his, quote, radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race.”

So apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old, apart from rendering ridiculous Senator Clinton`s shell game about choosing Obama as vice president, apart from this evenings resignation letter; “I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign. The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”

Apart from all that, well, it sounds as if those advisers wanted their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap, ignorant, vile racism that underlies every syllable of them, and that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone freelance.

Senator Clinton, that is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact. This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed some commander in chief threshold, but he might still be your choice to be vice president, even though a quarter of
the previous 16 vice presidents have become commander in chief during the greatest kind of crisis this country can face, a midterm succession, but you only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.

But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become vice president, not president? Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisers were not bad enough, now thanks to Geraldine Ferraro and your campaigns initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her, now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now speak for herself about her vision as Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota if she wishes.

If you were to seek Obama as a vice president, it would be to Miss Ferraro some called of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make good. Do you not see, senator?

To Senator Clinton`s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to and standing by racial divisiveness and blindness. Worse yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns, a disturbing but only border line remark, after what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the 3:00 a.m. ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation, and after the moments hesitation in her own answer on “60 Minutes” about Obama’s religion, a disturbing but only borderline vagueness — after those precedents, there are those who see a pattern. False or true, they see it. After those precedents, there are those who see an intent. False or true, they see it. After those precedents, there are those that see the Clinton campaign`s anything but benign neglect of the Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts the society voiced, and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator. To not distance you from that which you, as a woman, and Senator Obama, as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain, which you should both fight with all you have, which you should both ensure has no place in this contest ever.

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign and it is your name. Grab the reigns back from whoever has led you to this precipice before it is too late. Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth. Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, to call it regrettable. Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim and resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak. Unless, senator, you say something definitive, the former congresswoman is speaking with your
approval.

You must remedy this and you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro. Good night and good luck.”