It is simple, it is good politics. You pass the public option, or make medicare more widely available, and you win.

If I was a political consultant, I would love to be able to run against a moderate dem or GOPer who opposed opening up Medicare to everyone else. I think either way -- 1) if they kill it, you can kill them or 2) if they vote against and it still passes, you can kill them.

On our side, is giving "free healthcare" on their side is ... well what? Vague fear of socialism... More Blue Cross Blue Shield?

I don't understand why commentators are writing that "The Public Option is no Longer Viable" for political reasons (see washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903449. html)

The Post writes. "if the Obama administration wants to get health reform done, it's going to have to back away from the public option sooner or later -- and it's getting awfully late. This is not a matter of ideology but of political nose-counting. The kind of comprehensive health reform that the president rightly wants -- changes that would extend affordable coverage to millions of people and help slow the growth of health-care costs -- requires 60 votes in the Senate. Democrats could muscle through some provisions with 50 votes, but a Senate rule limits how much can be done through that route. Measures such as establishing insurance exchanges or imposing new coverage requirements on insurance companies, as President Obama has been emphasizing, might be vulnerable to being stricken. And there's no way to amass 60 votes with a public option in the bill.."

Huh? I HOPE the GOP filibusters free healthcare. Then, maybe we'll get a real filibuster majority. But, are they really gonna be stupid enough to do this? Or is the Post, and the rest of their ilk, just stupid?

I'm a long time MyDDer and (professional) ocean advocate and usually don't post our stuff here but this photo has to be shared... (plus Matt's global warming blogs inspired me)...

To you, this picture may look like ants marching in a desert, but among ocean experts, it has gone as viral as Britney's shaved head. What you're seeing is an image of shrimp trawlers off the coast of China, taken from space.  Those teeny tiny specs are responsible for destroying huge swaths of seafloor, and thanks to these images, which appeared in the journal Nature yesterday, scientists now have visual evidence to prove what they could only conceptualize before.

I was shocked to hear that Nicco had pledged to support McCain.  But, having just heard him speak recently, I don't think he's doing this for the money. He essentially told the group that he was getting ready to move on anyway because his company was successful.   And, he seemed to be, IMHO, a little burned out. He's still a young guy and I think he's just making a move to redefine himself. We asked him about his Dean experience and he said "I'm trying to get as far away from the Dean campaign as I can."

I think there is an interesting, unreported story about the many different groups of former Dean staffers trying to build businesses based on their Dean fame and experience.  I give Nicco some credit, in that his company at least seemed to be innovative whereas others -- I'm not going to name names -- are reselling open source software for a profit (and steering money poor progressive groups away from lower cost solutions like a DIA).  As Nicco says about the Dean campaign "we basically just acquired good ideas."  He is at least is honest about this.

So, I think Nicco just decided to free himself by taking a stand for a guy -- a whacko conservative -- that he met at common cause and truly liked.  It was/is a perverse decision. He gave up his rep, his company and much more. But, my sense is that Nicco actually doesn't care about the Benjamins that much, he seems to care more about being free.

So, while I hope that his decision doesn't help McCain one iota, I look forward to seeing what Nicco comes up with next.  And, while I think it is fine to go after him for his political decision, I don't think it is fine to "swift boat" the guy for his crazy decision.  Let's see how it plays out first.  Maybe he is another Mark McKinnon (who used to be a Dem consultant before he started making ads for Bush) or maybe he is just someone trying to find his way who made a perverse decision.

Phil Carrick (of Morris, Carrick and Guma) is Phil Angelides' Media Consultant and he should be fired immediately.  Check out this spot*

The ad looks like a 1970 Aaron Spelling production.  Crazy weird, airy (cheap stock) music.  And, most importantly, they make their opponent -- Arnold Schwarzenegger! -- seem boring. I guess they're showing him on a motorcycle to remind people of his crash, but c'mon.  They've got the best material in the country and they come up with this.

And, check out the issue vomitorium at the end -- they throw every up possible issue line on you.  This is one of my (many) pet peeves with political advertising.  They're just throwing up a series of well focus group tested lines at the viewer thinking -- that like in a group where you PAY people to listen -- people will still be watching at the end of terrible spot to hear it.  Memo to Carrick: they don't.  

The SF Gate has a great article about Adam Gerbach's recent work for Wal-Mart.  Gerbach is the Sierra Club's former wunderkind Executive Director and one of the main voices in the "Death of Environmentalism" movement (he didn't write the manifesto but his speeches about the topic put it on the map).

This piece shows that Wal Mart is serious about becoming an environmentally aware company.  They are starting to source organic milk, cotton and make their huge fleet more efficient.

Obviously, Wal Mart is also doing this to get back some of the sheen on their tarnished corporate halo (from their on going anti-labor activities).  They are clearly "using" the enviros and the enviros are using them.

So, where does Gerbach fit into the "Crashing the Gates" paradigm.  His is essentially one of the authors of the new environmental movement endorsed by Jerome and Kos and yet he is following a separate agenda that conflicts with the broader progressive efforts against Walmart.  Is he hurting the overall movement by going after a narrow outcome?

I for one say "huzzah."  I don't think the two goals (enviro and labor) are mutually exclusive and I say get the changes while we can.  Once Wal-Mart starts saving (and making money) by being environmentally conscious they won't go back and it'll have huge downstream benefits (because they dominate almost every retail category and supply chain in the economy).  And, yes, it will take away some of the momentum from the SEIU campaign but could, I believe, actually help in the long run.  It shows that Wal-mart can be responsible if they want to.

I posted this on Kos last fall -- about a great feature in Philly Magazine about Norcross. I recommend it....

----------------
The September  Philadelphia Magazine

has a great article about the Democratic South Jersey Boss, George Norcross.  He is one nasty, tough son of a bitch and recently got caught on tape while he was excoriating some South Jersey flunky (the Palmyra Tapes -- hilarious).  

Anyway, this guy is a great case study of doing what it takes to win -- being as nasty and as effective as Rove.  I think his success demonstrates that those who hope that the great -- and yet to be seen -- framing miracle led by the idiot Lakoff will somehow rescue the Dems are hitting the bong way too early in the morning.  Norcross proves that if we are better than they are at politics (and not simply better people) we can win.

We are witnessing a multi-front strategic initiative attack by the GOP on the Dem power base:

1. Social Security
   
2. Tort Reform
   
3. Estate Tax (making it permanent)+
   
4. Civil Service "Reform" (most recent)
   
5. Faith Based initiative+

+ Indicates the ones where partial victory has already been achieved.  Dems are fighting back effectively on Social Security but are next to dead on other areas.  

My question is where is our party's overall strategy to fight all of these (or where was it)?  And, more importantly, what are our strategic initiatives.  What is the GOP weak underbelly that we should be targeting?  More on the jump...

Miami Herald reports on results on nationwide survey by Zogby of US Hispanics for the Herald.  Bush only gets 33% of national vote, Kerry gets 61%.  This could be good news in many states.  See: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10059492.htm (reg required)