(h/t jackandjillpolitics)
Or based on how the interview ended, maybe he picked the right one.
Derrick makes me want to go read a newspaper or encyclopedia or something.
Also See:
- “Obama Supporter, Derrick, Responds to Video and Explains the Emotional View“
- “The Economist Discusses Derrick Ashong’s Youtube Video about Barack Obama“
- “Derrick’s Second Follow-up: Asks Young Americans to Take Back the Mic“
- “Derrick Ashong Does CNN Commentary on Barack Obama’s Race Speech”
- “New York Times Profile of Derrick Ashong, Barack Obama, and Youtube Politics”
- “Derrick Ashong: Take Back the Mic - On Race in America“
February 6, 2008 at 9:41 pm
And “they” say young folk are apathetic!
And I say that’s lazy thinking. It is fast becoming apparent that young folk have been engaged by this candidate - and this campaign - in a manner that can transform the American electorate for at least two generations.
February 6, 2008 at 10:06 pm
This interviewer definitely picked the wrong guy to try to make the point that Obama backers are not thoughtful Derrick did a great job. The interviewer had a preconceived notion that Derrick did not understand the issues and that he was moved to Obama by emotion instead of logic. Derrick owned him on the substance of the health care issue and the interviewers thesis was destroyed.
February 7, 2008 at 1:05 am
This is an awesome clip.
Derrick for VP!
Great suppoter of a great candidate.
February 7, 2008 at 1:11 am
FANTASTIC, DERRICK!
You are brilliant, well-versed, and an incredible example of what an Obama supporter looks like! =) BRAVO!
February 7, 2008 at 1:24 am
You’re brilliant Derrick! If I wasn’t already married, I’d wanna date you!
You, like Obama, make me proud to be an American!
February 7, 2008 at 1:25 am
Wow. Derrick, you absolutely ROCK!
Who on earth is the guy conducting the interview? - I agree with the others that he is a remarkable spokesperson for Obama!
As long as he doesn’t actually vote for older-than-dirt “Weathervane McCain” and stays with Barack!
February 7, 2008 at 1:54 am
I loved everything he had to say! The interviewer didn’t expect what he got that’s for sure. Now on the other hand I was at my caucus and the HRC supporters thought her Universal Healthcare Plan wouldn’t cost them anything. I’m glad Obama supporters are educated on the brilliance of his plan and the fact it will bring bi-partisan support, unlike HRC’s.
February 7, 2008 at 1:56 am
Heavy D, that dude needs to stop, drop and roll FOR REAL! You got straight-up profiled and you torched him. Call 911! Props to your peeps D. They brought you up straight and hard, baby. Way to represent. And for real, that McCain jab is the same way it’s getting played right here in SoTEX, you just gotta sell it a little better. Because, for real…we can walk.
Go Barack!
Grow ObamaNation!
February 7, 2008 at 2:15 am
I am sending this out to as many people as possible and I suggest you do the same. Derrick laid out the clear advantages of Obama’s health care plan as opposed to Hillary’s fairytale mandated health care plan.
We also don’t want a situation similar to car insurance where some 30% still aren’t covered because they can’t afford it. We definitely don’t want situations like Geico and All State where by they are constantly increasing premiums, leaving most people with inferior low budget insurance that will cover little.
February 7, 2008 at 6:26 am
“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,” –I Peter 3:15
That’s why I love Derrick’s response so much.
February 7, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I nominate Derrick for Vice President.
February 7, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Derrick- YOU ARE AWESOME!
Now you just have to teach Barack how to be more specific, so I don’t have to keep informing the people I meet who say he HAS NO SUBSTANCE!
You gave the best explanation of how he will actually be able to accomplish his agenda when nobody else has been able to!
Derrick, do you think you’d be able to go for a 53 y.o. white woman? :>)
February 7, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Wow Derrick, I am both impressed and speechless by your amazing performance.
You just nip in the bud all racist preconceptions and misconceptions about young Blacks and about the enthusiastic support for Senator Obama’s candidacy.
I am proud of all of us his supporters, because we are highly educated, well-informed, well-traveled, multilingual and multicultural people!!
Well done! Please share this video all over the world, with young kids and everyone.
P.S. The would-be not-so-subtle racist interviewer sure got his MATCH…
February 7, 2008 at 9:29 pm
It seems that by the end of the interview, the “condescension” on the part of the interviewer was finito. Nice work Derrick!
February 8, 2008 at 2:16 am
Derrick was no doubt impressive, but he was factually inaccurate. First of all, there are significant differences between the three candidates. The major difference is that John Edwards led on the issues and forced his opponents to be more progressive than they originally intended to be. He presented the first and most progressive universal healthcare plan, global warming plan (his position to reduce carbon emissions by 80% was the standard for the Democratic agenda), middle class tax reform plan, government reform plan, education plan, a comprehensive poverty plan, and was the only candidate to propose a national predatory lending law, among other plans. You name it, he led on it He also presented an economic stimulus package two weeks before the Iowa Caucus, before the economy began to make a turn for the worse, and before the White House and both of his opponents. This is significant because it demonstrates the so-called “courage” that Obama has. If he didn’t have the political conviction to presents plans just as agressive as Edwards’, then he is likely to show the same lack of political conviction in governing as President. In fact, Obama has been the least progressive and specific on all of the issues. You can spin to your heart’s content, but you cannot defend the economics of his health care plan. In a new paper released by Jonathan Gruber of MIT, one of the country’s leading health care economists, he argues that the only effective way to attain full medical coverage is through mandates. Despite what Derrick said, Obama’s plan does not involve a public-private partnership and his criticism of only government paying for the health care is inaccurate. In fact, both Clinton and Obama’s plan provide for a government health care plan that competes with private insurers in order to bring down costs. Both provide subsidies for the purchase of care (and Clinton’s are greater). The difference is, of course, in the mandates. Obama’s plan covers only 23 million of the uninsured for 102 billion dollars. Clinton’s (actually Edwards’ plan; Clinton copied his, which was presented in February of last year outright; Clinton’s was presented in October) plan covers 45 million, all of the uninsured, for 124 billion dollars. That amounts to $4700 per uninsured for Obama’s plan compared to $2700 per uninsured for Clinton’s plan. That sounds like to a huge difference to me. Besides, Obama’s plan would actually exacerbate the problem of high health care costs, because without a mandate, people would be incentivized to only purchase health care when they get sick, thereby raising the premiums for everyone else. And he contradicts himself, because he actually considers penalizing those who delay signing up and provides a mandate for children. His plan is also not feasible politically, because once he realizes that the only way to achieve universal coverage is through mandates, he won’t be able to because he spent his entire campaign demonizing them - even resorting to the same “Harry and Louise” like mailer ads to criticize Clinton’s mandates; the same tactics used by the Conservatives and the health care industry to defeat the 1993-94 effort. And let’s also not forget he has gotten disproportinately positive media coverage for a presidential candidate. . . positive coverage from the same media in which 80% of it is owned by Conservatives . . . the same media that served as the de facto communications office of the Bush administration. Which brings me to another significant difference, Edwards was the most electable. That is why his message got covered five to seven times less than the other candidates, why he got only 5% media coverage compared to 15% and 25% for Obama and Clinton following the Iowa Caucus according to Democracy Corps. He consistently beat Republicans by higher margins than the both of them, and when he was put on the top of the ticket, the advantage that Democratic incumbents in swing congressional districts had over their opponents increased, while it dropped precipitously for Obama and Clinton. So he was the main candidate who can build an electable Democratic coalition. I could go on and on, but I have a feeling this is all falling on deaf ears . . .
February 8, 2008 at 2:56 am
It is falling on Positive and Hopeful ears… Ears that know: small differences in policy stances mean nothing. That Unity, Integrity and a President who will actually inspire, listen and include the PEOPLE in his decision making process means everything. I read a great quote (not exact I fear) “Listening is like giving love and people who are listened to can hardly tell the difference.”
And DERRICK, your are amazing, inspiring, brilliant and a man that will make a positive and informed change in the world. Congratulations!
February 8, 2008 at 4:54 am
I want Derrick to run for public office! What a grasp he has on important issues, and how well he articulates them. I’m a lowly Sen. Obama campaign worker–envelope stuffer and door knocker. People like Derrick make me proud to be associated with this campaign. Keep the faith, folks.
February 8, 2008 at 8:37 am
Find Derrick and send him to LA, WA, Tx and MD!
February 8, 2008 at 9:14 am
Julian,
I’m a huge fan of Senator Edwards. I supported him in 2004. However, I would like to offer a different POV on many of the things you’ve suggested.
1. Edwards introduced detailed policy positions first because he’s been running for President full time since 2003. Don’t get me wrong, his proposals were impressive and clearly well thought-out. But comparing the timeline of the Edwards’ campaign to that of Obama (or Clinton) is not an apples-to-apples comparison. To put it another way: Edwards introduced his candidacy for President in 2003 and introduced these policies in 2007. It’s not as if we didn’t need Health Care, Economic Stimulus, and a Global Warming plan in 2004. We did. It took him 4 years to introduce these policies. It took Obama (and Clinton) less than a year.
It’s disingenuous of you to look over the fact that Edwards was a professional Presidential Candiate while Obama was affecting real change in the US Senate, passing ethics reform and standing with Senator Kennedy for comprehensive immigration reform.
2. You suggest that Edwards has more “political courage” than Obama because he released his proposals first. I suggest that you look at Senator Edwards’ record in the US Senate. He voted FOR the patriot act. He voted FOR the 2001 bankruptcy law (along with Clinton). He voted FOR the China free trade deal. He voted FOR the usue of force in Iraq. He voted FOR NCLB.
Frankly, with all due respect to Senator Edwards, when he had a chance to directly effect the course of this country as just one of 100 US Senators, he chose again and again to take the EASY WAY OUT. It’s EASY to rail against an unpopular law or an unpopular war. It’s MUCH MORE DIFFICULT to stir the POLITICAL COURAGE to stand AGAINST the political tidal wave and resist these policy positions from day one.
And that’s the kind of political courage you see from Senator Obama. No doubt, in 2002-3 he was already considering running for the US Senate. And at a time when everyone thought the war would be over in 2 weeks and Bush would spend all summer smiling in victory parades, at a time when NEARLY EVERY OTHER DEMOCRAT, including EDWARDS and CLINTON supported the war, Barack Obama was a lone voice of dissent.
3. Your characterization of Senator Obama’s healthcare plan is just a complete distortion of the facts. And I suspect you KNOW that.
FACT: Personal Mandates Do Not Cover Everybody and Personal Mandates Do Not Reduce Costs.
The awesome part of this is that we have real evidence here. We have 10+ years of personal mandates for auto insurance in (nearly?) EVERY STATE IN THE UNION.
Yet, despite HARSH PENALTIES, we still have so many uninsured motorsist that we, as a law, must cover insurance just to protect against those that are uninsured.
Yet, despite COAST to COAST MANDATES, the cost of auto insurance, adjusted for inflation, has NEVER went down year over year.
But we make CRIMINALS out of those that don’t purchase the insurance.
And HILLARY will do the same thing. National healthcare is NOT some abstract duty to divine providence. It’s simply a MORAL issue. It’s simply about HELPING THOSE THAT NEED HELP. It’s a simple illustration that in this country WE ARE OUR BROTHERS KEEPER, and WE ARE OUR SISTERS KEEPER.
It’s about HELPING people. And the way to help people is not to turn them into criminals!
Obama’s plan is to institute nearly the EXACT SAME policy as Clinton and Edwards only it won’t FORCE people to buy insurance that they simply cannot afford. It’s to use the gov’t health plan to compete with the private sector and push down costs for the first time in decades. Obama’s plan is simple: Reduce costs and then cover everyone voluntarily.
Clinton’s (and Edwards’) plan is to cover everyone BY FORCE including GARNISHING WAGES, and THEN reduce costs.
Excuse me while I laugh and squirt milk out my nose. This has been tried. See Also: Insurance, Auto.
When people are FORCED BY LAW to purchase healthcare there is no longer ANY incentive for the private insurers to cut costs. NONE. They have a built in, forced market.
It is _MORALLY WRONG_ for the Government to force people to purchase insurance that they simply cannot afford.
And yes, Senator Clinton does TRY to make it more affordable by offering subsidies. Your comment that she offers “more” subsidies is patently wrong. First, the language in all these plans is purposely ambiguous about subsidies. Second, the words “more” or “less” simply do not apply. Senator Clinton does offer DIFFERENT subsidies, as does Obama and Edwards. Robert Reich, a former Clinton Labor Secretary has examined both Obama’s plan and Clintons and determined that they will both offer coverage to the same amount of people, give or take.
Furthermore: More than one study has shown that there is a “Donut Hole” in Senator Clintons subsidies. This will create a large swath of people who CANNOT AFFORD insurance but will be FORCED to buy it by having their WAGES GARNISHED by HILLARY CLINTON. These are low and middle income folks who will have to cut spending elsewhere to cover these lost wages. What will they cut? What will they lose?
Finally, your characterization of Edwards as “most electable” was proven incorrect, I think. You claim he was the victim of a partisan MSM. Edwards was on the Democratic ticket in 2004. He was one of the last men standing in that news cycle. He was getting attention as a 2008 candidate starting November 5, 2004. You act like people just didn’t know who he was or what he stood for. RUBBISH. People knew exactly what he stood for. The people spoke. It was NOT Clinton’s fault. It was NOT Obama’s fault. It was NOT the medias fault. It was NOT John Edwards’ fault. It was just the way it is.
It just wasn’t his time.
Finally, the notion that Edwards beat the GOP candidates by wider margins than other candidates is PATENTLY FALSE. Sure, there’s no doubt that this is the case in a few polls. Edwards himself made that claim in one of his last debates. And THAT SAME NIGHT it was debunked by factcheck.org. In truth, he WAS beating the GOP candidates by more than the other 2 dems in the last CNN survey that matched the 3 democrats against the GOP Field.
The problem, however, is that Edwards made that statement in the middle of January. And the last CNN Poll that included all 3 was taken in the beginning of December, before Obama won Iowa and before Clinton won in New Hampshire. After that, CNN did not include Edwards in subsequent polls (they said they would begin including him again if he won a state). HUNDREDS of “horse race” polls have been conducted since 2007 and it’s JUST A FLAT OUT LIE to suggest that Edwards’ was the most competitive candidate in a plurality of them.
I do not mean to attack Senator Edwards. He was my #1 choice in 2004, and my #2 choice this year. He’s set the tone of this race and he’s brought issues of poverty to the front of this debate. The nation and the party owe him a debt of gratitude.
But i could simply NOT stand by while you distort the record of Senator Obama.
I hope you join the Senator for the remainder of the race. Senator Edwards himself made this a clear choice for you and your fellow supporters: There were 2 candidates for change in this race, and one candidate of the status quo. There is now only one candidate for change still standing.
Ask “WWJD”: What Would John Do. Faced with these 2 candidates, I think it’s pretty clear who Edwards himself will be voting for in the North Carolina primary.
Enjoy your Friday and have a great weekend!
February 8, 2008 at 9:16 am
Derrick, would make an excellent, Lawyer! He took charge of the interview and knew the
subject matter…hands down!!! Great Job!!!
February 8, 2008 at 9:45 am
I’d vote for Derrick!
February 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
Obama should offer this guy a job!
February 8, 2008 at 10:45 am
WOW…what an excellent advocate for Obama and perfect example of how to debate effectively without being disagreeable. I just showed my two oldest sons (7 & 12 yo) this clip as a model for how to make your point in an intelligent mannner with the greatest chance to persuade the other party. Wish I could take Derrick with me to our caucus tomorrow! Way to Go!!!!!! ‘YES WE CAN!’ OBAMA 2008
February 8, 2008 at 10:47 am
I viewed Derrick’s response to the reporter and I was impressed. I then felt sad because I would not have been able to articulate, communicate and convey the message as to why I really have jumped on board of supporting Barack Obama. My response would have been based on “emotion” and the inspiration I continue to have as I finally “Believe” we (African American Men) finally have a “Qualified” candidate in the Political arena that is a “Player” in this race in my life time.
I am ready to do more work and really learning about the issues that go beyond emotion. Derrick I appreciate your ability to think on your feet. Ting ready and his old geyser actually learn from Derrick that I need to go do my homework. Now I see why I am on Barack’s Team I want to learn and take action after I learn the correct issues and get a grasp on how to articulate them.
The post I read from “Shane says” responding to “Julian says” was another inspiring read right after the YEAH! experience from viewing Derrick’s video. I thought where do this people get there knowledge to respond in such detail?
After reading Shane’s reply to Julian I felt like I was in a class and the listening to two students debate How to get your facts out on the table, the PRO and the Con of ” Why I should support BaracK”? and “What was John Edward’s contribution to the 2008 Presidential Race? Wow. You guys are amazing to know your positions so well.
Brian k. Hill
Castro Valley, CA
February 8, 2008 at 10:55 am
Derrick is an Awesome Obama Supporter!! And the MSM says that Obama Supporters are all caught up on a feeling. HA!! Most of us who are very strong supporters know his stance on the issues and the differences between them. Not to mention can breakdown more details than the MSM is willing to give credit to. That’s why his stump speeches are geared to inspire and motivate people to get involved and then they want to know more about someone who can touch them deep in places that other traditional politicians have not and can not.
Big Kudos to you Derrick and the MANY Derricks to come!!
FIRED UP READY TO GO! SI SE PUEDE! YES WE CAN!! WINNING WITH OBAMA IN 2008!!!!!!!
February 8, 2008 at 11:00 am
I Second “Derrick for VP”. That was thee best Obama news I’ve seen today. I must admit, it started as a nailbiter for me. I was worried that Derrick’s response would be an emotional appeal to vote for Sen. Obama as opposed to an interview that would talk about policies which affect us all. Derrick Blew Me Away!! He helped me (a very informed voter) better understand the issue of healthcare in America more than anyone to date. He spoke in a very down-to-earth, yet highly intelligent way. I owe ya’ one Derrick, you’ve given me even more ammo!! Please get in touch w/Sen. Obama’s campaign- he (and we) need you at the top of his movement!!! I also second his “don’t sleep” idea, I just can’t see any way to vote for Hillary and stay true to myself! It Won’t Happen.
p.s. The second best news of today is a TIME poll released puts Obama at 48% to McCain’s 41% in a general election and Hillary vs. McCain 46% to 46% (tied up).
February 8, 2008 at 11:30 am
I support Obama for substantive reasons… It’s Derrick I support for emotional reasons. His intelligence and poise gave me goose bumps!!
February 8, 2008 at 11:33 am
Great job Derrick! Also, great job Shane. Your response to Julian’s criticism was informed and well-written, polite but forceful. Well done.
February 8, 2008 at 11:57 am
Derrick is obviously a free thinker whose mind was cultivated by great parenting and education. Though I most likely would not have been as pleasant with the interviewer, something must be said for the “Emotional” supporters of Obama (Present Company Included). The reality of most Americans is one of uncertainty, fear, dispair, and did I say fear. Yes FEAR, an EMOTION. An Emotion predicated by the very pointed and direct decisions of our 2 term President. So Emotionally, I need change and feel that Obama can galvanize the political Left and Right to bring about sustainable change in this Country. Thank You Derrick, and Thank you to the other EMOTIONAL supporters of Obama! KW Lithonia, G.A.
February 8, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Shane,
I just want to thank you for bringing even more clarity. There are so many lies to debunk, so many people are basing there choices on misinformation and distortions. I will recommend to everyone that I come across in blogs, in person, those that I know see the video of Derrick, and read your most informative and intelligent rebuttal to Julian.
Thank you again,
Joy
February 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Absolutely first class! Derrick, your eloquence, poise and command of the issues–coupled with your refusal to be goaded into an argument by your confrontational interviewer–were breathtaking and, dare I say, inspirational!
February 8, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I am humbled by the response of such an awesome young man. I am one of those
emotional supporter of Barack and I am not ashamed of it. Barack bring the kind of
hope and pride that MLK brought. We all live in this world for sure. Yet at the same
time, we live in different realities. Derrick speaks for those of us who cannot articulate in manner. I am not concern how the media label some of us as emotional.
We are not all the same. Its like the human body. Each part has it particular job to do.
February 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Shane,
I appreciate your detailed and well thought out response. But I respectfully submit that you are once again distorting facts in defense of Sen. Obama.
1. First of all, Obama and Clinton presented plans conspicuously very similary to Edwards’ months after he presented his. My point was that they were not going to be nearly as progressive as Edwards was until he came out with his policies. His policies set the entire Democratic policy agenda. Now don’t you think that it important for a presidential candidate to define what the state of the country is,
what it needs to be, and the strategy and specific ideasvneeded to get there. A presidential candidate’s ability to correctly answer those questions are crucial to not onlyhis electability, but his capacity to govern effectively. And Senator Obama did not do this correctly. He pretty much took centrist positons at a time when the country is more to the left. Party Identification is 50%-36% in favor of Democrats according to the Pew Research Center (largest gap in the history of Pew’s Party ID Poll). The Republicans are more unpopular than they have been in the past 40 years. And don’t get me started on the policy failure of the Bush administration. Edwards’ ability to define a message that resonates with where the country is and where it needs to go (such as Reagan and Clinton with their focus on the economy) is indicative of his ability to have been able to govern effectively as President. Senator Obama’s general message of bringing people together and hope and that other stuff was an offshoot of his 2004 DNC speech. It didn’t speak directly to the growing economic inequality of the country due to the exorbitant influence copororations have on our democracy., And you’re right, Edwards, following the 2004 election, did grassroots work with his charitable efforts setting up a College for Everyone program, working in Katrina relief, and establishing a poverty center where he could engage in and understand the most pressing issues facing the country in order to build an aggressive and progressive yet pragmatic policy agenda that would tackle the country’s biggest problems and that was politically feasible. Obama was ambivalent about running for President at first. He believed (correctly) that his consistently positive media coveragewas anomalous to anyone seriously considering running for President and would only set too high of expectations for his candidacy that would be a politicalliability. So instead, he pledged to fulfill his entire Senate term. Now, I don’t know what was going through his mind when he all of a sudden decided to run for President, but I could imagine that constant media speculation about his entering (and including him in early presidential polls) had some influence
on his decision since it proved that his candidacy would be viable. And just
like that, he neglected his first instincts and entered the race. This is
problematic for two reasons. First of all, it demonstrates his tenuous
political instincts – that he is susceptible to having his convictions undermined by incorrect and sometimes frivolous advice and evidence. I’ll say it once again - the same institution that gave him unprecedented positive media coverage also propped up the Bush administration and is owned by conservatives. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the telecommunications industry allowing for the formation of media monopolies. Now 8 conglomerates own the entire MSM, making 80% of the MSM conservative.
2. Now, let’s have a discussion of Obama’s ability to “effect real change in the U.S. Senate.” That worthless ethics reform bill was fine, if it had done anything meaningful to, I don’t know, reform ethics. It provided a google like search engine for pork projects of Congressman. He was unable to get a creation of a non-partisan institution to serve as oversight for congressional ethics. On top of that, his plan was not as nearly progressive or effective as Edwards, which would have outright ban lobbyists from supporting campaigns, created a universal system of public financing, and created a Citizen’s Congress. Now, you mentioned Sen. Edwards’ votes, but you didn’t bother to talk about how Sen. Obama voted for the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, voted for the funding of the Iraq War (and campaigned for pro-war Congressional Democrats), vote for the confirmation of Condoleeza Rice, voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, which was written by the oil companies from Cheney’s BS Energy Commission
February 8, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Just to interject…
I think we can all agree that Barack Obama has written and gotten signed into law more progressive legislation in his lifetime than has John Edwards…
and that Obama’s record is more progressive than Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee, the three remaining major Presidential candidates.
I hope that means that we can all agree that he should be our next President.
February 8, 2008 at 8:18 pm
PEOPLE! I’m talking to anyone that can read this. You must remember one thing… education is the one thing that cannot be taken from you! You must know, we have to continue to be on our “A” game at all times, and that’s what Derrick has illustrated. He has made me proud to not only be African American, but proud to be an educated African American. Just havintg a degree doesn’t make you educated, it’s carrying the torch from one pilar to the next. Carrying your dreams from one venture to the next. Carrying your successes to one generation to the next. I would imagine, Derrick made many of us feel bad that we’ve not kept up with as much as thought we had. Let’s do better…one day at a time, but with duly noted progress.
JC (LA-ATL-JAX)
February 8, 2008 at 8:49 pm
My bad . . . allow me to continue . . .
2. - and he did it because of his contributor from Exelon who supports nuclear energy. Also, he voted for a provision in the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill (by the way, the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill DIDN’T pass; the 2005 one did, though) that eliminated a 36% cap on credit card interest rates (due in large part because credit card executives fundraised for his 2004 Senate campaign). He also voted for the Peru Free Trade Deal. And let’s not forget his actively protesting Ronald Reagan in college to now commending him as a“transformative political figure” without bemoaning his policies. Now back to his so-called agressive stance against the war. When he was running for the Senate, he himself admitted that he would not have know how he would have voted if he were in the Senate. And his voting record in the Senate as far as funding went was identical to those same Democrats he criticized for supporting the war. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Sen. Edwards’ problematic centrist record in the Senate. And I’ll do you one better and say he didn’t do much along the lines of actually passing meaningful legislation. But the difference between he and Obama is that Edwards learned his lesson and evolved into a more progressive candidate at a time when the country is more progressive economically, while Obama de-evolved and abandoned his progressive stances for more centrist, patronizing positions to the right when the country is moving to the left! A Democracy Corps survey asked people what was the biggest problem of the country. An overwhelming majority said that the country is moving in the wrong direction because big corporations get to do whatever they want. That sounds pretty familiar - like, I don’t know, Edwards’ overall message. I am not saying Obama lacks political courage, but I am saying he lacks it now that he is running for President. And that doesn’t have to be the case when the country embraces such populism - which brings his so-called stellar judgment into question.
3. So now we have come to the issue of health care. Now, I will admit Shane, you would have got me, if your argument had been based on HEALTH ECONOMICS rather than the erroneous comparison to the auto insurance industry. My last post about the difference in their plans was based on research done by the leading health economists (Robert Reich is a LABOR economist by the way) in the country - including John Gruber of MIT and a study commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2003 - mandates are the most effective mechanism for covering the uninsured and for cost control - PERIOD! And by the way, if you actually read Sen. Edwards’ health care plan - http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf - you would realize that the mandate is not imposed until the Health Care Markets and the government plan are established, Medicaid and SCHIP are expanded, tougher regulations on the insurance industry are included, and the new tax credits and subsidies are done to reign in the cost of health care. And your argument about forcing people who can’t afford it purchase health insurance is blatantly false - because he clearly states he provides exemptions for financial hardship. But like I said, the factual economics are on my side. And besides, there have never been mandates for health care implemented, so don’t knock it until it has been tried. But let’s take the economics of it off of the table and look at it from a political perspective. You don’t see how you, Derrick, and other Obama supporters have fallen right into the Republicans’ trap. Now, you, I, Sen. Obama, and his supporters agree completely about the moral necessity for universal health care. But you and Derrick and Sen. Obama, in the same breath, contradict yourselves by using the Republican talking points that mandates are “morally wrong” and only equate to “socialized medicine” where the government “forces” forces people to buy health insurance. And don’t even get me started on those “Harry and Louise” like mailers the Obama campaign sent out criticizing Clinton’s health care plan. The mandate issue is politically precarious for Obama because it weakens his argument for universal healthcare. The Republicans will criticize Sen. Obama as a waffler who prevericates on the issue of mandates; because as a state senator, he was in favor of a single-payer health insurance system (a position that two-thirds of Americans actually support according to an MSNBC poll last year). In fact, Obama’s position will allow the Republicans to possibly own the health care issue because he doesn’t support mandates either, so they will say they have always held that position, so there plan is better. So his health care plan, economically and politically are simply not feasible.
3. On the point of electability - check out the Rasmussen Report Polls - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election. We obviously agree on the facts of that December CNN poll. I have looked at all the polls, and Sen. Edwards outperformed Sens. Clinton and Obama against Republicans in head-to-head matchups even though he was third in national polls against them. You can call it an outright lie if you want, but it is fact. In the Rasmussen Report polls, Mcain beats both Obama and Clinton, while Edwards beats McCain. And don’t you find it convenient that CNN put him out of the polls. I mean, it couldn’t have hurt to consider him just in case he won one. He was still in the race as far as I remember. But anyways, in addition to Edwards always outperforming Clinton and Obama in head-to-head matchups with Republicans nationally and in crucial swing and Southern states, there is also the issue of congressional elections. Because a presidential election also involves a candidate who is the strongest at the top of the ticket to increase the congressional majorities of his respective party. In a survey done (I have to go find it in my computer so just trust me on this one) last year, when Obama or Clinton were put on the top of the ticket for a Democratic congressional incumbent in rural Missouri who was leading the Republican by 20 points, that candidates lead dropped down to 6 points. It went up to 30 points when Edwards was put at the top of the ticket. Besides, Clinton and Obama perform poorly in rural areas (I am not talking about Obama’s ability to win rural Democrats during this primary, I am talking about AGAINST Republicans), and the Democrats ability to win back the Congress in 2006 was because of the ability to produce populist, socially moderate Democratic candidates who could compete in rural congressional districts (where they made the most of their gains). A socially moderate, rural, populist candidate . . . now I wonder which one of them fit that mold . . . . And by the way, be weary of Obama’s ability to outperform McCain now in these head to head polls. Remember, all the studies have shown that Obama has gotten unprecedented positive media coverage for a presidential candidate, so of course the polls will reflect this. But wait until the conservative-owned media starts to vet him seriously . . . Rezko, his middle name of Hussein, his controversial church (I know this is all propaganda by the way, but the American public doesn’t), his waffling on the issues . . . And let’s not underestimate this Clinton-Obama divide in the Democratic Pary. Because both Democratic
candidates, due to their divisive, identity-charged feud, have the potential of
being at the helm of slightly disenchanted, unenthused Democratic Party. Either
of them getting the nomination has the potential to alienate a crucial sector of
the Democratic coalition. If Clinton wins, then African-Americans,
Independents, and some upperclass Democrats may potentially stay at home come
election day. If Obama wins, Latinos (he only got 52% of the Latino vote in his own state, and remember, McCain will do well with Latinos because of comprehensive immigration reform), traditional, white working-class Democrats, and women won’t be that enthused to vote. It is going to be hard for the wounds that Clinton and Obama’s feud caused to heal that easily. And Edwards was the only hope of rebuilding an electable Democratic coalition, because none of those voters voted AGAINST him, they only voted for Obama and Clinton.
Now, Shane, let me say that I know my criticisms may sound a bit acerbic, but I am doing this for a purpose. First of all, I am trying to demonstrate how the Conservative Establishment through the MSM have a stranglehold on this Democracy and are able to manipulate the Democratic election . Check this out: http://www.johnedwards.com/whereisjohn/ - It shows how John Edwards did get less media coverage, 5% compared to 15% and 25% for Obama and Clinton following the Iowa Caucus according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Also, the Daily Kos, who is supporting Obama, actually has a bunch of research which conclusively shows that Edwards was marginalized by the MSM (with the exception of the mention of the $400 haircuts, being labeled as an “angry populist,” and a hypocrite showing his house like there was a hostage situation taking place there). It may not seem like it, but I actually like Obama. It’s just that I am disappointed in him. I am disappointed him because he has not lived up to his full potential. He was a briliant, politically savvy, and progressive politician who had the capacity to bring consensus on issues without sacrificing conviction. The problem is that he made the common political error of changing so much in order to make political gains that he lost the good qualities he already had. He is the one who is simply not ready to be President for that and because he second guessed himself on what really was wrong with the country and what it took to take care of it. The purpose of these posts are to address these issues so hopefully you, his campaign, and his other supporters will seriously think about these things in order to rectify them before the general election. Because if you think I am bad, can you imagine what the Republican attack machine is cooking up. I hope all is well, I appreciate your response, and I hope you have a great weekend, also!
- Julian
February 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Wow, it’s funny to read some of the “policy wonks” try and differentiate the minor details!! We all know that the reporter figured he had someone he could bluff!
When we sweep to power in November we will bring progressive congressmen with us because the voice of the people is the power of America!
I am sure you have seen this before, at least I hope so: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union …???
What is so wrong with believing in someone who inspires you to do better and contribute to the political process???
Leadership is the process of influencing others in such a manner as to accomplish the mission.
Excellent job Derrick!
Go Barack ‘08
February 8, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Derrick, you nailed it! Way to represent the younger vote in an informed and assertive manner!!! Thank you!
February 9, 2008 at 12:32 am
My bad . . . allow me to continue . . .
2. - and he did it because of his contributor from Exelon who supports nuclear energy. He voted for the business friendly Tort Reform Bill. Also, he voted for a provision in the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill (by the way, the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill DIDN’T pass; the 2005 one did, though) that eliminated a 36% cap on credit card interest rates (due in large part because credit card executives fundraised for his 2004 Senate campaign). He also voted for the Peru Free Trade Deal. And let’s not forget his actively protesting Ronald Reagan in college to now commending him as a“transformative political figure” without bemoaning his policies. Now back to his so-called agressive stance against the war. When he was running for the Senate, he himself admitted that he would not have know how he would have voted if he were in the Senate. And his voting record in the Senate as far as funding went was identical to those same Democrats he criticized for supporting the war. Now, I wholeheartedly agree with you about Sen. Edwards’ problematic centrist record in the Senate. And I’ll do you one better and say he didn’t do much along the lines of actually passing meaningful legislation. But the difference between he and Obama is that Edwards learned his lesson and evolved into a more progressive candidate at a time when the country is more progressive economically, while Obama de-evolved and abandoned his progressive stances for more centrist, patronizing positions to the right when the country is moving to the left! A Democracy Corps survey asked people what was the biggest problem of the country. An overwhelming majority said that the country is moving in the wrong direction because big corporations get to do whatever they want. That sounds pretty familiar - like, I don’t know, Edwards’ overall message. I am not saying Obama lacks political courage, but I am saying he lacks it now that he is running for President. And that doesn’t have to be the case when the country embraces such populism - which brings his so-called stellar judgment into question.
3. So now we have come to the issue of health care. Now, I will admit Shane, you would have got me, if your argument had been based on HEALTH ECONOMICS rather than the erroneous comparison to the auto insurance industry. My last post about the difference in their plans was based on research done by the leading health economists (Robert Reich is a LABOR economist by the way) in the country - including John Gruber of MIT and a study commissioned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2003 - mandates are the most effective mechanism for covering the uninsured and for cost control - PERIOD! And by the way, if you actually read Sen. Edwards’ health care plan -on his website - you would realize that the mandate is not imposed until the Health Care Markets and the government plan are established, Medicaid and SCHIP are expanded, tougher regulations on the insurance industry are included, and the new tax credits and subsidies are done to reign in the cost of health care. And your argument about forcing people who can’t afford it purchase health insurance is blatantly false - because he clearly states he provides exemptions for financial hardship. But like I said, the factual economics are on my side. And besides, there have never been mandates for health care implemented, so don’t knock it until it has been tried. But let’s take the economics of it off of the table and look at it from a political perspective. You don’t see how you, Derrick, and other Obama supporters have fallen right into the Republicans’ trap. Now, you, I, Sen. Obama, and his supporters agree completely about the moral necessity for universal health care. But you and Derrick and Sen. Obama, in the same breath, contradict yourselves by using the Republican talking points that mandates are “morally wrong” and only equate to “socialized medicine” where the government “forces” forces people to buy health insurance. And don’t even get me started on those “Harry and Louise” like mailers the Obama campaign sent out criticizing Clinton’s health care plan. The mandate issue is politically precarious for Obama because it weakens his argument for universal healthcare. The Republicans will criticize Sen. Obama as a waffler who prevericates on the issue of mandates; because as a state senator, he was in favor of a single-payer health insurance system (a position that two-thirds of Americans actually support according to an MSNBC poll last year). In fact, Obama’s position will allow the Republicans to possibly own the health care issue because he doesn’t support mandates either, so they will say they have always held that position, so there plan is better. So his health care plan, economically and politically are simply not feasible.
3. On the point of electability - check out the Rasmussen Report Polls. We obviously agree on the facts of that December CNN poll. I have looked at all the polls, and Sen. Edwards outperformed Sens. Clinton and Obama against Republicans in head-to-head matchups even though he was third in national polls against them. You can call it an outright lie if you want, but it is fact. In the Rasmussen Report polls, Mcain beats both Obama and Clinton, while Edwards beats McCain. And don’t you find it convenient that CNN put him out of the polls. I mean, it couldn’t have hurt to consider him just in case he won one. He was still in the race as far as I remember. But anyways, in addition to Edwards always outperforming Clinton and Obama in head-to-head matchups with Republicans nationally and in crucial swing and Southern states, there is also the issue of congressional elections. Because a presidential election also involves a candidate who is the strongest at the top of the ticket to increase the congressional majorities of his respective party. In a survey done (I have to go find it in my computer so just trust me on this one) last year, when Obama or Clinton were put on the top of the ticket for a Democratic congressional incumbent in rural Missouri who was leading the Republican by 20 points, that candidates lead dropped down to 6 points. It went up to 30 points when Edwards was put at the top of the ticket. Besides, Clinton and Obama perform poorly in rural areas (I am not talking about Obama’s ability to win rural Democrats during this primary, I am talking about AGAINST Republicans), and the Democrats ability to win back the Congress in 2006 was because of the ability to produce populist, socially moderate Democratic candidates who could compete in rural congressional districts (where they made the most of their gains). A socially moderate, rural, populist candidate . . . now I wonder which one of them fit that mold . . . . And by the way, be weary of Obama’s ability to outperform McCain now in these head to head polls. Remember, all the studies have shown that Obama has gotten unprecedented positive media coverage for a presidential candidate, so of course the polls will reflect this. But wait until the conservative-owned media starts to vet him seriously . . . Rezko, his middle name of Hussein, his controversial church (I know this is all propaganda by the way, but the American public doesn’t), his waffling on the issues . . . And let’s not underestimate this Clinton-Obama divide in the Democratic Pary. Because both Democratic
candidates, due to their divisive, identity-charged feud, have the potential of
being at the helm of slightly disenchanted, unenthused Democratic Party. Either
of them getting the nomination has the potential to alienate a crucial sector of
the Democratic coalition. If Clinton wins, then African-Americans,
Independents, and some upperclass Democrats may potentially stay at home come
election day. If Obama wins, Latinos (he only got 52% of the Latino vote in his own state, and remember, McCain will do well with Latinos because of comprehensive immigration reform), traditional, white working-class Democrats, and women won’t be that enthused to vote. It is going to be hard for the wounds that Clinton and Obama’s feud caused to heal that easily. And Edwards was the only hope of rebuilding an electable Democratic coalition, because none of those voters voted AGAINST him, they only voted for Obama and Clinton.
Now, Shane, let me say that I know my criticisms may sound a bit acerbic, but I am doing this for a purpose. First of all, I am trying to demonstrate how the Conservative Establishment through the MSM have a stranglehold on this Democracy and are able to manipulate the Democratic election . ]Edwards did get less media coverage, 5% compared to 15% and 25% for Obama and Clinton following the Iowa Caucus according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Also, the Daily Kos, who is supporting Obama, actually has a bunch of research which conclusively shows that Edwards was marginalized by the MSM (with the exception of the mention of the $400 haircuts, being labeled as an “angry populist,” and a hypocrite showing his house like there was a hostage situation taking place there). It may not seem like it, but I actually like Obama. It’s just that I am disappointed in him. I am disappointed him because he has not lived up to his full potential. He was a briliant, politically savvy, and progressive politician who had the capacity to bring consensus on issues without sacrificing conviction. The problem is that he made the common political error of changing so much in order to make political gains that he lost the good qualities he already had. He is the one who is simply not ready to be President for that and because he second guessed himself on what really was wrong with the country and what it took to take care of it. The purpose of these posts are to address these issues so hopefully you, his campaign, and his other supporters will seriously think about these things in order to rectify them before the general election. Because if you think I am bad, can you imagine what the Republican attack machine is cooking up. I hope all is well, I appreciate your response, and I hope you have a great weekend, also!
- Julian
February 9, 2008 at 1:14 am
I think this sort of interview is a strong indication that Obama needs to articulate his stances in the same way Derrick did.
Obama’s one major weakness (aside from lacking direct federal experience, which he has no control over), is his vagueness.
Obama just needs to work the specifics into the emotion. Whenever I hear him do that, I start wanting to support him unconditionally. He has good plans, good ideas on his website - he just needs to articulate them outside of debates.
February 9, 2008 at 1:15 am
Julian - you need to put spaces in your writing and get to the point quicker. These are comments, not doctoral dissertations.
just a suggestion.
February 9, 2008 at 1:45 am
Oh, you don’t like that, huh, Ian . . . you know President Bush’s staunches supporters were allergic to FACTS, too. If I had have kissed Obama’s a** in that email it would have been more like a romance novel than a dissertation. Here’s a suggestion for you - take two running jumps and go to hell. And while you’re at it, do some research . . .
February 9, 2008 at 5:44 am
Julian, why are you making a case for John Edwards when he is no longer in the race?
February 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Mandates don’t work.
The Health Care argument can be boiled down to what Michael Moore (the “Sicko” movie guy) said on Larry King a couple days ago. Paraphrasing: he said there is no meaningful difference between the Obama and Clinton health plans because neither is single payer. This means that costs can’t be controlled because the for-profit insurance companies are in the middle of the whole thing. Neither plan can work in practice because the costs will spiral out of control, or the insurance will be so weak that it is practically useless.
Fact 1: The Massachusetts plan, with mandates, has still missed half of the uninsured citizens. The MA plan doesn’t have strong minimum coverage and quality requirements, so the half that are newly covered could have terrible plans. And, now the MA budget is busted so they need to figure out something.
Fact 2:, The CA health insurance proposal with mandates just went down in flames with only 1 of 11 votes, so it didn’t even get out of the committee.
Fact 3: Listen very carefully to Clinton; she knows how to parse her language. In the debates and on the stump she says mandates are her starting point “goal”. She has left plenty of room to abandon them so that a bill actual gets passed.
Fact 4: Obama is telling people the truth and now I support him. The best way to push health care is for Obama to win big in Nov. The two problems are political will and financial reality.
P.S. Julian the NYT article about Exelon was a hatchet job, it is rebuked point by point in the fact check part of the Obama website. While your at it you can read all the other corrections on that website. Like you said “do some research.”
February 9, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Sagereader, I am not making the case for JRE. I am explaining how he was the best and most electable Democratic nominee who conveniently got railroaded bythe conservative-owned MSM for the two less progressive, less electable, “celebrity candidates.” And once again Democrats allow this to happen. This happened in 2004, when, before the Iowa Caucus, in head-to-head polls against President Bush, JRE was leading Bush by 11 points, Kerry tied him, and Dean lost by 3 points. The Republicans began to focus their attacks on Kerry to make Dems think that they were most afraid of him, and let’s not forget the “John Kerry is Electable” story that they ran consistently. Kerry wins Iowa, and the rest is history. As an Obama supporter, you have to consider these things if you want your candidate to win the nomination and the presidency, because how can he change the politics of this country if that same politics was responsible for his existence and persistence as a national political figure. And Jonathon, I know the truth hurts, but you have to deal with it one way or the other. First of all, the MA plan is doing better than what is reported, but the reason why it misses half the uninsured is not because of the problem of enforcing mandates, it is because of the state hasn’t allocated enough money for the subsidies for low-income people; and as you mentioned it won’t be happening anytime soon with the budget shortfall. But let’s look at mandates for COUNTRIES. It works in Switzerland and the Netherlands. I am not saying this to disagree with you; and I am saying what the leading healthcare economists in the country are saying. Obama is on the wrong side of the issue politically because not only does he not agree with mandates, but he uses the same talking points of “the government forcing people to buy healthcare” and socialized medicine that the Republicans use. Therefore, he gives them ownership of the issue. Besides, you claim he has so much courage, yet he should not include mandates in his healthcare plan, which is the most effective way to attain universal coverage, because he fears it may not get passed? That is what you call political courage. And he flew on the owner of Exelon’s plane. But since I need to do some research, I urge you to please respond to the other things I mentioned about his votes in the U.S. Senate. As I do my research, feel free to respond to the other points that I made. I hope all is well.
February 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Julian, you say Obama is politically on the wrong side of the healthcare issue. Yet, he continues to push his plan because he believes it to be best for the country. Isn’t that political courage?
February 9, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Julian,
Step back for a minute. You are vehemently fighting to maintain a system that keeps the existing special interests in place. And, you want to send them even more business via a government mandate.
The truth is that mandates without cost controls are unworkable. The government can’t afford good coverage when the system leaves the insurance companies in place. The only way to deal with costs is to do single payer. Until then Obama’s plan is just as good as any other. All the candidates have the same ideas about cost savings. But these ideas will not result in savings that can successfully limit costs. E.g. there are already all kinds of electronic record systems that are being used (where they make financial sense). And there are plenty of providers that don’t use electronic systems (where they may not make financial sense). And, medical providers are often changing their systems. And there are hardware incompatibilities. And, there can be very high hardware and training costs whenever a change is implemented. And, trying to introduce large scale compatibility would be extraordinarily difficult, or more likely impossible. In other words, you should be skeptical when you here about billions of dollars being saved thanks to electronic records, or anything else.
Edwards, Clinton and Obama are truly on the same page, none of them deal with the increasing costs. The mandate issue is a political ploy; it is not financially viable if you want good coverage (MA and CA have shown that). And, I have no doubt that all the politicians (including Edwards and Obama) know it, even if they won’t admit it. The only way to solve the skyrocketing cost of health care is some version of single payer.
By the way, I’ve been a hard core Republican who just got back from a caucus where I supported Obama in Washington (my precinct was 91 Obama, 20 Clinton). I’m sure you’ll never support Obama, but he has me espousing the benefits of a single payer system. So, I would advise you to give some credit to the idea of transformational politics. Even I can see that Bush has been a disaster, so I’m supporting new leadership from Obama.
Of course I will acknowledge that Obama does have an up hill battle against Clinton. So, you can take comfort in that.
P.S. Thanks for not calling me out where I used “your” instead of “you’re” in my last post.
February 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Julian, if John Edwards and Hillary Clinton had not gotten caught on mic early in the campaign season trying to conspire to keep lower-tier candidates out of the debates, maybe I’d be more open to complaints about his level of media coverage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwgLlDbwNwU
February 9, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Hey Jonathon,
I completely agree with you about mandates being unworkable without cost controls. The only problem with your argument is that all three plans, though Edwards (and de facto Clinton’s because she copied his almost verbatim) is the strongest, have effective cost control mechanisms. In addition to electronic records and greater investment in preventative care and healthy lifestyles to create, their plans create a government healthcare plan that competes with private insurers in order to lower costs. Like I said, Edwards Health Care Markets were the strongest on this; he even said that the public private competition (which you as Republican could probably admit that competition would drive down costs), because of the strength of his government plan, would drive health care costs down dramatically and probably evolve into a single payer system. Check out his plan on his website while it is still available (can’t post the address, otherwise they won’t post this). And Jonathan, it’s not that I don’t agree with transformation politics, of the FACT that Obama has inspired people who were previously apathetic and had never been engaged in politics, my point is that that in himself won’t win him the presidency, because part of the reason why he has inspired people to come into politics in order to change it is because of the politics he want to change. In particular, the MSM has fueled the flames of the Obama phenomenon, and all I am saying is proceed with caution, because these are the same people that fueled the flames of the Bush Adminstration’s polices, and the country got burned because of it. But hey, I tend to be a bit of conspiracy theorist. No problem, Jonathan. And Bill, I said that Obama was on the wrong side of the issue both politically and ecnomocially. He is taking a political risk for the wrong issue. And no problem, Jonathan, about your errors. Thank you for not calling me out about my completely incoherent and excessively loquacious posts. LOL! I hope all is well!
- Julian
February 9, 2008 at 9:28 pm
A very intelligent reply by Derrick. I am so happy I saw it.
I am an African American female, but Derrick doesn’t make me proud to be black, neither does Obama. In fact, I am no more prouder of being black than I am of being a southpaw.
My beliefs and my actions make me who I am, not my race and my gender. Derrick makes me proud because he supports Barack, like I do, but he, unlike myself, I am ashamed to say, is well informed on the issues. Instead of pumping my fist into the air and shouting, “YEAH, MAN. YOU STICK IT TO DA MAN!” My first reaction when I saw this video was, “I need to educate myself–right now!” I am proud of Derrick because helped me realize weaknesses in the motives behind my choices.
I am proud of Obama because he has shown me that visionaries still exist, and that transformation is not only possible but crucial.
I appreciate Julian for bringing an intelligent argument to the table. And as long as we treat each other civilly and respect each other’s ideas, we can make considerable progress in this country. The nuts and bolts of government are important, but it’s not pieces of legislation that make a country great, it’s the people. We have forgotten that over the last eight years. We had been led by our government to believe that we didn’t need to know all the details, that our policy makers knew what was best for us, and the right pieces of paper and the right written words was enough to satisfy the growing resignation and restlessness among the people. I think this is why so many misinterpreted their anger for Clinton’s MLK remark, not as a slight against King, which it wasn’t, but because of the suggestion within it the overriding power of politicians versus the people. I’m sure this isn’t what she meant, but I can see someone interpreting it that way.
Maybe Obama isn’t the most “courageous” or the most “progressive” in terms of policy, but he has demonstrated courage in an emotional space people had not visited in a long time: the belief in oneself to affect change in the relationship with her neighbor, her community, her government,, but most importantly, within herself. I would like to start, first, by changing my attitude toward Clinton supporters, republicans, and the general smear consensus that Obama supporters are cultists and scary fanatics. There is no need to foam at the mouth when met with opposition. The more educated you are on the issues the more confident you’ll be and the more respectful the debate. No longer do I expect to change someone’s mind, just to know and explain my own. We human beings have a lifetime of self improvement to work on before we can even attempt to change someone else.
As Obama supporters we must remember that it’s just like Derrick said, one man can’t do everything. The burden is on us to live up to the message. If we truly can, then let’s do it.
February 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Julian,
I’m prone to getting in the weeds—and it’s obvious that you have a strong interest in details. But, we can’t forget that we’re talking about campaign proposals. The machinations of the legislative process are guaranteed to result in substantial changes. Of much greater importance, it is impossible to predict how health care proposals will actually impact the country once implemented (just look at what has happened in MA).
That said, let the hypothetical prognosticating begin:
The Democrats’ cost savings strategies don’t include insurmountable differences. It is completely plausible that each candidate (including Obama) could argue that their approach is the best. In fact most of the differences are compatible or interchangeable. In other words, these things can be worked out. Further, in practice, none of the plans will have a big impact on the escalating cost of health care, because they all side step the single payer solution.
The competition you’re talking about could very well back fire. What if the private plans are tailored so that they use deductable, actuarial, and other “creative” criteria so they can focus on the citizens that leave them with the highest profit margins? That leaves the high cost people left with the government plan, which jumps the cost of the government plan, which means less people can afford it. You could see health care costs go down for the people who already have it, but the costs could go up for the uninsured. To add insult to injury a mandate will charge a fee to the uninsured even if they can’t afford health care, so they could pay a fine, but they still won’t have health care (as in MA). And subsidizes aren’t a realistic answer because they don’t (and financially can’t) cover people with moderate, but not low, incomes even though health care is prohibitively expensive for these supposedly well off families.
Of coarse the proponents for mandates say that we need to take money from the young people because they are healthy so we need to force them to pay into the system to support everyone else. But, this is not a fully considered perspective. First, the young people who would avoid health insurance are doing so because they make very little money. So, it is likely that they will fall into the subsidized programs that all the Democratic plans include. The young people who can afford health care probably have good jobs, so they probably already have health care. And, as a result of the competition you mentioned their costs could decrease as private providers game the system to dump low profit people into the government program.
Yes, all the Democratic plans do have minimum standards, portability requirements, pre-existing requirements, and other attempts to control the private companies. But, this too could have the effect of benefiting the private companies. All these requirements will be mandatory, so the companies don’t need to compete on these fronts, they can incorporate the costs into their fees, then they can focus on creatively adjusting their plans so they appeal to the profitable health care users. Everyone else can look to the government plan or no plan if they aren’t poor enough for a subsidy (not to mention the mandate fee they could be charged). And, it is important to note that the MA plan doesn’t have strong minimum standards. This means that the national plan would not include cheap (but weak/useless) plans, therefore it would leave out even more people who would need to pay a mandate fee. (Of course, I’m not suggesting that the minimums should be dumped, because that would just allow people to be insured, where the insurance is useless. I’m just identifying another short coming of this approach. My point is that there are no practical differences between Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. None of them go for a single payer. And, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that mandates are a bad idea. And, it is unfair to the deny possibility that the Edwards/Clinton mandate mantra is anything more than political maneuvering and demagoguery—especially with the MA and CA examples).
Also, none of these plans is more or less likely to evolve into a single payer plan. In reality, a move to single payer would be a leap, not an evolution. You can see a point where SCHIP, medicare, and some version of the opened up government plan (which is supported by all the Democrats) end up as the biggest part of the health care system. Then, the pressure would be on to take out the private programs, because they would be left with the high profit health care users, while the government has relieved them of the unprofitable citizens. Mandates don’t get to the end any faster; they just make life tougher for struggling, but not poor, families.
That’s the truth as I see it. And, that’s why mandates are a political ploy. The business interests against the Democratic plans don’t really care about mandates. They will fire everything thing they have at Obama’s plan. They’re thinking a lot further down the road, we need to do the same.
Regarding the Obama phenomenon, he may or may not win against Clinton. But he is for real. In a 1995 profile in The Chicago Reader, he said, “What if a politician were to see his job as an organizer, as part teacher and part advocate, one who does not sell voters short but who educates them about the real choices before them?”
Sure Obama has and will make mistakes, but he has been on the same road with the same strategy for at least thirteen years, as the quote above demonstrates. Even you will acknowledge that John Edwards has “evolved” over a relatively short period of time. And, I was very troubled when Clinton declared that she found her voice in NH—this was touching on a human level, but you need to have found your voice long before you decide to run for the presidency.
Regarding the motivators for the MSM I’d also include laziness, busyness, exhaustion, group think, the entertainment factor and so on. Plus, if you think it’s bad for Edwards, imagine being Huckabee. His coverage has been hilarious when you consider how well he’s done.
-Jonathon
February 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm
[...] 10, 2008 · No Comments Check this out…nice to see the conversation change from confrontation to common ground on [...]
February 10, 2008 at 9:39 pm
[...] out this clip of an Obama supporter defending himself with reason and grace, and watch to the end to see the result. Truly [...]
February 11, 2008 at 9:10 am
EVERY AFRICAN AMERICAN MALE CAN NOT PLAY SPORTS, DOSE NOT RAP OR DANCE OR WILL NOT SELL CRACK. MANY AFRICAN AMERICAN MALES ARE ARTICULANT, EDUCATED, SAINE, SENSITIVE, SOBER AN AWEAR OF THEIR “POLITICAL ENVIORMENT, ISSUES AND THEIR CHOICES.”
February 11, 2008 at 1:09 pm
My God. I learned more about each candidate’s platform just by reading all the dialogue. Thanks Julian, Derrick, Joanthon, Ian. but for some reason I think to actually effect any change in how our country is governed because of the status quo. That doesn’t mean that no candidate should not try but there are limitations as to what they can do because of how how the system was initially set up.
Any candidate that gets the job will need more than four years to undo all that has been done and all voters should understand all of the candidates abilities
February 13, 2008 at 8:15 am
Makes me so proud!!! and he informed in a way all can understand why we should vote Obama and how he (with us) will get us all out of the “muck and mire” we are in.
February 13, 2008 at 9:46 am
I’m in awe, it is so refreshing to see a young black man express himself so well. I’m impressed with his knowledge and political views. I learned more from this interview than I”ve learned from watching the debates and news since this race began. I now have a more informed intention for placing my vote with Obama I’m convinced.
February 13, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Derrick is THE MAN!
February 13, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Bravo…..Bravo. I am so glad to see one of us on television who really knows what they are talking about. The reporter tried to stump him and he came with it and laid it down. Man I got two Master’s degrees and I could not have made it through the first two questions without getting mad about him cutting me off. I am so proud of this guy, this is so for real…… other than the gum chewing he laid it down. I guess the no child left behind thing may work after all. lol!!!! They say that african americans are clueless…. yeah right!!!!!
WAY TO GO……. THANK YOU.
Reggie Smith
Gary In
February 13, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Derrick you are an example of a strong, intelligent, educated Black man who lets his brain calculate what comes out of his mouth. Very precise and well spoken. You are the type of Man I would what my sons to talk too. You’re parents should be proud. I certainly was.
February 13, 2008 at 11:45 pm
I am so thrilled to see young people take an interest in politics…things are happening in America; the other day (after Super Tuesday) my kids and I were so excited to hear two other young guys (in urban gear nonetheless) talking about how “happy they were to see a candidate that would truly be for the people…someone that is addressing unemployment, and examining ways to secure health care for every citizen”. I couldn’t believe it! I am in Alabama, and Obama slayed Hillary here…in the south! It’s a wonderful thing to be a part of history in the making!
February 14, 2008 at 2:03 pm
DERRICK YOU ROCK!! YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A FINE LEADER SOMEDAY!! STAY ON TRACK!! I am so proud of you for representing!! You are well informed Obama supporter and thank you for speaking the truth about Obama’s platform!! WAY TO REPRESENT!!
February 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Derrick is a fine representative of our young people today. It was extremely encouraging to hear him articulate the issues and suggestions for solutions to some our nations biggest problems. Go Derrick!
February 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Derrick, AWSOME! I’m tired of people feeling like African Americans are ONLY voting for Obama because of his race! I have voted since I was 18 and I don’t EVER recall hearing white americans asked if they are voting for a candidate because he is WHITE!!
Julian,
Why don’t you quit wasting time on this Blog and get up, get out, and do something!
February 14, 2008 at 3:43 pm
This is such an amazing video.
February 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Very impressive. He did his homework like so many of us Obama supporters have.
February 14, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Derrick: Join the team, we need you on the campaign trail.
Louis
February 14, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Derrick:
I have listened to both of your videos and I just want to THANK YOU for being a prime example for our young generation, you make me Proud in every sense of the word, YOU, the Derricks of the world, are what we are Hoping for in our children, thank you for allowing me to continue to be Hopeful for all of us and Proud to be a seasoned Black American. I know your parents are Proud because WE are proud of you. God Bless You and YES WE CAN!
Cynthia
Atlanta, Ga
February 14, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Let me add that the utube of Hillary and Edwards conspiring, go back and check it out…well, they are still conspiring. And, thanks whoever posted it.
Does everyone know that Hillary has met with John since he left the race, and that Obama has refused a meeting with John?
I wonder what John wants in return for his delegates?
Anyway, Julian, not like the “good old days”, huh? By the way, how many countries do you consider yourself a citizen? heh, heh…Honey, you’re going to find it more difficult, as time goes by, to continue to run this here America, my friend!
February 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Julian, please go away. Put down that cup of Hater-Aid. It can be toxic to your health. Shane, you nailed it! Thanks!
February 15, 2008 at 12:10 am
kudos to Derrick. even though i know Obama’s stand on issues and his public works out of the “lime light”, i am not sure i could have been as articulate with a camera all of a sudden stuck in my face.
i think the reporter singled him out figuring he would stumble when talking real issues.
glad to see reporter put on the ropes instead.
Julian, sorry your guy dropped out , but it’s time to move on. we welcome you to the Obama side.
YES WE CAN
February 15, 2008 at 12:17 am
Derrick, I thought you did an excellent job with this interviewer. I think he chose you because he had pre-conceived thoughts when he first looked @ you. That’s the way you SHOCK them. He learned a valuable lesson (even though he’ll never admit!) You cannot judge a book by its color!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO DERRICK!
February 15, 2008 at 7:58 am
Intelligence at its best, catching the reporter off guard, I love this guy!!! It show that WE know what WE are talking about when WE support the BEST candidate for the job.
YES WE CAN….
YES WE CAN Derrick
YES WE CAN Obama
Chuck
Philadelphia, PA
Derrick for VP, I second the nomination !!!
February 15, 2008 at 12:10 pm
brillant young man, way to represent. derrick, hug your parents, they have done a remarkable job. young people of today all should pay attention to your voice. i have a feeling that it will be a force in the future, future of america.
February 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm
sagereader, you hit the nail on the head!!!!
February 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Wow! This is quite impressive. Bravo. I’m sure the reporter will definitely remember you!
p.s. Derrick, take the GUM OUT OF YOUR mouth the next time you get on camera.
February 15, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Derrick,
Your response to your response is equally as passionate. I really appreciate your being in the right place at the right time to deliver the message for those who are usually ignored or considered voiceless.
Peace
February 15, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Derrick is the mannnnnn, right on kid, OBAMA all the way!
February 15, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Absolutely outstanding interview Derrick! You were queried more doggedly than a candidate. You responded with grace under fire and savvy. Magnifique!
February 15, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Where did this kid go to school?!! Hats off to his parents for this highly educated and well-versed young man.
February 15, 2008 at 5:37 pm
This reporter’s tactics represent exactly the sentiment that a lot of people, even the mainstream media, try to portray – that Obama’s popularity among African Americans is based on some racially motivated, emotional, almost blind following. His tone was completely loaded and accusatory in nature. Fortunately this young man was able to handle himself with intelligence and poise. We need to see & hear from more young black men like Derrick whore are are aware of the world around them and invested in speaking out!
February 15, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Leanna,
Derrick Ashong - Harvard ‘97. He was a classmate and still a friend. Derrick, if you’re reading this note, I’m blowing up your spot!
Way to represent, bro. I’m very proud.
Kof
February 15, 2008 at 5:59 pm
WELL DONE
I MUST ADMIT BECAUSE OF SEN OBAMA & SEN CLINTON I AM MUCH MORE TUNED IN TO THIS RACE. DERRICK YOU FOR SURE MADE ME WANT TO READ OBAMA 101 FROM BEGINNING TO END. I HAVE BEEN LISTENING EVERYDAY TO ANY STATION WITH ANYTHING ON ABOUT THIS RACE. I AM trying to be learned about everything i can.
I believe in Sen Obama and he has my vote I will continue to listen until the fat lady has sung.
I have been telling my daughter for days now, that you have to better than “Hilary is the bomb”
Why is she the bomb ? you have to come better than that.
February 15, 2008 at 7:36 pm
An informed voter is a beautiful thing.
February 15, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I am imppressed as Derrick is very inteligent and I am sure that there are more young people just as inteligent as him who is going to get Obama’s vote. This race is very interesting and as far as I am concerned, history has been made.
Obama is giving Hillary a run for her money and I do believe that Obama will be our first Black President!!
February 15, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Thank you for breaking it down Derrick!
February 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm
This interviewer and interviewee were an obviously BOTH Obama plants.
Why would a Obama-opposer let a copy of the interviewer looking bad leak out?
If you do not see this, you are really dense.
February 15, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Derrick was on point with his responses to the questions and fashioned a great football cap! “Go IGGLES!” LOL!
February 15, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Would I be all over joyed if this man where white? Goddamn it, we have another Biden on our hands. People are impressed that a grown behind man, carrying a picket sign in support of someone, does not have a modicrum of facts behind him to support his stance. Now I’m supposed to get all happy and tap dance because an educated man spoke educated?
People are out of their minds, I swear. Though I glad he didn’t falsely represent us like some of the people reports often extend the mic to, he was not what I’ll call informed. He didn’t utilize specifics and categorically break down what it was that differentiated Obama from the rest of the pack. He didn’t talk about actual costs to you and I, the ‘uninsured’. He utilized the basic information that anyone who picks up a newspaper and just peruses the topic would have at their disposal.
People have to learn to expect more. I mean, good job Derrick. But now you, tongue in cheeck, should be a spokes person because you were just so above and beyond? Get the heck out of here.
February 15, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Mike the interviewer was incredibly rude.
February 16, 2008 at 8:18 am
Reading all of the comments concerning Derricks interview I’m reminded of the Colin Powell characterization: “He’s so articulate, he’s so well spoken”. Derrick is certainly both of those things. Yet. the truth is, not everyone is blessed with the gift of oratory skills, the ability to summon their facts, or have the poise that Derrick demonstrated during that interview. Although, like most Obama supporters, I consider myself reasonably informed about the issues and the candidates positions, I’m not sure I would have been able to respond as well as Derrick did -especially under that kind of pressure. So I for one, am certainly glad he was there when we - the less articulate, needed him to represent for us. Great job Derrick!
Equally as important, though, in his “Response to the Video” video, Derrick further articulates his emotional attachment to Obama’s campaign, and by his own admission, it’s all about hope. A Hope that our country can live up to its founding principals and a hope for what is possible if we have the courage to pursue real, fundamental change. (If you haven’t seen that video, be assured, it’s equally as inspiring.)
At a time when America is one of the mosted despised nations on the planet and it’s people are “leading lives of quiet desperation”, hope is exactly what’s called for at this time, and in this place. I believe it was Emily Dickinson that said: “Hope is a feathered entity that nests in the soul”. Let’s do what we know is best - and what is right, for ALL Americans.
Dare to hope. Dare to act. Si se puede!
February 16, 2008 at 10:46 am
I agree with the previous comment. It’s not about how well we articulate the argument, as I would argue it’s not about how articulate Obama is in his presentations of hope. Instead it is in the very act of hope as expressed in it’s multi-variate forms is what is propelling this movement. Populism is not about the candidate, it is about the people believing in themselves and they hope we all possess.
February 16, 2008 at 10:49 am
In reading the responses to Derrick’s interview, which was AWESOME by the way, I found it interesting that the people who didn’t agree with Derrick, found it necessary to write the longest responses to prove their point. People may have different views, but at the end of the day, Derrick was articulate, informed, and didn’t allow the reporter to railroad him.
AWESOME job Derrick!