Don't Worry - Change Is Coming

Although he hasn't officially announced most of his staff and cabinet, We're starting to get a pretty good idea of what the Obama administration will look like. It will be peopled with experienced and very competent people, and that has some pundits asking "Where's the change?". As of this moment, it looks like the following people will be chosen:

Secretary of State -- Hillary Clinton

Chief of Staff -- Rahm Emmanuel

Secretary of Health & Human Services -- Tom Daschle

Secretary of Commerce -- Bill Richardson

Secretary of Treasury -- Timothy Geithner

Secretary of Homeland Security -- Janet Napolitano

Attorney General -- Eric Holder

Frankly, that sounds like an all-star team to me. But it has some saying this doesn't really represent change. Except for Napolitano (and possibly Geithner), these are all people very familiar with Washington. Many even worked in and with the administration of President Bill Clinton.

Actually, that's a good thing. One mistake made by both the Carter and Clinton administrations was to bring in too many people who didn't understand how Washington worked. By the time they figured it out, much time and many opportunities had been lost. Obama is not repeating that mistake. His people will be able to hit the ground running on the first day.

So where is the change? The change is pictured above. The change is Barack Obama. If you watched Obama at all during the last couple of years, then you know he is a smart and capable leader who runs his own show. The people he picks will not be striking out on their own. They will be implementing Obama's policies and wishes, and they are experienced enough to get the job done.

Don't worry, the change is coming. President Obama will see to that.

Democrats Are Coming Together

It looks like the process of the Democratic Party coming together behind presumptive nominee Barack Obama is progressing nicely. Bill Richardson climbed on board the Obama campaign early. Then Edwards and Gore made it known they will support and work for Obama.

Finally, last week, Hillary Clinton appeared with Obama in New Hampshire. She made it clear that she's a loyal Democrat, and will do whatever is necessary to put a Democrat in the White House in the coming election.

But even after all this, many in the mainstream media tried to make a big deal out of the fact that Bill Clinton was staying out of the limelight and letting Hillary and Barack heal the party. They tried to make it look like there was a rift between Obama and Bill Clinton that couldn't be healed.

That was nonsense, and yesterday those stories were put to rest. Obama and Clinton talked on the telephone, and from their later statements it sounds like any differences have been settled.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "He has always believed that Bill Clinton is one of this nation's great leaders and most brilliant minds and looks forward to seeing him on the campaign trail and receiving his counsel."

Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna countered, "President Clinton continues to be impressed by Senator Obama and the campaign he has run, and looks forward to campaigning for and with him in the months to come."

Republicans might have hoped that Democrats would be left with a rift in the party after the extended nominating campaign, but that was just wishful thinking on their part. All real Democrats know the importance of putting a Democrat in the White House in the coming election, and they are coming together to do that.

I feel better about the coming election with each passing day.

Richardson Declares His Support Of Obama

As most readers of this blog know, I supported Bill Richardson when this campaign began. I continued to support him until he dropped out of the race. I did this because I like him as a person, and I was convinced he was the most qualified person in the race.

When Richardson left the race for president, I transferred my support to John Edwards (who I respect greatly). After Edwards dropped out, I wound up in the Obama camp. Although I took the long way to get there, I am very happy to be an Obama supporter.

I now believe that Obama is our best chance to change America for the better, and create a brighter future for all Americans. Obama's brilliant speech a few days ago just convinced me that I had made the right choice.

So it made me very happy and proud this morning, when I learned that Bill Richardson has now endorsed Barack Obama in his quest to become the Democratic nominee for president. This morning, I received a letter from Richardson telling me of his decision and the reasons for it. This is what he wrote:

Dear Ted,

During the last year, I have shared with you my vision and hopes for this nation as we look to repair the damage of the last seven years. And you have shared your support, your ideas and your encouragement to my campaign. We have been through a lot together and that is why I wanted to tell you that, after careful and thoughtful deliberation, I have made a decision to endorse Barack Obama for President.

We are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President. My affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall. The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

Earlier this week, Senator Barack Obama gave an historic speech. that addressed the issue of race with the eloquence, sincerity, and optimism we have come to expect of him. He inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. He asked us to rise above our racially divided past, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences--and place blame on others not like them . We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand. And, after nearly eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need such a leader.

To reverse the disastrous policies of the last seven years, rebuild our economy, address the housing and mortgage crisis, bring our troops home from Iraq and restore America's international standing, we need a President who can bring us together as a nation so we can confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad.

During the past year, I got to know Senator Obama as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, and I felt a kinship with him because we both grew up between words, in a sense, living both abroad and here in America. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

So, once again, thank you for all you have done for me and my campaign. I wanted to make sure you understood my reasons for my endorsement of Senator Obama. I know that you, no matter what your choice, will do so with the best interests of this nation, in your heart.

Sincerely,
Bill Richardson

Thoughts About The Iowa Caucuses

Iowa didn't contain any real surprises on caucus night, but it did have some interesting results. My candidate, Bill Richardson, didn't do too well. The polls had him at about 12% and that seems to have been pretty accurate. In many precincts he came up just short of the 15% necessary to get a delegate.

So what did his delegates do? Most of them went to Obama, who turned out to be the night's big winner. I have to admit that Obama did better than I expected. Maybe America really is ready to elect a black president. That's something I've hoped for, but never expected to see in my lifetime. Obama's victory coming in a very white state (with only a 2.5% black population) gives me hope for America's future.

Edwards can also be considered a winner last night. Without spending anywhere near the money his major opponents spent, he finished second with 30% and edged out a victory over Clinton.

Clinton has to be considered the big loser of the night. She was in first place there a month ago. She spent heavily and campaigned hard in Iowa, only to finish in third place. After this result, Clinton really needs to do well in New Hampshire.

But the biggest winner of all last night was the Democratic Party. Iowa is generally considered to be a "red" state -- after all, it voted for Bush in 2004. But last night, they doubled the turnout in the Republican caucuses, and also doubled their own turnout of four years ago. It seems that Independents and new voters turned out for the Democrats in large numbers. If this holds true in other states, it could bode very well for a huge Democratic victory in November.

Having said all that, I realize that this was just one rather small state making their statement. There is a long way to go, and anything can happen. But it was an interesting start to the primary season.

Richardson Speaks Out On SCHIPS

Bill Richardson is joining with governors from several other states to take President Bush to court over the SCHIPS program. He is asking for the support of ordinary Americans like you and me. Please e-mail or call your congressman. Here is what Richardson has to say:

Last Tuesday, I joined 28 other Governors, from both parties, in signing a letter to President George W. Bush, urging him to sign the bill extending the popular children's health care program known as SCHIP.

SCHIP funds basic health care for over 6 million of America's children in all 50 states -- mostly children from poor families with little or no access to other health services.

Checkups for poor children sounds like a no-brainer, doesn't it? It's a proven fact that children with early access to immunizations and regular checkups do better throughout their lives. And in fact, 72% of Americans in a recent poll said they supported SCHIP.

But last week, President Bush got our letter ... and he threw it in the trash.

He vetoed the SCHIP reauthorization bill the very next day, and he tried to use his veto to make a political point. Congressional supporters are now trying to line up the votes for an override next Thursday.

This wasn't a surprise. The President has been openly hostile to children's health care. New SCHIP regulations that his Administration issued in August violate the intent of Congress, interfering with the states' existing SCHIP programs and limiting their expansion.

And now we're joining forces with New York, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Washington, Arizona, and New Hampshire -- and we're taking President Bush to court.

Here's what our President -- tone-deaf on health care, as on so many other issues -- had to say about health care back in July:

I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.

Is he kidding? When was the last time that George W. Bush -- son of a President, grandson of a Senator -- tried to get basic health care in an emergency room?

Has he ever set foot in the kind of overtaxed, underfunded hospital that serves low-income neighborhoods in America's cities? Has he ever waited all day to see the traveling doctor who visits a rural community one afternoon a week? Sat in a crowded hospital triage room for four hours? Waited six weeks for an appointment at a public clinic?

Has George W. Bush ever been turned away for medical services -- for anything -- because he couldn't afford to pay?

It's easy for President Bush to play politics. But the lives of real children are at stake. Here in New Mexico, where I am Governor, the SCHIP-funded New Mexikids program brings immunizations, regular checkups, and other health services to 19,000 low-income children. We're poised to expand the program to cover 11,000 more.

Basic health services, like immunizations and regular checkups, are one of the most cost-effective ways of giving children a leg up in life. But our short-sighted President would rather turn his back on America's children.

We must not let this happen. Please join me today, help us win our lawsuit, and protect this critically important program from political interference.

Sincerely,
Governor Bill Richardson

P.S. You can email your Congressmember about SCHIP by clicking here. Help make sure that he or she knows how you feel!

Texas 3rd In Donations For 2008 Presidential Race

Even without a home-grown candidate in the race, Texas is proving to be a contribution-rich place for donations to those in the race for the 2008 presidential nomination for both parties. So far, Texas is the third largest contributor.

In the recent past, Texas donations have leaned heavily in favor of Republican candidates, but that is not true this year. Republicans have raised about $4.1 million, but Democrats have nearly equaled that by raising $3.9 million.

This is how the top five states break down according to the Center for Responsive Politics:

California.............$19,794,009

New York.............$18,205,240

Texas....................$8,076,240

Florida.................$6,625,101

Illinois.................$5,860,058

There are four Democratic candidates that are doing much better than the rest of the field here in Texas according to the CRP. This is how Texas donations look for Democratic candidates:

John Edwards..........$1,495,075

Hilary Clinton..........$1,233,254

Barack Obama..........$695,289

Bill Richardson........$396,946

Christopher Dodd....$53,525

Joseph Biden............$35,647

Dennis Kucinich.......$2,480

Mike Gravel..............$135

As you may know, I am a Bill Richardson supporter. While I am gratified that he is in the top four and getting some good money from Texas, the West Texas numbers look especially good for Richardson. In the areas of Texas that know him best, Richardson is leading all candidates in donations.

This makes me think that Bill Richardson has a really good chance of making up a lot of ground when the debates start, and he is able to get his message out to a wider audience. Here are the combined totals from the West Texas cities of Abilene, Amarillo, El Paso, Fort Worth/Arlington, Lubbock and Midland/Odessa:

Bill Richardson........$127,996

John Edwards..........$50,880

Hilary Clinton..........$18,775

Barack Obama..........$10,514

Dennis Kucinich......$205

Clinton and Obama Still Don't Get It

It looks like Hilary Clinton still wants to sit on the fence when it comes to withdrawing our troops from Iraq. A lot of progressives want her to admit she made a mistake by voting for the Iraq war. I personally don't care about that. A lot of Democrats at the time were either duped by Bush's lies, or were too gutless to stand up against a stupid and unneccessary war.

But that is all water under the bridge now. What bothers me about Clinton are her current views on Iraq. She still doesn't seem to know which side of the fence she wants to be on.

On one hand, she says we need to withdraw our troops from Iraq. Then she turns around and says she would leave some U.S. troops in Iraq PAST the year 2009. She doesn't seem to understand that taking the middle road on this war will not get votes from both sides - it will lose votes from both sides.

Pulling most troops out and then leaving a smaller force still in Iraq is a sure prescription for disaster. We are barely holding our own with the number of troops that are there now. A smaller force would not even be able to defend itself, let alone fight terrorists as she is suggesting.

There are only two options that have any kind of political viability - send more troops or pull them all out. Her plan smacks of Bushism - that is, trying to do too big a job with too few troops.

Sadly, the other Democratic frontrunner, Barack Obama, agrees with Clinton. He has also come up with a plan to withdraw most troops, but leave a small force there. These two just don't get it. This is not the time to continue Bush's failed policies in Iraq.

Fortunately, there are a couple of candidates who do understand the situation, and are not afraid to say we should get out of Iraq and not prolong the disaster. They are Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich. I am on the Richardson bandwagon, but I must give Kucinich his due - he was one of the few who opposed the war from the very beginning.

If you are an anti-war Democrat, perhaps it is time to give up on Clinton and Obama and find a candidate who agrees with you.

Richardson Talking Some Sense About Iran

The Bush administration seems in a headlong rush to get us into a third war before we have even extricated outselves from the current two failures they have provided. They have moved another carrier group into striking range of Iran, and almost daily they hurl threats at Iran. Threatening another country is what Bush calls "diplomacy".

No one wants Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. There is no doubt that would make our world a much more dangerous place. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely one of them will actually use them. But what can we do? Surely Bush is not right in his belief that the only two options are threats or military action.

Take note of these words from a saner politician:

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so. The Iranians will not end their nuclear program because we threaten them and call them names. They will renounce nukes because we convince them that they will be safer and more prosperous if they do that than if they don't. This feat will take more than threats and insults. It will take skillful American diplomatic leadership.

These are the words of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, and he is right. We cannot afford to go to war with Iran at this time, and threatening them will only increase their determination to stay on their current path. What we need is real diplomacy, where nations sit down with each other, treat each other with respect, and find common ground on which to solve mutual problems.

While Bush rushes headlong into another war, and Clinton and Obama seem interested only in giving each other a black eye, there is a candidate with real solutions to our problems - Bill Richardson.

And this is not just talk. Richardson has the diplomatic experience and skills to actually get things done. He has proven time and again in the past that even those we consider "outlaw" nations will respond to reason if they are treated respectfully by people that they trust. Bill knows how to establish that trust and create that respect. He understands what real diplomacy is and knows how to use it properly.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a president who understood that there are many kinds of power other than military power? Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a president who knew how to create good will among nations rather than turning the world against us? Bill Richardson would be that kind of president.

I implore you to ignore the flash and dazzle of shallow candidacies, and opt instead for competence. That is what Bill Richardson offers and that is what America so desperately needs.