REGISTER TO VOTE
Get Local
Create/Edit Your Profile
Start a Blog
Create an Event
Contact Your State Party
THE OFFICIAL COLLEGE OUTREACH ARM OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
War Room
Download Materials
On the Issues
Know the Stats
Why Politics Matters
Why We are Democrats
Know the Facts
Donkey Tracks Newsletter
Download Materials
On the Issues
Know the Stats
Why Politics Matters
Why We are Democrats
Know the Facts
Donkey Tracks Newsletter
VT4Obama
About the Author
Dear John & Sarah and the GOP,
Repeat after me...
I will never again Mock Community Organizers...
I will never again try to scare people into voting for me...
OBAMA/BIDEN 08-12!!!
Repeat after me...
I will never again Mock Community Organizers...
I will never again try to scare people into voting for me...
OBAMA/BIDEN 08-12!!!
Democrat Barack Obama defeated Republican John McCain by a count of 15 to 6 in Dixville Notch, where a loud whoop accompanied the announcement in Tuesday's first minutes.
See Full Story
See Full Story
I usually don't post this type of stuff but this is a must see for everyone, and funny too!!
Video Here
Video Here
700 billion for banks hmmm... let's think about this for a minute...
The Fed threw $630 billion into the market before the vote and the S&P 500 tanked after the vote. Paulson's plan was $700 billion, and Bernanke spent $630 billion, almost the entire amount proposed but it failed to fix the problem. Basically we were about to throw $700 billion down the toilet until a few sane people in the House voted no. If they hadn't the money would be gone forever and "you" the taxpayer would have been screwed out of 700 billion.
Call your representatives and tell them no thank you to giving your money to people who should lose their shirts, to businesses that should collapse because they were poorly run. You know the old saying don't throw good money after bad? Don't let them do it!!!
The Fed threw $630 billion into the market before the vote and the S&P 500 tanked after the vote. Paulson's plan was $700 billion, and Bernanke spent $630 billion, almost the entire amount proposed but it failed to fix the problem. Basically we were about to throw $700 billion down the toilet until a few sane people in the House voted no. If they hadn't the money would be gone forever and "you" the taxpayer would have been screwed out of 700 billion.
Call your representatives and tell them no thank you to giving your money to people who should lose their shirts, to businesses that should collapse because they were poorly run. You know the old saying don't throw good money after bad? Don't let them do it!!!
The top 3 reasons not to vote for McCain
1. "I can see Russia from my house" is not foreign policy experience. (It's also not possible to see Russia from Alaska unless you have x-ray vision. The Bering Strait is 53 miles across, which means you can't see Russia across it because of the curvature of the earth.)
2. If John McCain wins it's not clear how much longer you'll have your house and he's sure not going to let you have one of the 7 he owns.
3. They want a trillion dollars for Wall Street and the banks but they complain about a few million for welfare and other social services?
OBAMA/BIDEN 08!!!
There's been a lot of talk the past few days since John McCain moved back into a tie or took the lead within the margin of error in a few polls. I heard "WTF!" and "Oh No!" from a lot of Democrats and quite a few in the media. Listen to me when I tell you this and I'm only going to say it once...
THE NATIONAL POLLS DON'T MATTER!!!
In 2004 Democrats made the mistake of concentrating on a few areas while watching national polling like it was the holy grail instead of ignoring the polls and doing the legwork because Kerry was ahead. They made the same mistake in 2000. The Bush campaign on the other hand ignored the polls and hit the ground hard everywhere and... they beat us both times!
If you listen to the Obama campaign you hear a relaxed confident group of people who don't seem worried. You want to know way? Because they aren't worried and you shouldn't be either... Why??
THE NATIONAL POLLS DON'T MATTER!!!
Don't let the right and the media fool you with their attempts to blur what will be the reality in November. John McCain will lose but by how much depends on how hard we work between now and then. The one thing we must not do is believe the polls because they aren't even close to being accurate and never have been during the general election. This thing is ours to lose, we will not lose, not this time!!
OBAMA / BIDEN 08!!!
DEMOCRATS 08!!!
THE NATIONAL POLLS DON'T MATTER!!!
In 2004 Democrats made the mistake of concentrating on a few areas while watching national polling like it was the holy grail instead of ignoring the polls and doing the legwork because Kerry was ahead. They made the same mistake in 2000. The Bush campaign on the other hand ignored the polls and hit the ground hard everywhere and... they beat us both times!
If you listen to the Obama campaign you hear a relaxed confident group of people who don't seem worried. You want to know way? Because they aren't worried and you shouldn't be either... Why??
THE NATIONAL POLLS DON'T MATTER!!!
Don't let the right and the media fool you with their attempts to blur what will be the reality in November. John McCain will lose but by how much depends on how hard we work between now and then. The one thing we must not do is believe the polls because they aren't even close to being accurate and never have been during the general election. This thing is ours to lose, we will not lose, not this time!!
OBAMA / BIDEN 08!!!
DEMOCRATS 08!!!
Barack Obama hit the 50 percent threshold for the first time Tuesday in the Gallup daily tracking poll. The poll found that since the Democratic convention, Obama has risen 5 percentage points in the polls and now leads John McCain 50 percent to 42 percent. While an improvement from 49 percent to 50 percent is statistically insignificant, the 50 percent mark holds significance for a party seeking to win its first majority since 1976, when Jimmy Carter won with 50.1 percent.
Rasmussen reports Obama now leads McCain 51 percent to 45 percent. CBS News has Obama ahead 48 percent to 40 percent.
Rasmussen reports Obama now leads McCain 51 percent to 45 percent. CBS News has Obama ahead 48 percent to 40 percent.
Even if you know he's a fake, it's a little shocking to see Gerardo Puisseaux close-up.
The Cuban immigrant to Miami is a dead ringer for Barack Obama, from the broad smile to the close-cropped hair.
He was a construction worker in Miami until about six weeks ago, when he hooked up with online Spanish-language news channel America TeVe. Since then, he's been going where Obama goes and causing a stir in each location.
"We make something like a reality show," he said Monday evening, his thick accent proving he's not a soundalike. "We walk in the street with the people."
He draws attention everywhere he goes.
"Sometimes I get tired because everybody stopping me, a lot of questions, sometimes political questions," he says. "I am not Obama."
About a year ago, Puisseaux realized the resemblance. And while Cuban-Americans aren't the biggest faction of the Democratic party, Puisseaux responds, "A fan? Obama? I love him."
Just a little something I threw together. Enjoy!!
Guess Who???
Anyone recognize these babies?
Anyone recognize these babies?
Below is a list of states where Obama is leading McCain now and will most likely win in November. There are others where he's closing the gap but I'm only focusing on states that are pretty much "in the bag".
Montana: Obama is leading McCain 48 percent to 43 percent with 4 percent choosing "other" and 5 percent undecided in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted July 1. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. In April, McCain had led Obama here by 5 points.
New York: Obama is leading McCain by huge margins in three polls. A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted June 30 has him ahead of McCain 60 percent to 29 percent with 5 percent choosing "other" and 6 percent undecided. Obama is viewed favorably by 67 percent of voters compared to 48 percent for McCain. Thirty-nine percent believe McCain is too old to be President while 52 percent reject the idea that Obama is too inexperienced.
Connecticut: In sports, they'd call this contest a laugher based on two recent polls. Obama leads McCain by 56 percent to 35 percent in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted June 26-29. (Do you really need to know the margin of error?) Obama has a 16 point lead among independents, 13 percent among men, 18 percent among women, 13 percent among whites, and big leads in all age groups.
Florida:Three polls with somewhat different results, but both indicating a close contest. Public Policy Polling says that with the help of Democrats starting to unite behind him and support from Hispanics, Obama is in a dead heat with McCain in this key state, according to its survey June 26-29. Obama leads 46 percent to 44 percent and 10 percent undecided.
Massachusetts: Obama outdistances McCain 53 percent to 33 percent in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted June 30. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. A SurveyUSA poll conducted June 25-27 had Obama leading McCain 53 percent to 40 percent. The margin of error is 4.1 percent. Obama has roughly a 2-to-1 lead among women.
Michigan: Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 39 percent in a Public Policy Polling survey conducted June 21-22. The margin of error is 4.1 percent.
Virginia: Obama and McCain are in a statistical tie in this closely-watched state, with Obama leading 49 percent to 47 percent and 4 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 20-22. The margin of error is 4 percent.
Ohio: Obama and McCain are in a horse race with Obama out in front by a nose, 48 percent to 46 percent, with 7 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll, conducted June 20-22. The margin of error is 4.2 percent.
Colorado: This state is clearly competitive in two recent polls. A Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll conducted June 17-24 has Obama leading McCain 49 percent to 44 percent with a margin of error of 2.7 percent. Obama has a 12 point lead among independents.
Minnesota: A Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal survey conducted June 17-24 had Obama way ahead of McCain 54 percent to 37 percent with a 21 point lead among independents. The margin of error was 2.5 percent.
Wisconsin: Two polls have Obama ahead here. A Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal survey conducted June 17-24 put Obama in the lead by 52 percent to 39 percent, helped by a 13 point edge among independents. The margin of error was 2.5 percent. A SurveyUSA poll, conducted June 13-16, had Obama leading McCain 52 percent to 43 percent with 6 percent undecided, according to. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.
Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 46 percent to 42 percent in a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted June 19.
New Mexico: There are two recent polls for this state, one showing Obama and McCain in a statistical tie and the other giving Obama a bit more breathing room. Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 46 percent with 5 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 17-19. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.
Indiana: One of the close states. Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 47 percent with 3 percent undecided in a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 21-23. The margin of error is 4 points.
Oregon: Obama and McCain are in a statistical tie with Obama leading 48 percent to 45 percent with 7 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 17-19. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.
Washington State: Obama leads McCain 55 percent to 40 percent , in a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 17-19.
California: Obama has big leads over McCain in two polls. A June 23 Rasmussen Reports survey shows him leading 58 percent to 30 percent with 5 percent preferring "other" and 7 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. Obama is viewed favorably by 63 percent of Californians compared to 43 percent for McCain.
New Hampshire: Obama has widened his lead over McCain here, running ahead of him by 50 percent to 39 percent with 5 percent preferring "other" and 5 percent undecided in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted June 18.
Maine: Obama leads McCain 55 percent to 33 percent with 6 percent choosing "other" and 6 percent undecided in a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted June 16.
Iowa: A close race so far. Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 45 percent in a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 13-16.
New Jersey: Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 33 percent, according to a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted June 17-23. The margin of error is 4 percent.
This ads up to 299 Electoral votes and only 270 are needed to win in November. If Obama continues to climb in the polls as he has over the last 3 weeks we could be watching a landslide in the making.
Montana: Obama is leading McCain 48 percent to 43 percent with 4 percent choosing "other" and 5 percent undecided in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted July 1. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. In April, McCain had led Obama here by 5 points.
New York: Obama is leading McCain by huge margins in three polls. A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted June 30 has him ahead of McCain 60 percent to 29 percent with 5 percent choosing "other" and 6 percent undecided. Obama is viewed favorably by 67 percent of voters compared to 48 percent for McCain. Thirty-nine percent believe McCain is too old to be President while 52 percent reject the idea that Obama is too inexperienced.
Connecticut: In sports, they'd call this contest a laugher based on two recent polls. Obama leads McCain by 56 percent to 35 percent in a Quinnipiac University survey conducted June 26-29. (Do you really need to know the margin of error?) Obama has a 16 point lead among independents, 13 percent among men, 18 percent among women, 13 percent among whites, and big leads in all age groups.
Florida:Three polls with somewhat different results, but both indicating a close contest. Public Policy Polling says that with the help of Democrats starting to unite behind him and support from Hispanics, Obama is in a dead heat with McCain in this key state, according to its survey June 26-29. Obama leads 46 percent to 44 percent and 10 percent undecided.
Massachusetts: Obama outdistances McCain 53 percent to 33 percent in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted June 30. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. A SurveyUSA poll conducted June 25-27 had Obama leading McCain 53 percent to 40 percent. The margin of error is 4.1 percent. Obama has roughly a 2-to-1 lead among women.
Michigan: Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 39 percent in a Public Policy Polling survey conducted June 21-22. The margin of error is 4.1 percent.
Virginia: Obama and McCain are in a statistical tie in this closely-watched state, with Obama leading 49 percent to 47 percent and 4 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 20-22. The margin of error is 4 percent.
Ohio: Obama and McCain are in a horse race with Obama out in front by a nose, 48 percent to 46 percent, with 7 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll, conducted June 20-22. The margin of error is 4.2 percent.
Colorado: This state is clearly competitive in two recent polls. A Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal poll conducted June 17-24 has Obama leading McCain 49 percent to 44 percent with a margin of error of 2.7 percent. Obama has a 12 point lead among independents.
Minnesota: A Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal survey conducted June 17-24 had Obama way ahead of McCain 54 percent to 37 percent with a 21 point lead among independents. The margin of error was 2.5 percent.
Wisconsin: Two polls have Obama ahead here. A Quinnipiac University/Washington Post/Wall Street Journal survey conducted June 17-24 put Obama in the lead by 52 percent to 39 percent, helped by a 13 point edge among independents. The margin of error was 2.5 percent. A SurveyUSA poll, conducted June 13-16, had Obama leading McCain 52 percent to 43 percent with 6 percent undecided, according to. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.
Pennsylvania: Obama leads McCain 46 percent to 42 percent in a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted June 19.
New Mexico: There are two recent polls for this state, one showing Obama and McCain in a statistical tie and the other giving Obama a bit more breathing room. Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 46 percent with 5 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 17-19. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.
Indiana: One of the close states. Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 47 percent with 3 percent undecided in a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 21-23. The margin of error is 4 points.
Oregon: Obama and McCain are in a statistical tie with Obama leading 48 percent to 45 percent with 7 percent undecided, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 17-19. The margin of error is 4.3 percent.
Washington State: Obama leads McCain 55 percent to 40 percent , in a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 17-19.
California: Obama has big leads over McCain in two polls. A June 23 Rasmussen Reports survey shows him leading 58 percent to 30 percent with 5 percent preferring "other" and 7 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. Obama is viewed favorably by 63 percent of Californians compared to 43 percent for McCain.
New Hampshire: Obama has widened his lead over McCain here, running ahead of him by 50 percent to 39 percent with 5 percent preferring "other" and 5 percent undecided in a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted June 18.
Maine: Obama leads McCain 55 percent to 33 percent with 6 percent choosing "other" and 6 percent undecided in a Rasmussen Reports survey conducted June 16.
Iowa: A close race so far. Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 45 percent in a SurveyUSA poll conducted June 13-16.
New Jersey: Obama leads McCain 49 percent to 33 percent, according to a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted June 17-23. The margin of error is 4 percent.
This ads up to 299 Electoral votes and only 270 are needed to win in November. If Obama continues to climb in the polls as he has over the last 3 weeks we could be watching a landslide in the making.
Dying of cancer, Thomas Amschwand did everything he was told to make sure his wife would collect on the life insurance policy he had through his employer.
"He was obsessed with dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't'," Melissa Amschwand-Bellinger recalled about her husband, who died in 2001 at age 30.
But Spherion Corp., the temporary staffing company where Amschwand worked, told Amschwand-Bellinger she would not receive any of the $426,000 in benefits she believed she was due. When she went to court, Spherion succeeded in getting her lawsuit thrown out. The Supreme Court on June 27 refused to review the case.
Amschwand-Bellinger received a refund of the few thousand dollars in insurance premiums she and her husband dutifully had paid. The total, she said, would not cover the costs of his funeral.
The story has played out often under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Designed to protect employee benefits, the law has been used by employers as a shield against suits.
Federal appeals courts, interpreting Supreme Court decisions dating to 1993, consistently have said companies that offer health, life and retirement benefits under ERISA cannot be sued for large amounts of money, or damages. Instead, they can be sued only for typically smaller sums such as Amschwand's insurance premiums.
Several federal judges have bemoaned the unfairness even as they have felt constrained to rule in favor of employers.
"The facts ... scream out for a remedy beyond the simple return of premiums," Judge Fortunato Benavides of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in the Amschwand case. "Regrettably, under existing law it is not available."
The Bush administration has argued that the appeals courts are misreading the precedents and has asked the high court at least twice to clarify the earlier rulings. So far it has refused.
Congress, which could amend ERISA to make clear such suits are allowed, also has taken no action.
The result, in the view of ERISA experts, the administration and some lawmakers, is perverse.
"The beneficiary under the policy didn't get the promised benefit," said Colleen Medill, an expert on ERISA at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "To say we're just going to return your premiums, that's a total farce. That's not what they paid the premiums for. They paid them for the benefits."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at a recent hearing that before ERISA became law, employees clearly could sue for benefits in state courts.
The court rulings, said Leahy, D-Vt., have left people "more vulnerable than they were before the law was passed."
Spherion's decision to deny benefits to Amschwand-Bellinger turned on an odd set of facts. Spherion, which employs about 300,000 people, switched insurers after Thomas Amschwand was diagnosed with a rare form of heart cancer. The new policy did not take effect until an employee worked one full day. Spherion never informed Amschwand of the requirement.
Amschwand asked repeatedly whether there was anything else he needed to do and was told no. He asked that the new policy be sent to him. Spherion never did so.
He died without returning to work. His widow said he easily could have worked a day if that was what it took to activate the new policy. Spherion could have waived the one-day-of-work provision, as it did for other employees but not for Amschwand.
Spherion spokesman Kip Havel issued a brief statement when contacted by The Associated Press after the high court declined to review the case. "We are pleased the court has made its decision and the matter has finally been resolved," Havel said.
The court also recently turned down an appeal from Louis Gerard "Gerry" Goeres, who sued Charles M. Schwab & Co. over hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement plan benefits.
For 16 months, Schwab mistakenly refused to acknowledge Goeres as the beneficiary in the retirement plan of his domestic partner, Stephen Ward, a Schwab employee who died in 1999. By the time Schwab acknowledged its error, the value of the account had declined by more than $500,000. Goeres sued for the rest. Federal courts dismissed the suit. "Unfortunately, legal relief is not available," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in ruling against Goeres.
"You know the Schwab commercial, 'Talk to Chuck?'" Goeres said. "I thought if Chuck knew this, he'd say, 'Oh my God, this is so wrong.' I live on naive dreams."
Schwab said in court papers that Goeres could have taken legal action soon after Ward's death, when he first was told he was not the beneficiary.
Amschwand-Bellinger said the cases show the need for either the court or Congress to provide "some sort of meaningful remedy for employees when employers have a breach of fiduciary duty."
A Texas native who lives in an unincorporated Houston suburb, she has since remarried and has an 18-month-old daughter. She is president and executive director of the Amschwand Sarcoma Cancer Foundation, which she founded with her first husband.
She recognizes that she is more fortunate than many others who have fought similarly futile battles for benefits under ERISA. "What if we had had children and I was a stay at home mom?" said Amschwand-Bellinger, who previously worked for a public hospital system. "What if I was 60 years old, with no skill sets, and I had to go back to work?"
"He was obsessed with dotting every 'i' and crossing every 't'," Melissa Amschwand-Bellinger recalled about her husband, who died in 2001 at age 30.
But Spherion Corp., the temporary staffing company where Amschwand worked, told Amschwand-Bellinger she would not receive any of the $426,000 in benefits she believed she was due. When she went to court, Spherion succeeded in getting her lawsuit thrown out. The Supreme Court on June 27 refused to review the case.
Amschwand-Bellinger received a refund of the few thousand dollars in insurance premiums she and her husband dutifully had paid. The total, she said, would not cover the costs of his funeral.
The story has played out often under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Designed to protect employee benefits, the law has been used by employers as a shield against suits.
Federal appeals courts, interpreting Supreme Court decisions dating to 1993, consistently have said companies that offer health, life and retirement benefits under ERISA cannot be sued for large amounts of money, or damages. Instead, they can be sued only for typically smaller sums such as Amschwand's insurance premiums.
Several federal judges have bemoaned the unfairness even as they have felt constrained to rule in favor of employers.
"The facts ... scream out for a remedy beyond the simple return of premiums," Judge Fortunato Benavides of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in the Amschwand case. "Regrettably, under existing law it is not available."
The Bush administration has argued that the appeals courts are misreading the precedents and has asked the high court at least twice to clarify the earlier rulings. So far it has refused.
Congress, which could amend ERISA to make clear such suits are allowed, also has taken no action.
The result, in the view of ERISA experts, the administration and some lawmakers, is perverse.
"The beneficiary under the policy didn't get the promised benefit," said Colleen Medill, an expert on ERISA at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "To say we're just going to return your premiums, that's a total farce. That's not what they paid the premiums for. They paid them for the benefits."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said at a recent hearing that before ERISA became law, employees clearly could sue for benefits in state courts.
The court rulings, said Leahy, D-Vt., have left people "more vulnerable than they were before the law was passed."
Spherion's decision to deny benefits to Amschwand-Bellinger turned on an odd set of facts. Spherion, which employs about 300,000 people, switched insurers after Thomas Amschwand was diagnosed with a rare form of heart cancer. The new policy did not take effect until an employee worked one full day. Spherion never informed Amschwand of the requirement.
Amschwand asked repeatedly whether there was anything else he needed to do and was told no. He asked that the new policy be sent to him. Spherion never did so.
He died without returning to work. His widow said he easily could have worked a day if that was what it took to activate the new policy. Spherion could have waived the one-day-of-work provision, as it did for other employees but not for Amschwand.
Spherion spokesman Kip Havel issued a brief statement when contacted by The Associated Press after the high court declined to review the case. "We are pleased the court has made its decision and the matter has finally been resolved," Havel said.
The court also recently turned down an appeal from Louis Gerard "Gerry" Goeres, who sued Charles M. Schwab & Co. over hundreds of thousands of dollars in retirement plan benefits.
For 16 months, Schwab mistakenly refused to acknowledge Goeres as the beneficiary in the retirement plan of his domestic partner, Stephen Ward, a Schwab employee who died in 1999. By the time Schwab acknowledged its error, the value of the account had declined by more than $500,000. Goeres sued for the rest. Federal courts dismissed the suit. "Unfortunately, legal relief is not available," U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in ruling against Goeres.
"You know the Schwab commercial, 'Talk to Chuck?'" Goeres said. "I thought if Chuck knew this, he'd say, 'Oh my God, this is so wrong.' I live on naive dreams."
Schwab said in court papers that Goeres could have taken legal action soon after Ward's death, when he first was told he was not the beneficiary.
Amschwand-Bellinger said the cases show the need for either the court or Congress to provide "some sort of meaningful remedy for employees when employers have a breach of fiduciary duty."
A Texas native who lives in an unincorporated Houston suburb, she has since remarried and has an 18-month-old daughter. She is president and executive director of the Amschwand Sarcoma Cancer Foundation, which she founded with her first husband.
She recognizes that she is more fortunate than many others who have fought similarly futile battles for benefits under ERISA. "What if we had had children and I was a stay at home mom?" said Amschwand-Bellinger, who previously worked for a public hospital system. "What if I was 60 years old, with no skill sets, and I had to go back to work?"
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter
Heading to the polls on Nov. 4? If so, your genes may be driving you there, a new study suggests.
In fact, as much as 50 percent of whether you vote or not may be genetically determined, says a team at the University of California, San Diego. Genes may even be more important to your tendency to cast a ballot than family political history.
"Both nature and nurture play a role in voting," said lead author James H. Fowler, an associate professor of political science. "We expected genes would play a little bit of a role, but we were surprised how strong [a] role they played."
Previously, experts primarily focused on the environmental factors that pushed people to vote. "For a long time, they thought that parents and children have pretty much the same behavior when it comes to voting," Fowler said. "If they voted, it's likely you will go to the polls as well."
But, rather than transmitting ideas, "parents are transmitting genes," Fowler now believes.
He co-authored a report on the issue, published in July's The Journal of Politics.
In the study, Fowler and Ph.D. candidate Christopher T. Dawes drew on voter-turnout data in Los Angeles. They matched that data to a registry of identical and non-identical twins.
According to that analysis, 53 percent of the variation in voter turnout is due to differences in genes.
In fact, family upbringing appears to have little effect on how regularly offspring participate in elections. "The other half of the voting behavior was mostly attributable to the unshared environment between the two twins," Fowler said.
To try to replicate the findings more broadly across the country, Fowler and Dawes looked at nationwide voting patterns using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1994 to 2002.
Using the genetic data in this study, Fowler and Dawes found that 72 percent of differences in voter turnout among identical twins can be accounted for by genes.
Genes also play a significant role in political participation, including giving money to a campaign, contacting a government official, running for office and attending political rallies, the two researchers found.
Fowler and Dawes also looked for specific genes involved in the decision to vote. They found that two genes that influence the brain's serotonin system, called MAOA and 5HTT, were also associated with a person's inclination to cast a ballot. The serotonin system helps regulates trust and social interaction, the experts noted.
In fact, they found that people with more efficient versions of those genes were about 10 percent more likely to vote.
"It's not just the gene that makes you vote, but it has an impact on how susceptible you are to different kinds of environments," Fowler said. "Depending upon what kind of environment you are in, it is going to activate those tendencies you might have to cause you to participate in politics or not."
To thoroughly understand politics, one has to include genetics, Fowler now believes.
"To study politics without genes is to miss half the story," he said. "To really get an understanding of what people are doing and why they are doing it, we need to integrate both nature and nurture into the study of politics," he said.
According to John T. Jost, a professor of psychology at New York University in New York City, this article is another in a growing list of studies suggesting that political orientation is partly heritable.
"In some ways, this conclusion is not so surprising, given that we have known for over 50 years that there are basic cognitive, motivational, and behavioral differences between leftists and rightists," Jost said.
"Unless one believes that basic psychological characteristics have no genetic antecedents whatsoever, one would have anticipated these results on the basis of the psychological literature," Jost said. "Still, it's quite important that these researchers appear to have identified specific gene combinations that are linked to political orientation," he said.
HealthDay Reporter
Heading to the polls on Nov. 4? If so, your genes may be driving you there, a new study suggests.
In fact, as much as 50 percent of whether you vote or not may be genetically determined, says a team at the University of California, San Diego. Genes may even be more important to your tendency to cast a ballot than family political history.
"Both nature and nurture play a role in voting," said lead author James H. Fowler, an associate professor of political science. "We expected genes would play a little bit of a role, but we were surprised how strong [a] role they played."
Previously, experts primarily focused on the environmental factors that pushed people to vote. "For a long time, they thought that parents and children have pretty much the same behavior when it comes to voting," Fowler said. "If they voted, it's likely you will go to the polls as well."
But, rather than transmitting ideas, "parents are transmitting genes," Fowler now believes.
He co-authored a report on the issue, published in July's The Journal of Politics.
In the study, Fowler and Ph.D. candidate Christopher T. Dawes drew on voter-turnout data in Los Angeles. They matched that data to a registry of identical and non-identical twins.
According to that analysis, 53 percent of the variation in voter turnout is due to differences in genes.
In fact, family upbringing appears to have little effect on how regularly offspring participate in elections. "The other half of the voting behavior was mostly attributable to the unshared environment between the two twins," Fowler said.
To try to replicate the findings more broadly across the country, Fowler and Dawes looked at nationwide voting patterns using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which ran from 1994 to 2002.
Using the genetic data in this study, Fowler and Dawes found that 72 percent of differences in voter turnout among identical twins can be accounted for by genes.
Genes also play a significant role in political participation, including giving money to a campaign, contacting a government official, running for office and attending political rallies, the two researchers found.
Fowler and Dawes also looked for specific genes involved in the decision to vote. They found that two genes that influence the brain's serotonin system, called MAOA and 5HTT, were also associated with a person's inclination to cast a ballot. The serotonin system helps regulates trust and social interaction, the experts noted.
In fact, they found that people with more efficient versions of those genes were about 10 percent more likely to vote.
"It's not just the gene that makes you vote, but it has an impact on how susceptible you are to different kinds of environments," Fowler said. "Depending upon what kind of environment you are in, it is going to activate those tendencies you might have to cause you to participate in politics or not."
To thoroughly understand politics, one has to include genetics, Fowler now believes.
"To study politics without genes is to miss half the story," he said. "To really get an understanding of what people are doing and why they are doing it, we need to integrate both nature and nurture into the study of politics," he said.
According to John T. Jost, a professor of psychology at New York University in New York City, this article is another in a growing list of studies suggesting that political orientation is partly heritable.
"In some ways, this conclusion is not so surprising, given that we have known for over 50 years that there are basic cognitive, motivational, and behavioral differences between leftists and rightists," Jost said.
"Unless one believes that basic psychological characteristics have no genetic antecedents whatsoever, one would have anticipated these results on the basis of the psychological literature," Jost said. "Still, it's quite important that these researchers appear to have identified specific gene combinations that are linked to political orientation," he said.
Yes it's true. Congress is actually considering banning the sale of menthol cigarettes. If you don't smoke you are probably thinking "so what?", Well to that I say what's next... beer, candy, yellow cars, blue gum?
If you do smoke you should be concerned because they are trying to tell you what brands you can legally buy.
If you want to chime in on either side write your representatives here: http://www.house.gov
And we wonder why they can't get anything done in Washington!
As the right seeks to portray Michelle Obama as unpatriotic, Dan Abrams says John McCain said much the same thing Obama has been criticized for: He didn't love American until he was "deprived of her company." Dan talks to conservative radio host Lars Larson, The Nation's Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Newsweek's Jonathan Alter and Republican strategist Brad Blakeman.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25274602#25274602
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Clarke
Clay
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Slaughter
Solis
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Ackerman
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cardoza
Carney
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis, Lincoln
Dicks
Donnelly
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lipinski
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Ortiz
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Yarmuth
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cardoza
Carney
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis, Lincoln
Dicks
Donnelly
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Kanjorski
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Langevin
Lipinski
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Ortiz
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (MS)
Udall (CO)
Yarmuth
CHICAGO, IL – Senator Obama today announced the formation of his Senior Working Group on National Security, a group of advisors that he will consult on a regular basis between now and the election. Obama will meet with the group for the first time today in Washington, DC for a wide-ranging discussion of the immense challenges faced by the United States in the wake of the disastrous foreign policies of George Bush.
"Each individual here today has provided extraordinary service to our nation in the executive branch and Congress. Several have been advising my campaign for some time. We're also honored to be joined by some of Senator Clinton's senior advisors. In the months to come, we'll be reaching out to others, as well as leaders in Congress," Senator Obama said. "The stakes in this election could not be higher. John McCain wants to continue George Bush's foreign policy which has made us less safe, less respected, and less able to lead the world. It's time to change course. It's time to end the war in Iraq responsibly, refocus on Afghanistan and al Qaeda, and renew our global leadership so that we can tackle the huge challenges of the 21st century."
Later today, he will also meet with a group of nearly 40 retired Admirals and Generals to discuss the state of our armed forces, and the challenges facing our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. This meeting is part of an ongoing dialogue between Senator Obama and current and former military officers of various ranks and views.
Senator Obama's Senior Working Group on National Security includes:
•Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
•Senator David Boren, former Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
•Secretary of State Warren Christopher
•Greg Craig, former director of the State Department Office of Policy Planning
•Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig
•Representative Lee Hamilton, former Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
•Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder
•Dr. Tony Lake, former National Security Advisor
•Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
•Secretary of Defense William Perry
•Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State
•Representative Tim Roemer, 9/11 Commissioner
•Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor
The latest video to come to fruition on YouTube shows John McCain contradicting himself on his support of President Bush. McCain makes the mistake of standing in front of a green screen, and ends up pointing out his own flip-flopping on his similarity to President Bush on policy views. Watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnb2IrsU1Cg
From CNN Political Producer Alexander Marquardt
Obama is leading McCain in swing states in a new poll.
(CNN) – Barack Obama leading John McCain in the crucial swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, according to a new survey.
Obama lost the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania by 9 points — but a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday shows him leading McCain by 12 points, 52-40. In Ohio — a state Obama lost to Hillary Clinton by 10 points in March — he’s leading McCain 48-42. And in Florida, where he did not campaign this primary season and lost an unsanctioned Democratic contest, he leads McCain 47-43.
Posts By Month
Posts
