On Liberal Tirades Against Obama to Prop Up Edwards

Dennis Kucinich gave his Iowa supporters his preference for their second choice if he doesn't reach 15% of the caucus-goers. He chose Barack Obama, the candidate who doesn't have to apologize for supporting the Bush/Cheney assault on Iraq for oil.

"Progressives" like to forget that Edwards didn't just vote for the Iraq War; he co-sponsored it.

Environmentalists like to forget Edwards had a 32% rating from the League of Conservation Voters - Obama has 100%.

Living Wage supporters like to ignore that Obama is committed to raising the minimum wage with the cost of living, not leaving it out as a political football while workers’ literally go hungry if they don’t over-produce for investors in two jobs instead of only one.

Open Government supporters, Net Neutrality supporters and Corporate Media Monopoly opposers like to forget Obama's plan for technology opens the airwaves to communities, ends paid campaign ads thereby eliminating millions in campaign costs, and guarantees equal time to all candidates. It also makes all donations to all government officials and all earmarks traceable, online, for everyone to see. It also ensures net neutrality, but also will wire the most poor and rural areas cheaply or for free, to connect everyone.

Oh, and let's just all pretend we didn't notice when Obama promised to never sign a non-emergency bill without presenting it to viewers first, online and on C-SPAN (which streams live online so it’s not a gift to cable companies) with days to actually comment on the bill - and he's already set up to read and incorporate suggestions on his website, and he's done it.

I supported Dennis as 1st choice in 2004 for his anti-Iraq War stand, so did Alice Walker, I recall. I've supported Obama from the start this time, so has Alice Walker. So should any true Progressive Voter, from any party or Independent/Unaffiliated.

It's time to stop dividing because some of us have such a self-righteous but rather faulty view of America as a pack of racists who can't possibly recognize a great candidate because he's black. We’re better than that. Let's not even pretend we're still in the 80s or even 90s.

Progressives like to forget that Edwards, like Gore, Clinton I and want-to-be Clinton II, as well as Biden, Richardson, and Dodd, and Lieberman of Connecticut, were all DLC members, some very active, some former Chairs; none have renounced the most anti-progressive group among Democrats.

Progressives like to forget Obama's work for the poor, the unemployed, seniors, the working poor, the uninsured, the veterans, the single parents, the innocent on Illinois' Death Row, the thousands who, when not if they are race-profiled, will have it fully documented - by police themselves. They like to forget Obama is a constitutional law lecturer who registered 150,000 new, poor voters and defended their right to vote and be counted.

It's time we stop complaining and use some sense. Obama can and will win. Just use your head and your feet. America's ready to judge the man's record, character, advisers and supporters and say Yes! Are you?

Read more!

Obama to appoint Chief Technology Officer

In the writer's own description of the plan: "Here’s what I concluded. First, the plan represent[s] the most comprehensive set of policies for open government I’ve seen." If that's not enough, it includes expanding broadband access, increasing access to the public airwaves, training Americans for tech jobs, and easily enforced network neutrality.

Second, Obama makes new stances on several other areas of technology of interest to Silicon Valley’s tech community. He calls more aggressive government support of broadband access. Specifically, he calls for subsidies for phone carriers to be given to only those carriers offering both regular phone service and Internet broadband to rural areas. To date, carriers offering merely phone service have been able to claim subsidies from the so-called Universal Service Fund, giving them little incentive to roll out out broadband. This is also new, in that he hasn’t proposed this before.

Obama’s plan also calls for reviewing the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to open the wireless spectrum for competition. Specifically, Obama feels the FCC may not have gone far enough with its recent ruling. He wants to conduct a multi-year review, but is strongly considering support to open up valuable spectrum on the 700 MHz band so that third parties can lease it on a wholesale basis. This is to ensure that the winners of a pending auction for the spectrum — expected to be large phone carriers like Verizon — don’t just sit on the spectrum and not use it. They may do that to avoid other entrants from competing with them. He’s also leaning toward support for the for service providers to interconnect a licensee’s wireless network. Google is expected to bid on the wireless spectrum.

Obama also is supporting network neutrality, a policy that would ensure Google wouldn’t be forced to pay an Internet service provider extra to ensure the speedy transfer of its data over the Internet. Stanford legal expert, Larry Lessig, called me up this afternoon (apparently under recommendation from the campaign) saying Obama has the most nicely balanced policy among the democrats. Obama’s plan, he says, imposes minimal regulatory burden. So: Unlike John Edwards who, proposes to “enforce net neutrality ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to websites,” Obama would not ban differential service. He would simply require that the terms offered one website or company are no better or worse than those offered anyone else. This is a kind of “most favored nations” network neutrality, much simpler to enforce than one that looks to technical factors to determine whether the regulation is obeyed. Venture people should be very interested in this, Lessig says, because “if network neutrality regulation is going to be passed (as it will if a Dem is president) this imposes a very minimal (and relatively easy to monitor) burden on network owner.”

Obama’s plan calls for a review of the H1-B visa program. First, the plan calls for ways increased training of Americans so that they can fill the technology jobs requiring a Bachelor’s degree — thus minimizing the demand by companies for immigrants to fill those jobs.

At the same time, Obama’ plan seeks to address another shortcoming of the H1-B program, which is that immigrants with short-term visas find it difficult to stay because of country-specific caps on permanent visas. A large number of short-term visa new arrivals are from China and India, but the country-specific cap on permanent visas means many Chinese and Indians are held in limbo for years. All the while, they’re unable to move freely between jobs — leaving them vulnerable to exploration by employers.

On privacy, Obama will call for the creation of what he calls “Public Media 2.0.” While vague on details, campaign managers said Obama hopes to bring Tivo-like technologies so parents can ensure safe TV viewing. Obama also wants to raise sanctions against companies offering indecent – violent or sexually explicit – content.

Also tomorrow, several well-known local players are expected to announce their support for Obama’s plan, including two former FCC Chairmen under President Clinton, Lessig and John Roos, chief executive of Silicon Valley’s respected law firm, Wilson Sonsini. In fact, Roos also called me earlier today. Roos said Obama’s proposal a few days ago for a clean technology venture capital fund, to be backed by a whopping $50 billion in federal funding for five years, is particularly encouraging.

Finally, Lessig pointed out another issue no one is talking about — though related to the issue of open government I talked about above. All sorts of amazing innovations like Maplight.org and Sunlight.org are building new tools to monitor government — to track influence, identify corruption, etc. They’ve all been hampered by the fact that government data (by design or accident) is impossibly difficult to get access to. Obama wans to make the raw data available: “So think about all the value that gets added to the free weather data given away by the government. This is the same idea in the context of data to make government more transparent, and less corrupt.” Read more!