Obama's vision on ending AIDS in Black America

Sen. Barack Obama last week became the second presidential contender to show bold leadership by calling for a national AIDS plan to guide America's response to the domestic epidemic. Obama released his AIDS platform on his Web site on Oct. 16 and listed as the top priority the development of a national strategy to target resources, a call that echoes John Edwards' platform, released last month.

The Black AIDS Institute urges every candidate in both parties to join Obama and Edwards in both publishing an AIDS platform and committing to the development of a national AIDS plan if elected president.

The United States wisely insists that any country seeking foreign assistance for its AIDS effort first develop an overall plan for directing those resources. More than 26 years into the epidemic, however, the U.S. still does not have its own blueprint for ending AIDS domestically-an epidemic that is larger today than ever, with nearly 1.2 million Americans living with HIV/AIDS, according to federal health monitors.

"In the first year of his presidency, [Obama] will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies," Obama's platform vows. "The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care, and reduce HIV-related health disparities. His strategy will include measurable goals, timelines, and accountability mechanisms."

We couldn't have said it better. As Obama's platform emphasizes, America's AIDS epidemic is uniquely Black. Nearly half of all people living with HIV/AIDS in America and over half of those newly infected every year are African American, though we represent just 13 percent of the U.S. population.

And despite an annual AIDS budget of more than $2 billion, America continues to log an estimated 40,000 new infections a year. Thousands of people -- disproportionately African Americans -- continue to die from AIDS every year. Local safety net programs all over the country have collapsed, forced to turn away poor people in search of treatment and care -- at least four people died in South Carolina in 2006 while awaiting access to the publicly-financed AIDS drug insurance program.

Meanwhile, racial disparities continue to widen in every corner of the epidemic. Whether you measure infections by gay men, heterosexual women, youth or any other population, African Americans are vastly overrepresented. Clearly, our resources need to better planned and targeted.

As a result of all of this, a coalition of traditional African American institutions, ranging from civil rights groups like the NAACP to faith leaders like Bishop T.D. Jakes, have banded together to develop our own community-wide plan of action. Each organization is now crafting a strategic plan for folding the fight against AIDS into its broader work. In the end, Black America realizes it can't afford to wait for others to save us; we're finally working on saving ourselves.

But we're also demanding that government support that effort. The first step in doing so is having the same sort of strategic plan that our community is developing for itself. We can't say it enought: If you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

Obama and Edwards have gone on record acknowledging that reality and vowing to do something about it. It's long past time that every candidate in every party do the same.

Learn More at BlackAIDS.org

Jindal Wins Louisiana Governor's Race

U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal won the Louisiana governor's race Saturday, becoming the nation's youngest governor and the first non-white to hold the state's post since Reconstruction.

Jindal, the Republican 36-year-old son of Indian immigrants, carried more than half the vote against 11 opponents. With about 92 percent of the vote in, Jindal had 53 percent with 625,036 votes — more than enough to win outright and avoid a Nov. 17 runoff.

"Let's give our homeland, the great state of Louisiana, a fresh start," Jindal said to cheers and applause from a crowd that began chanting his name at his victory party.

His nearest competitors: Democrat Walter Boasso with 208,690 votes or 18 percent; Independent John Georges had 1167,477 votes or 14 percent; Democrat Foster Campbell had 151,101 or 13 percent. Eight candidates divided the rest.

"I'm asking all of our supporters to get behind our new governor," Georges said in a concession speech.

The Oxford-educated Jindal had lost the governor's race four years ago to Gov. Kathleen Blanco. He won a congressional seat in conservative suburban New Orleans a year later but was widely believed to have his eye on the governor's mansion.

Blanco opted not to run for re-election after she was widely blamed for the state's slow response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

"My administration has begun readying for this change and we look forward to helping with a smooth transition," she said in a prepared statement. "I want to thank the people of Louisiana for the past four years, though there is still much work to do in my last few months as your governor."

When he takes office in January, Jindal will become the nation's youngest governor in office. He pledged to fight corruption and rid the state of those "feeding at the public trough," revisiting a campaign theme.

"They can either go quietly or they can go loudly, but either way, they will go," he said, adding that he would call the Legislature into special session to address ethics reform.

Political analysts said Jindal built up support as a sort of "buyer's remorse" from people who voted for Blanco last time and had second thoughts about that decision. Blanco was widely criticized for the state's response to Hurricane Katrina and she announced months ago that she would not seek re-election.

"I think the Jindal camp, almost explicitly, (wanted) to cast it this way: If you were able to revote, who would you vote for?" said Pearson Cross, a University of Louisiana at Lafayette political scientist.

Jindal has held a strong lead in the polls since the field of candidates became settled nearly two months ago.

But the two multimillionaires in the race — Boasso, a state senator from St. Bernard Parish, and Georges, a New Orleans-area businessman — poured millions of their own dollars into their campaigns to try to prevent Jindal's victory.

Campbell, a public service commissioner from Bossier Parish, had less money but ran on a singular plan: scrapping the state income tax on businesses and individuals and levying a new tax on oil and gas processed in Louisiana.

The race was one of the highest-spending in Louisiana history. Jindal alone raised $11 million, and Georges poured about $10 million of his personal wealth into his campaign war chest while Boasso plugged in nearly $5 million of his own cash.

A victory Saturday would be a rare trip to statewide office for a minority in the South — in a state that 16 years ago famously saw a former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, in a runoff for governor. Duke lost that race.

The victory marks a rare trip to statewide office for a minority in the South — in a state that 16 years ago famously saw a former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, in a runoff for governor. Duke lost that race.

Some black political leaders complained Saturday of problems at polls in New Orleans, where many people have moved around since Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005.

State Elections Commissioner Angie LaPlace said she had expected many complaints because a check of voters' addresses found that a "ton" had moved, and those whose mail is forwarded must vote in the precinct where they now get mail.

Kilpatrick law bill: $575,000

It is all coming together now on why Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick told reporters that Detroiters needs to get off their porches and get jobs. However the Mayor said that the reason for his rheotric was because there are so many jobs out there that the citizens of Detroit don't qualify for because they don't seek them or they can't pass the drug test. While the Mayor's words seem to be real and true, I questioned why he would speak those words now and not before. Well the real reason for the Mayor's Kilpatrick words in my opinion has to be because the Mayor has run up a huge legal bill that the city of Detroit and its citizens has to pay. So if more citizens in the city get jobs than the less the Mayor will be questioned in terms of how to pay off his legal defense bills for the city.

As of right now, Mayor Kilpatrick's legal bill sits at $575,000 and that is not counting the fees that have been occurred after the trail that ended last month was over. Currently as a result of the Mayor and the city losing the trail, they currently owe the two officers involved in the whistle blowing law suit $6 million plus dollars and because of interest that has been occurred since 2003, they owe the cops nearly $7.3 million. Thus Mayor Kilpatrick only wants more Detroiters to get jobs so that their tax dollars can cover a little bit of his legal defense bill that he racked up as a result of a lawsuit that was filed 4 years ago and has been collecting interest since than.

So my quesiton for Mayor Kilpatrick is why didn't he just give the officers what they orginally wanted which was their retirement package which is a little bit under $1 million to begin with any way. However the stubborn and hard headed Kilpatrick was either misadviced by his own people or he didn't listen to them in terms of settling this case 4 years early rather than now. So with that said, it is clear that Mayor Kilpatrick has a dark road ahead for him that many citizens of Detroit must realize that the city is truly in a deficit now that we owe, not just the Mayor but we the citizens owe $7 million plus dollars and counting because each day the payment to the two officers isn't made, the interest goes up. Therfore with Mayor Kilpatrick's and his four legal teams looking toward appealing, the city could owe up to nearly $10 or more by the time the appeals process is finally over with and done.

Maybe Mayor Kilpatrick needs to use his own words and get out of the Mayor's chair and get another job to pay his own legal bills so that the citizens won't have to pay it for him.

Kilpatrick: Get off porch, get jobs

Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick tells Detroiters to get off of their porches and get jobs. He told reporters that Detroiters need to stop using drugs so that they can pass a drug test in order to get the good jobs that are available in the city. While Mayor Kilpatrick's words are true, his actions are what really have me bothered. Why would Mayor Kilpartick speak these words now and not years early like when he was first elected Mayor? Has the city of Detroit changed so dramatically in an 8 year span that more Detroiters are using drugs than before? So what is Mayor Kilpatrick's motive behind his words and yet along his own actions in terms of continuing to hire family members and friends to city positions hasn't declined. So if there are so many jobs out there in the city of Detroit than what about the Mayor tell some of his family members and friends who are on city payroll to go find themselves another job since so many are out there.

Mayor Kilpatrick's rheotric sounds harsh and tough but until his own actions change than why should many Detroiters get off their lazy behinds when the mayor's own family and friends didn't do that to get their jobs. Why can't those same people the mayor says needs to get off of their porches can't work for the city like his family and friends do since obviously it isn't like the Mayor's family members and friends are doing a better job of improving the city. So I believe the city would probably be better off with those who sit on porches than those who are related to the Mayor in any capacity since the current city government and officials haven't really shown any type of improvement in the city lifestyle in the last few years.

Thus, I hope the citizens of Detroit wake up and question the Mayor about his words and actions.

Obama, Edwards Hit Clinton on Iran

Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards are criticizing presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for her latest comments on meeting with leaders of Iran and other countries that are on poor terms with the U.S.

Obama noted on Friday that when he said in July he would meet with such leaders without setting any conditions, Clinton called his stance "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Questioned Thursday by a voter in New Hampshire, Clinton said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions."

"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said.

Obama said Friday, "So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she is standing on this issue. But I can tell you this — when I am president of the United States, the American people and the world will always know where I stand."

Edwards' campaign chimed in from North Carolina, also noting the earlier Clinton comment and her new statement.

"You can't have it both ways — on this or any other issue," said a statement released by Edwards communications director Chris Kofinis. "Senator Clinton needs to be honest with the American people about her plans."

Clinton said she had not changed her position.

"What I have been saying for a long time is that the United States of America should negotiate with Iran. Right now the Bush administration will not because they hold the position that Iran must first totally renounce its nuclear program," she said at a campaign stop in Atlanta......

Gore Ranks as Most Effective Advocate for Curbing Global Warming

Former vice president Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize win today meant the same thing to both his supporters and detractors: He now ranks as the world's most effective public advocate for curbing global warming.

While an array of activists, politicians and business leaders have all called in recent years for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases linked to climate change, no one has reshaped the public perception of what was once a wonkish scientific debate more than Gore. Through his tireless travel and slide show presentations, captured on screen in the 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore has inserted himself into the policy debate both at home and in countries across the globe.

"It's difficult for Americans to comprehend how Gore is one of the most influential global leaders of our time," said Icelandic President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, who met Gore more than two decades ago in Washington. "He is influential not only for his views, but for how he is mobilizing action and awareness in all countries, on all continents."

In many ways, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the peace prize to Gore -- along with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- underscores an emerging political and scientific consensus on the need to make more dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions generated by human activity.

The award establishes that "climate change is the most challenging of all environmental problems that threaten peace and prosperity," said John Holdren, a Harvard University climate scientist who chairs the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "It's a recognition that he has done more as an individual, and the IPCC has done more than any organization, to bring the reality and the urgency of that danger to the rest of the world."

Gore has worked on the question of climate change for three decades; Holdren recalled getting calls in the middle of the night during the Clinton administration because the vice president would quiz his staff at all hours about the nuances of scientific articles on the subject. But it was the documentary featuring his climate change slide show that cemented his place in the public consciousness. When Hollywood producer and environmentalist Laurie David first proposed making the documentary in 2004, she said, Gore was skeptical that people would want to watch it.

"That was the hardest part, to convince him to make the movie," David said. While she initially had to beg friends in Los Angeles and New York to attend Gore's climate lecture, she remained confident his message would resonate with the public, she said. "Not for a second did I doubt the film would have an enormous impact." .....

Nobel Spurs Gore Supporters to Urge Presidential Bid

Former Vice President Al Gore's new status as a Nobel Peace Prize winner is encouraging some of his political supporters in the United States to urge him to run for president next year. But as VOA National correspondent Jim Malone reports from Washington, most political experts doubt Gore will make a run for the White House in 2008.

Gore told a California news conference he is honored to share the Nobel award with the United Nations panel on climate change.

"I will accept this award on behalf of all of those who have been working so long and so hard to try to get the message out about this planetary emergency," he said.

Gore took no questions at the news conference, leaving open how his newfound status as a Nobel Peace Prize winner might affect his future political plans.

Gore supporters wasted little time in seizing on his Nobel recognition in their continuing bid to urge him to run for president next year.

Monica Friedlander is founder of the group DraftGore.com, which has run ads and gathered signatures in a bid to press the former vice president to make a second run for the White House in 2008.

"There is just such a tidal wave of support and excitement about him as the potential candidate," she said. "It is very, very difficult for him to resist, or at least so I hope."

Gore narrowly lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush.
University of Virginia political analyst Larry Sabato says there is little doubt that Gore's Nobel prize will now inspire his supporters to push even harder for him to enter the presidential race.

"This will juice up the Gore drafters," he said. "They have been dying to get Gore into the race. They are very dissatisfied with the prospect of Hillary Clinton being the nominee. This may be their last stand."

Gore has said repeatedly he is not planning a run for president next year, though when pressed he refuses to rule out the possibility.

"Well, you know, I am not pondering it, I am not focused on that," he said. "I am focused on how to solve the climate crisis," he added.

Among those who doubt Gore will join the presidential race is longtime political observer Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News, a guest on this week's Issues in the News program on VOA......

Latest Iowa Poll Puts Clinton, Romney at Top of Voter Preferences

Though he trails Rudy Giuliani in national polls, Mitt Romney is going on offense in Iowa and New Hampshire, where he is holding the lead in Republican voter preference polls.

The former Massachusetts governor is holding 29 percent of the vote in a Des Moines Register poll of 405 Republican voters, roughly the same number he earned in May. The status of the candidates beneath him appears to be in flux, however. Fred Thompson, who joined the race last month, is in second place with 18 percent. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has also gained ground, with 12 percent, while the former New York mayor has slipped from 17 to 11 percent. Arizona Sen. John McCain has fallen to just 7 percent from 18 percent in May.
Click here to read Des Moines Register polling information.

On the Democratic side, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is at the top of the heap, an encouraging sign of progress toward overcoming a big hurdle in the race.

Although the New York senator is the clear front-runner in national surveys, Iowa has remained an elusive prize. She has been in a tight race with John Edwards and Barack Obama in the state that begins the primary campaign voting in three months. She has 29 percent of voters' support in the latest poll of respondents — up from third place in May — while Edwards and Obama are in a statistical tie 23 percent to 22 percent respectively. The Des Moines Register poll of 399 respondents has a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points........

Willie Herenton wins Memphis Mayoral Race

I talked about the Memphis Mayoral race a couple of months ago and said that the incumbent, Mayor Willie Herenton would win another term as mayor of Memphis because there were too many people running and low and behold, he not only won but it wasn't really close by any means whatsoever. Herenton not only avoided debates but his strategy was to take his message straight to the people by attending mom and pop events where the actual voter will actually be. Clearly his strategy paid off as he won the mayoral seat for a 5th straight term.

Election results
Friday, October 5, 2007

Here are the results in the Memphis mayor, City Council and City Court clerk races. More than 165,000 votes were cast Thursday.

MAYOR
With 227 of 227 precincts reporting:
Laura Davis Aaron 181 .11%
Fred Askew 126 .08%
Carlos F. Boyland 160 .10%
Randy L. Cagle 113 .07%
Carol Chumney 57,180 35%
Willie Herenton (i) 70,177 42%
Bill Jacox 95 .06%
Roosevelt Jamison 157 .09%
Dewayne A. Jones 140 .08%
Bill McAllister 82 .05%
James McKay 92 .06%
Herman Morris 35,158 21%
Sharon A. Webb 510 .31%
John H. Willingham 1,118 .68%

In Latest Poll, Good News for Both Clintons

Former president Bill Clinton has emerged as a clear asset in his wife's campaign for the White House, with Americans offering high ratings to his eight years in office and a solid majority saying they would be comfortable with him as first spouse, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

But Americans said they would not regard the election of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as simply the resumption of her husband's presidency. Instead, two-thirds said she would take her presidency in a different direction, and half of all Americans said they believed that would be a good development. About half of those who said it would be a resumption described that as positive.

The survey also showed Hillary Clinton with an early advantage in a matchup of the party front-runners. A majority of those polled support her over former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who has reveled in taking swipes at Clinton in recent weeks and yesterday offered an unflattering comparison of her to 1972 Democratic nominee George S. McGovern.

The former president is very much at the center of his wife's campaign -- helping to raise money, muscling endorsements, providing strategic and policy advice, and joining her on the trail. But, after the political and personal turbulence that occurred during his two terms in the White House, there have been persistent questions about whether the nation is eager for what could amount to a third Clinton presidential term.

At this point, however, the former president is seen in favorable terms. Two-thirds of Americans said they approve of the job he did while he was in office -- virtually the reverse of President Bush's current approval rating, which stands at 33 percent. Clinton remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats, and 63 percent of independents and even a third of Republicans also gave him positive marks.

Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent.

Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina often contends that he is the most electable Democrat and one who can campaign successfully in regions where Clinton cannot, but the poll found that, over the past five months, more Americans have turned away from him as a general-election option. In April, 35 percent said they definitely would not vote for him; in the latest poll, 43 percent ruled him out. And in the South, Edwards's home turf, the three leading Democrats have all been ruled out by nearly identical percentages: Edwards by 47 percent, Clinton by 46 percent and Obama by 45 percent.

Americans currently view the top four Republican candidates in equally or even more negative terms. Forty-four percent said they definitely would not vote for Giuliani, while 45 percent said the same of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). More than half of all Americans said they definitely would not vote for former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (54 percent) or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (57 percent).

On the other side of the ledger, more Americans, three in 10, said they definitely would support Clinton rather than any of the other leading candidates of either party. In contrast, 17 percent said they definitely would support Giuliani.

With such high levels of disaffection, next year's presidential campaign will combine efforts to energize hard-core Republicans and Democrats with appeals to independent voters, who heavily favored Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections.....

Bush veto of kids' health bill puts pressure on House GOP

President Bush has used his veto pen sparingly: His first, issued last year, blocked federal research using embryonic stem cells. His second in May killed a war spending bill that set a timetable for troop withdrawals from Iraq. In June, he vetoed the stem cell bill a second time.
But Bush's fourth veto Wednesday - rejecting legislation to expand a children's health insurance program to cover 4 million more kids - could prove the most controversial and costly to members of his Republican Party running for election next fall.

House and Senate Republicans are divided over the measure. Polls show the public favors expanding the program to help kids from low-income families who are not poor enough to qualify for government health care, but still lack health insurance. The legislation is backed by 43 governors - including California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - who say the program isn't keeping pace with the swelling ranks of uninsured children.

In California, the legislation would provide 607,000 more children with insurance in addition to the 1.1 million who already benefit from the program.

The timing of the veto sets up an unenviable comparison for the White House. The president just sent a request to Congress for $189 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan next year. By contrast, the expanded children's health program would cost $60 billion over five years.

"While he continues to demand billions to fund his flawed war policies, he is telling the most vulnerable segment of our society that there just isn't enough money for them to have adequate health care," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek.

The expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which now covers about 6.6 million children - would cost $35 billion over five years and would be paid by raising the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents, to $1 a pack. Bush had proposed a $5 billion increase for the program, paid for out of general revenue.

The bill passed the Senate 68-31, including support from 18 Republicans, enough to override Bush's veto. The bill passed the House 265-159 with support from 45 Republicans, but Democrats still lack 15 votes to reach the two-thirds needed to overcome Bush's opposition.

All the members of the Bay Area's House delegation voted in favor of the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will hold a vote on overriding the veto in two weeks to allow time for the party and outside groups to pressure House Republicans. She warned GOP lawmakers their votes would be a top issue in House elections next fall.

"They're hearing from their churches, they're hearing from the community activists who are involved in working with children," Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said. "It's going to be a hard vote for Republicans to take. I know, no matter how they vote, many of them are very, very uncomfortable about having to make this choice."

Republicans complained that Democrats are delaying the vote simply to get as much political mileage as they can out of the issue.....

Clinton Leads The Pack In Fundraising

Senator Reports Raising $27M In Third Quarter, $90M For Year

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign announced Tuesday that she raised $27 million from July through September, significantly outpacing chief rival Barack Obama.

The campaign boasted about the results in an e-mail to supporters that noted it was her best fundraising quarter yet. It's the first time she's dominated Obama, who raised $20 million in the same period and has given her an unexpectedly tight competition in the money race. Clinton also raised $27 million in the second quarter. She's the only candidate who has released their figures thus far that has not experienced a dropoff in donations from the second to the third quarter, CBS News reports.

Clinton has raised a total of $90 million since the beginning of the year. Obama's total for the year was nearly $80 million, his campaign said Monday. "Once you get into that 80 to 90 million dollar range, a few million here or there isn't going to mean the difference in the nomination," said CBSNews.com Senior Political Editor Vaughn Ververs. "But, in terms of perception, the fact that Clinton has been able to create some separation between herself and Obama is likely going to provide some extra momentum for her front-running campaign." Clinton's total includes $22 million that she can spend on the primary race. She has to save the rest for the general election and will have to return it if she doesn't win the nomination.

Obama's total included $19 million for the primary, meaning in total this year he's still outraised her in primary dollars - $74.9 million to $72.6 million. On Monday, John Edwards' campaign announced he raised $7 million this quarter. This is down from the $9.1 million Edwards raised in the 2nd quarter. The third quarter takes brings Edwards' total to just over $30 million for the year so far. In a conference call with reporters, the campaign said that he has $12 million cash on hand and expects to have about $22 million with matching funds.

Obama's third-quarter contributions were less than he raised in each of the first two quarters. The summer total includes donations from 93,000 new contributors, aides said. Overall, the Obama campaign has received contributions from 352,000 donors so far this year. Contributors are limited to a maximum of $2,300 each.

The campaign did not say how much money it had in the bank, an important figure as the presidential contest heads into one of the heaviest spending periods of the season. Obama has been spending heavily, especially in Iowa, where the first presidential caucus is scheduled for January.....

Clinton outpaces Obama in fundraising for third quarter

Sen. Hillary Clinton raised $27 million in the third quarter for her 2008 Democratic bid for the White House, a Clinton aide said Tuesday.

All but $5 million of Clinton's funds can be spent trying to win the Democratic presidential nomination in the primaries, the aide said.

More than 100,000 new donors contributed to the New York Democrat, the aide said.
Clinton outpaced Sen. Barack Obama over the last three months, a reversal of positions from the second quarter.

The Obama campaign announced Monday the Illinois Democrat raised at least $20 million for his presidential campaign during the third quarter. All but about $1 million of Obama's contributions can be used in the primary fight.

In the second quarter, he shattered fundraising records by reporting he raised $32.5 million, $31 million of which he can use in his bid for the Democratic nod.

Clinton raised $27 million during this same period; all but $6 million can be used in the primaries.

Fundraising is historically slow in the third quarter, which covers the final two months of summer and the first month of fall. Watch how summer can be a tough time for candidates »

Campaign finance laws limit the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate during the primary cycle to $2,300. At the same time, individuals can contribute another $2,300 to a candidate for the general election.

Campaigns often report the total of contributions for the primary and general cycles during a quarter, even though general election contributions can't be used immediately to buy ads or hire staff.

"Many in Washington have spent the last weeks declaring the outcome of this race to be preordained and the primary process a mere formality," said Obama campaign chief David Plouffe in a veiled reference to Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in most national polls......

Clinton Raises $27M in 3rd Quarter

Surpassing her rivals by a margin that few Democrats predicted, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign announced this morning that it had raised $22 million since July to compete in the 2008 primaries, and another $5 million for the general election should she win her party’s nomination.

The Clinton campaign kept the figure a secret throughout Monday as her leading rival, Senator Barack Obama, announced that he had raised $19 million for the primaries and another $1 million for the general election.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have been vying aggressively against each other for donors and fund-raising bragging rights this year. Mr. Obama had raised slightly more money than Mrs. Clinton during the second quarter, April through June; in recent weeks Clinton advisers and donors had asserted that he was probably on track to beat her again because his campaign was publicizing his success at recruiting new donors.

Mr. Obama announced Monday that he had attracted more than 93,000 new donors over the last three months and that he met his goal for this period of signing up more than 350,000 donors overall this year.

The Clinton campaign said this morning that it had drawn more than 100,000 new donors over the last three months, and declared, in a statement from campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, that it had raised “substantially more than any other candidate in the race.”

Clinton advisers attributed the fundraising success to Mrs. Clinton’s steady performance as a candidate this summer and fall, including her well-reviewed appearances in the presidential debates and her emergence, in many opinion polls, as the leading candidate in the Democratic field. The campaign also had a busy calendar of fund-raising events, including successful receptions in the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket this fall, as well as in California. It was unclear this morning how much of the $27 million in total dollars was raised online.

In a message to donors, Ms. Solis Doyle said: “This is the moment when you showed that America is ready for change and that you are ready to make history. This is the moment when your dedication defied the skeptics.” .....

Ending The HIV/AIDS Epidemic

"The loss from HIV/AIDS is almost beyond understanding. This is a fight for people's lives. We have a moral imperative to do much more, and do it much better." -- John Edwards

HIV is a preventable disease. But an estimated 40,000 new HIV cases were reported in the U.S. last year, and 4.3 million were reported around the world. HIV/AIDS is a treatable disease. Yet 17,000 Americans and 3 million people globally died from it in 2005. [CDC, 2007; WHO, 2006]
John Edwards was the first presidential candidate – Democratic or Republican – to take on the big insurance and drug companies and propose a plan for quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America that offers everyone the option of a public plan. Today, John Edwards builds on his plan for true universal health care with specific proposals to lead the fight against HIV/AIDS at home and around the world. He will include a comprehensive new national strategy to fight HIV/AIDS, including:

Guaranteeing health insurance for every American – including HIV/AIDS patients -- the care they need when they need it and expanding Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals before they reach later stages of disabilities and AIDS.

Fighting the disease in the African American and Latino communities, where the harm is now greatest.

Calling for universal access to HIV/AIDS medicine across the world, investing $50 billion over five years to meet that goal.

Changing the policies that protect big drug companies, at the expense of people dying of HIV/AIDS in developing countries......

Fail to plan, and plan to fail

October 1, 2007

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards became the first candidate in either party to substantively address the Black AIDS epidemic on Sept. 24 by publishing a comprehensive HIV/AIDS platform. Black America must now demand that every candidate similarly explain how he or she will end this epidemic.

Edwards wisely makes the development of a "National HIV/AIDS Strategy" a priority in his platform. The U.S. government rightly insists that any country receiving foreign aid for HIV/AIDS first craft a national strategy, but 26 years into the epidemic the U.S. shockingly still doesn't have its own overarching plan. Edwards highlights the consequences of this failure in his AIDS platform.

"In 2001, the CDC set a national goal of reducing the annual number of new infections in half by 2005," the Edwards platform reads, "but the actual number of infections has barely budged. A 1998 presidential initiative set a goal of eliminating racial disparities in HIV/AIDS by 2010, but disparities are as bad today as they were then. Our disappointments can be explained in part by the failure to create a national strategy, backed by necessary funding and with clear and bold goals, specific action steps, real accountability and broad participation and buy-in from stakeholders both inside and outside of government."

Edwards' platform goes on to stress that "any serious effort to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic must begin in the African-American and Latino communities," including addressing the impact on Black gay and bisexual men and inside the nation's prisons.

Edwards vows to develop a national strategy with these goals in mind, which will coordinate inter-agency programs and make the secretary of Health and Human Services responsible for publishing an annual progress report.

In addition to his call for a national HIV/AIDS strategic plan, Edwards vows to support "fully funding" the Ryan White CARE Act, which is the federal government's primary vehicle for AIDS care programs, and to "put an end to waiting lines for HIV drugs." Every year, state-run AIDS Drug Assistance Programs face massive budget shortfalls, leading to service reductions and hundreds-deep waiting lists. In 2006, at least four people died in South Carolina awaiting AIDS drugs; the state announced this week that it had finally cleared its waiting list.

Edwards further stresses the need for science-based prevention policy. Specifically, he vows to lift the ban on federal funding for syringe exchange programs and to promote "comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education."

Edwards highlights his broader universal health insurance plan as the primary tool for securing adequate treatment for all, and he promises to support the Early Treatment for HIV Act, which would expand Medicaid to include those who are HIV positive but not yet diagnosed with AIDS. But his platform does not discuss how he'd resolve the ongoing crisis for Medicaid overall. The massively expensive program has forced every state in the nation to consider ways to reign in costs, including restricting services.

It may be that Edwards' larger health insurance plan relieves the pressure on Medicaid. But he must tell voters how he'll reform the program to make it both affordable and accessible to all of America's poorest, whether he achieves universal coverage or not.

The Institute continues to urge all candidates, in both parties, to publish an AIDS platform.
Black journalists have put candidates on notice by questioning them on their response to AIDS, and some have been able to answer with positions on individual AIDS policy questions. But without an overarching plan, those efforts are wasted.

Black America's message to any candidate seeking our votes in 2008 must be clear: First, show us the plan.

Click here to read the Edwards plan.

Candidates go Code Blue on healthcare

Democrats want to bring everyone into the system; Republicans think people demand too much treatment.

'HillaryCare Redux," sneered Rudy Giuliani's campaign on the day Hillary Clinton announced her new proposal for universal healthcare. "It's enough to make you 'Sicko.' " Fred Thompson's folks, working off the same playbook, said it's "enough to make you sick." Mitt Romney offended St. Vincent's Hospital in New York by using its building as a backdrop for his own hasty assault on the plan he probably hadn't read.Smears without substance are bad enough, but smears without substance that use bad puns merit a special circle in hell. So all in all, the Republican respondents didn't exactly cover themselves in glory here.

But now that the major candidates from both parties have offered plans for reforming American healthcare (the exception being Thompson, whose campaign has elevated a bored disengagement with substantive policy matters into a sort of avant-garde political aesthetic), it's worth taking a more sober look at what the candidates are promising to do about the issue Americans rank as their most important domestic priority.

The task is eased by the fact that the two political parties have largely converged on distinct diagnoses of what the system's problems are and what reform would look like.

The plans offered by the Democrats differ in details and ambition but diagnose the problem in basically the same way: Not enough people have health insurance, and the fragmented, patchwork nature of our system for obtaining coverage leaves us to the not-so-tender mercies of insurers that have their best interests, rather than ours, foremost in mind. The reforms flow naturally from that point. Clinton and John Edwards both propose an "individual mandate" to ensure universal coverage.

Under their systems, every American would have to purchase health coverage, and a system of subsidies and tax credits would be constructed to make sure coverage was affordable. Barack Obama would channel healthcare through employers to the employed, but he doesn't build in mechanisms to ensure that adults outside the labor force are covered.

All three engage in substantial reform of the insurance market aimed at broadening the risk pool. If their plans are adopted, insurers would no longer be able to refuse coverage (or charge higher rates) based on preexisting conditions. They would have to cover anyone who seeks coverage and charge them a price based on the average member of the community, not on a complex underwriting formula that seeks to determine future health costs by running opaque equations that can disqualify someone for coverage because they used allergy medicine in the past.

Insurers no longer would be able to profit by separating out the young and healthy from the old and sick, thus sectioning the market into those worth insuring and those not worth insuring.

The hope is that these changes would force insurers to compete based on the cost and quality of the policies they provide rather than who has the best underwriting team.If that hope falls flat, however, all of the Democrats offer up another option: a government-run insurance program modeled on, but distinct from, Medicare. In health policy circles, one of the primary debates is how much distortion the profit incentive inserts into health insurance. "How can my insurer best pay for my medical care?" is a different question from "How can my insurer best profit off of my need for medical care?"

The Democratic plans essentially let the market decide. There will be a public insurer for those who want it, and if people feel that it provides better service, the private insurers will either have to adopt similar techniques or go out of business.....