March 16-22 is Sunshine Week, the time to discuss and explore the concept of open government. The following column, provided by Sunshineweek.org, in one of a series Lake County News will offer this week as part of the important discussion of keeping government information available to the public.

It's been a few tough years for open government in the United States. Security fears, combined with a president determined to protect his prerogatives, have kept advocates of transparency playing defense. There are signs that the tables are beginning to turn, but it's been a draining fight to maintain laws and policies built up over decades.

However, there's better news elsewhere. Since 2001, almost 30 other countries have adopted U.S.-style Freedom of Information laws, which provide citizens with a right to government documents. Among the most recent adopters are the two most populous countries on earth: India and China. The right to information, once known only to the millions living in wealthy democracies, is being extended to billions of the world's poor.

India might be the most fascinating laboratory for freedom of information in the world today. The country's center-left government adopted a national Right to Information Act soon after its election in 2004. The law is sweeping in scope: it covers not just federal agencies, but also 35 states and territories, and thousands of lower-level governments.

The media quickly began exploring the potential of the new law. Last month, the national newsmagazine India Today featured an exposé on the travel habits of the country's unusually large Cabinet that relied on documents gleaned through 60 formal requests under the new law. In total, the magazine found, 71 Cabinet ministers had logged over 10 million miles of international travel in under four years. It takes "Olympian stamina" to use the law, says editor Aroon Purie, but the results have helped to hold ministers accountable for abuse of taxpayer money.

More remarkable is the way in which disadvantaged Indians have seized on the new law to remedy grievances against local officials. In Chandrapura — a poor rural village of 2,500 in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh — citizens used the Right to Information Act to pry out information about long-promised development projects. Officials eventually relented, providing the village with access to electricity and a bridge that gives access to markets during the long rainy season.

Journalists Maneesh Pandey and Misha Singh say that Chandrapura is a "shining example" of how access to information is changing life for the poor. In Keolari, another village in Madhya Pradesh, the law was recently used to prove that a local councilor had unlawfully taken control of a well that is one of the village's only sources of water. In the Indian capital, Delhi, local groups rely on the law to expose payments to contractors for public works that were never completed. A civic organizer in Mumbai says the Right to Information Act "is like a brahmastra," a devastating weapon created by Brahma, the Hindu god of creation.

In truth, however, it's not just the law that makes a difference. It's the combination of law, a free press, and civic groups that persist despite threats and assaults. Last December, an activist in the state of Rajasthan was beaten outside a government office after making a request for documents about a local employment program. Earlier, an organizer in Delhi had her throat slit while working to extract details about food rations for the poor.

China is another intriguing testing-ground for the right to information. Major cities such as Guangzhou and Shanghai have had disclosure rules for several years. Officials in Shanghai received more than 30,000 requests from citizens in the 18 months after the adoption of their 2004 policy. One district in Shanghai actually organized a team of 300 volunteers to help citizens root information out of local offices.

Last spring, China's central government went a step further, adopting a national Freedom of Information regulation. The regulation, which goes into effect in just six weeks, will cover all levels of government, as India's law does.

A natural question is why the leaders of a one-party state would be eager to adopt a policy that is usually sold as a tool for limiting governmental power. But China's leaders have their own troubles, for which transparency seems the right prescription. The legitimacy of the entire regime is threatened by bureaucratic corruption and incompetence. The rising number of "mass group incidents" — that is, protests and riots — is one sign of growing anger over the government's inability to deal with rapid growth, urbanization, and environmental decay.

China's leaders hope that a Freedom of Information policy will provide an outlet for citizen frustration and impose discipline on lower tiers of the Chinese state. It's a paradox: a "top-down policy," as one analyst says, aimed at enlisting ordinary people to serve as watchdogs on behalf of the center.

It remains to be seen how well this policy will work. The policy applies across the largest bureaucratic complex on the planet, and there are bound to be immense challenges in assuring that lower-level officials pay attention to directions from distant Beijing. The lack of a free press, limited political rights, and a weak judiciary also complicate matters. What good is information, after all, if you lack the capacity to act on it?

Still, it is an extraordinary experiment. If Chinese and Indian policies succeed, it will be an accomplishment that dwarfs any of the transient setbacks in the United States and other western countries. Over 2 billion people — more than one third of the world's population — will see the promise of more open government.

Roberts is a professor of public administration in the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. His book, "Blacked Out: Government Secrecy in the Information Age," is published by Cambridge University Press. His Web address is http://www.aroberts.us.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Guest speakers at the Forum were Mimi Kennedy, Progressive Democrats of America National chairperson; Norman Solomon, author and syndicated columnist; Dan Smith, local public hospital consultant; Sara Rogers, from Sen. Kuehl’s office; Andrew McGuire, executive director of One Care Now; Mervis Reissig, PDA coordinator; and Stan Gold, health care activist.

PDA has been mobilizing support behind the Kuehl bill and also for HR 676, the national bill to create a universal single payer system which guarantees health care for all.

Both House Resolution 676 and State Senate Bill 840 are similar in their content and feasibility. They would provide health care for all Americans, with providers continuing as they are now in the private or community sector, but payment arranged by a single government entity similar to Medicare. Details can be found online at www.onecarenow.org.

Lake County was mentioned several times for having opened North Coast counties, cities and school organizations to the financial benefits the law will bring them when it passes. The forum discussed how just such an educational program is needed throughout the state.

PDA is establishing a Speakers Bureau and wants to encourage local organizations such as Lions Clubs and Veterans organizations to inform their communities about the savings everyone would see if SB 840 were in effect. An email between Kelly Cox, Lake County chief administrator, and Doug Willardson, Lake County Finance officer, dated 6/28/07 was quoted as saying, "Currently $3,209,936 is budgeted for health care ..." Following the formula proposed to fund the Universal Health Care Bill, this could be reduced to $1,546,111, a savings of more than half to the county.

Now other organizations are seeing the possibilities and are beginning to research their own health care costs: the Konocti Unified School District in Lake County, $500,000; Sonoma County Office of Education, $1.35 million; City of Petaluma, over $1.18 million; City of Rohnert Park, over $1.4 million.

Sen. Kuehl's universal, single payer health bill was first introduced in 2005 but earlier health care plans have been in the works since 1998. (SB 840 and essays concerning its development may be read at Sheila Kuehl's Site, http://dist23.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BE8682787-AE26-46B2-8252-E528F9D0145E%7D, or rather than type in that lengthy link, type Sheila Kuehl's name into Google and click directly on the SB 840 link.)

SB 840 passed both the Assembly and the State Senate in 2006 but was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger. A Special Session of the Legislature was called by the governor to discuss the health care crisis, but he and the leaders of the Democratic Party in Sacramento could not reach agreement.

Since its re-introduction in 2007, SB 840 has again passed the State Senate but is now in committee, awaiting an Assembly vote. Advocates say they are trying to keep it from becoming a ballot initiative because of the huge amounts of money that the insurance companies would put up against it – and the majority of voters in California still do not understand its benefits.

The online group, www.onecarenow.org, is teaming up with PDA to relaunch their campaign. They have an action plan available on their website, www.onecarenow.org/index.html.

"We are only a few votes away from being able to override the governor's veto," Andrew McGuire pointed out. But the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies will not sit idly by.

"Insurance-industry profits have climbed from $20.8 billion in 2002 to $57.5 billion in 2006. During that same period, health care interests spent $2.2 billion on federal lobbying, more than did any other sector,” Norman Solomon told the forum. You can be sure they are not ignoring California's efforts.

Shirley Howland lives in Clearlake.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Most of the folks who reside in Lake County work outside the county. In fact, the fastest growing area in all of Lake County is the gated residential bedroom community of Hidden Valley Lake.

One of the major characteristics of a bedroom community is the fact that most of the residents spend their money where they work rather than where they live – especially if there is a long commute to and from work involved. Just asking people to "shop local" is not going to change the behavior of these people.

Rather than PUSHING an agenda on the bedroom community crowd, I suggest a clever enticement. That means a plan needs to be put into place wherein this bedroom crowd comes to figure out for themselves that a change in their shopping behavior is somehow in their best interest.

It was no happy accident that The Foundation Center presentation last Monday at the Greenview Restaurant was packed. No, indeed. The event was designed to be packed. A "pay it forward" strategy was put into place three months prior to the event. Guess what? The public figured it out. People actually realized it was in their best interest to be present. Then, what did many of them do? They actually encouraged other people to attend with them. When people figure something is actually in their best interest they show up.

Make no mistake, there are a lot of worthwhile events taking place in Lake County all the time. For three years I helped coordinate business mixers for a business association – free admission, food, refreshments and nice door prizes.

You would think these mixers would be wall-to-wall people every month. Well, that was not the case. Why? I believe the reason is because the public did not themselves figure out that this repetitive event was actually in their BEST INTEREST. I now also believe that my telling them it was in their best interest did not help. No, the public needs to figure this sort of thing out for themselves. When you figure something out for yourself I believe it somehow has more value.

Want an example? Remember Mr. Whipple and that silly Charmin bathroom tissue commercial? I was in the local grocery store not too long ago and alone in the paper aisle. I decided to cross the line Mr. Whipple had drawn in the sand with his words, "Please don't squeeze the Charmin," and squeeze the tissue. But, perceiving myself to be somewhat sophisticated, I decided to squeeze the Scott tissue first and make a comparison.

So, I reached over and squeezed a single roll. I did not detect any special feeling of softness. Now, it was time to squeeze the Charmin. I decided to squeeze it in the same manner I remembered seeing Mr. Whipple do it on TV. So, rather than grabbing a single roll, I grabbed a big package from off the shelf. I gave it a healthy squeeze. Guess what? It self-inflated a little bit. I went to place the package back on the shelf. It did not fit. Well, how much is this package anyway? And, how much is a comparable Scott tissue package? Turns out they are about the same price. Only problem is I cannot fit the Charmin back on the shelf.

So, what do it do? What's easiest. I toss the inflated Charmin package into my grocery cart. Suddenly, it dawns on me what I have done. I have been tricked into getting the Charmin because I could not fit the package back on the shelf. And, that was the whole point of that not-so-silly commercial. Whoever designed that Charmin TV ad was very clever.

Most people do not read the newspaper, listen to the radio or watch TV for the advertising. They do it for the news and entertainment value. But, it is the advertising that pays those TV bills. So, does it not make sense to create memorable advertising – the kind that folks need to "figure out?"

Rather than asking local residents to "shop local," local residents should be seeing clever promotions from local businesses.

Can local businesses be clever in promoting themselves? Yes, I do believe they can. I was able to pack out that Greenview Dining Room without paying one cent in advertising. I simply tapped into a need I knew the public had and allowed them to spread it.

Any business can do this. But, they have to do three things:

1) They have to CARE about their audience.

2) They have to CONNECT with that audience.

3) They have to have a DESIGN that people can piece together and figure out.

No one should be TOLD to "shop local." They should instead "figure it out for themselves."

I might add that even the Lake County Business Services Network does not "shop local." I attended the first workshop they put on two years ago. The two keynote speakers were not even residents of Lake County. But, that did not stop them from being selected as keynote presenters.

Honest and truly, what's wrong with getting help wherever you can find it? Now that the Internet enables worldwide communication, what's wrong with getting customers wherever you can find them? If you need a doctor to treat a certain condition, do you simply do without if that doctor is not residing in Lake County? Of course not! Who would be so foolish as to not go where one can get the help he needs?

Well, this idea of helping works both ways. There are caring people around the world with expertise that can help Lake County move forward. Should we not reach out to them and allow them to reach back? Is there something amiss with Lake County reaching out to the world and vice versa? I certainly hope not.

That is one reason why Althea Garner, a former South African turned American citizen in Fountain Valley, California, donated a Ryze network called Project-Middletown to the people of Lake County two years ago. There are actually people around the world on that network who care about this area of Northern California. You can meet them online for free. You can advertise every Saturday four different ways – plain text, HTML, audio link and video link.

But, unless you happen to CARE about connecting with people who CARE about you, nothing much is going to happen on that network. Indeed, that network is sadly a reflection of life as it is in Lake County. But, that network can easily change and become vibrant if people choose to start caring about one another. This is not rocket science. It's really quite simple. Some folks call it practicing the Golden Rule. Others simply refer to it as NetWeaving.

Last Christmas I wrote an article for this publication requesting local folks share Merry Christmas wishes audibly with the world via my online broadcasting network. After all, it was people around the world on Ryze.com who went to bat for Middletown and caused the Fox News Channel to visit the town for "Middletown Days" back in 2006. All anyone needed to do was make a local phone call and speak a message of good will. Guess what happened? Not ONE PERSON living in Middletown bothered to make a local phone call and spread some Merry Christmas cheer. (For the record, I did make a call, but I am a resident of Hidden Valley Lake.)

What I cannot figure out is why Middletown folks cannot show care for folks who have obviously already shown care for them?

Perhaps folks here are unaware of the dynamics involved in passing along a passionate message? One passionate person shares a message with just three people. Each one of those individuals passes the message on to three more individuals. And so it goes exponentially. In just two weeks, it is mathematically possible to reach 4,782,696 with a passionate message. Well, people around the world are keenly aware of the power of reaching out to others - both inside and outside their local community. Want proof? Check out the Merry Xmas Middletown Channel.

From what I have experienced in the seven years I have lived here in Lake County (I relocated from Atlanta, Georgia), people here have a baby mindset. They focus primarily on themselves and wonder why others do not pay more attention to them. I know of a nonprofit organization that had two failed fundraising events because their executive board cared nothing about the burden they placed on their own volunteers. All that mattered is what the executive board wanted.

But, since it was the volunteers – and not the board members – that needed to do the work, it was not much of a surprise to me that the work did not get done. Two failed fundraisers and the dismissal of the nonprofit's sole paid employee was the result.

Caring (including lifting up your neighbor's business) matters. Connecting with others matters. Having a good design matters. If the small businesses in Lake County start doing what really matters, Lake County will have shoppers – not just locally ... but from all over the world!

Lamar Morgan lives in Hidden Valley Lake.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

March 16-22 is Sunshine Week, the time to discuss and explore the concept of open government. The following column, provided by Sunshineweek.org, in one of a series Lake County News will offer this week as part of the important discussion of keeping government information available to the public.

This year’s Sunshine Week brings new rays of hope for the public’s right to know. The first reform to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in more than a decade is newly on the books, and increasing government transparency is becoming a greater part of public debate and discussion.

With last year’s enactment of the bipartisan Leahy-Cornyn Openness Promotes Effectiveness in our National Government (“OPEN Government”) Act, Congress signaled an interest in seeking more openness and accountability in monitoring government’s activities.

The OPEN Government Act will help restore accountability in processing Americans’ FOIA requests, and it will help pull back the veil of secrecy that many feel has burdened our democracy for too long. This law will also protect the public’s right to know by ensuring that anyone who seeks information under FOIA, including freelance journalists and bloggers, can seek FOIA fee waivers.

But there are still challenges ahead. We were disappointed last month when the White House buried a provision in the Administration’s FY 2009 budget proposal that would move the functions of the new Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), which was created under the OPEN Government Act, from the independent National Archives and Records Administration to the Department of Justice. The President’s proposal is not only contrary to the express intent of the Congress, but it runs counter to the new law’s purpose — to ensure the timely and fair resolution of Americans’ FOIA requests.

The Office of Government Information Services was established to mediate FOIA disputes between federal agencies and FOIA requestors, review and evaluate agency FOIA compliance, and house the newly established FOIA ombudsman, among other things. When we drafted the OPEN Government Act, we intentionally anchored this vital office in the National Archives, so that OGIS would be free from the influence of the federal agency that litigates FOIA disputes — the Department of Justice. We also wanted OGIS to be set within the apolitical National Archives to nurture the new office’s independence, so that all Americans can be confident that their FOIA requests will be addressed openly and fairly.

Given the clear intent of Congress to establish OGIS as an independent office in the National Archives, the president’s budget proposal should not — and cannot — go unchallenged. In addition, given the Justice Department’s own record on FOIA compliance — a recent BNA article found that the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy is burdened by increasing FOIA backlogs — it is difficult to justify entrusting the department with overseeing the processing of American’s FOIA requests.

When the Congress unanimously passed the OPEN Government Act just a few months ago, Democrats and Republicans alike joined together in promising the American people a more open and transparent government. We intend to work to ensure that that this was not an empty promise, but one that will be honored and fulfilled with a fully funded and operational Office of Government Information Services in the National Archives.

We also intend to build upon the important FOIA reform work that we began last year. Just in time for this year’s Sunshine Week, we have introduced new legislation to shed more light on the growing use of legislative exemptions to FOIA. The OPEN FOIA Act will require that when Congress provides for a statutory exemption to FOIA in new legislation, Congress must state its intention to do so explicitly and clearly in the bill. While we do not question the need to keep certain government information secret to ensure the public good, the excessive use of legislative exemptions to FOIA to withhold information from the public can harm our democracy. Our bill will ensure openness and clarity about how we treat one of our most important open government laws, by allowing more sunshine into the process of creating legislative exemptions to FOIA.

More that two centuries ago, Patrick Henry proclaimed that “[t]he liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.” These words remain as true today as they were 200 years ago. For more than four decades, FOIA has been perhaps the most important federal law to ensure the public’s right to know and to balance the government’s power with the need for government accountability.

As the recent legislative success with the OPEN Government Act shows us, open government is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American value and a virtue that all Americans can embrace. Sunshine Week gives us the chance to celebrate our successes, and evaluate the challenges that lie ahead as we work to further strengthen laws to protect the public’s right to know. To hold our government truly accountable, we must shine light on the decisions being made in the name of the American people. With the first major reforms to FOIA in more than a decade now under its belt, Congress must do everything within its power to continue to make sure that one of our most important open government laws is fully and faithfully enforced, so that we can let the sun shine on the most important actions of our government.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) was installed in the Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame in 1996. He is the author of the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996 and co-author of the OPEN Government Act, a comprehensive bill to improve FOIA’s implementation. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is the other co-author of the OPEN Government Act, and has long been a champion of open government. He has co-authored several open government bills in the Senate and supported numerous transparency measures. As Texas Attorney General, he also took ground-breaking measures to increase transparency.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Robert Shiller, Yale finance professor and author of “Irrational Exuberance,” a book about asset bubbles, appears to share this viewpoint.

In a Feb. 19 article by Karen Jacobs in Reuters entitled “Habitat says affordability gap persists, ” Professor Shiller is quoted as saying, “Most of us care about our children and grandchildren, and these people have to buy houses, so why would we want high home prices? We want economic growth, we don’t want high home prices.”

From the perspective of youth and millions of poor and lower-middle-class families, home prices soared far beyond the affordability level. Homeownership for these people could only be achieved through a number of gimmicks, including co-signers, no income documentation, no down payment, interest-only loans and so on.

Even as home prices continue to sink, homes and apartments in many parts of the country are still unaffordable for the majority of the local population .

As real estate values increased during the boom, so too did rents. Rental housing has long been a cottage industry for small investors, giving them a steady income and a means to retire. But to produce income for the investor, rents must at least cover the ownership costs, and the higher the mortgage, the higher the rents. So, in addition to not being able to afford a house, many people have been priced out of the rental market as well. The stories about people not being able to live close enough to their jobs to commute are legion.

Somewhat paradoxically, plummeting real estate prices are forcing rents higher because of the pressure on the rental market caused by folks leaving their foreclosed houses. And because refinancing has become so difficult, investor/landlords have not been able to reduce their mortgages to the value of their properties – so they could lower the rents they charge.

There are many suggestions floating around for how the government and housing finance industry should react to the foreclosure crisis. These suggestions range from 1) adjusting the bankruptcy laws to allow modifications of mortgage debt; 2) preventing foreclosures by providing people or communities with low-interest loans; and 3) helping homeowners modify their payments to deal with their arrearages.

For obvious reasons – tax receipts and profits among them – local governments and the housing finance industry want to prop up real estate values by any means necessary. And this, of course, is fine with existing homeowners. The higher the real estate values, the better their bottom line will be.

As you know from my opening lines, however, I believe prices ought to go in the opposite direction. While I’m all for preventing foreclosures, they are going to happen anyway, in large numbers. Why not take advantage of this opportunity to increase the stock of affordable housing?

Letting property values slide and shoveling money to nonprofit community housing groups will help to reduce the imbalance in affordable housing that the boom in property values caused to happen in the first place. As an important side effect, a policy that will encourage the creation of affordable housing will help prevent the blight caused by thousands of vacant houses resulting from the foreclosure crisis.

Finally, a massive conversion of single-family dwellings into affordable dwelling units will stimulate employment opportunities for the thousands of contractors who now are suffering right along with the rest of the real estate industry.

Attorney Steve Elias lives in Lakeport.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}

Hillary's victories are credited to an effective attack campaign strategy and string of last-minute media ads directed at Obama, questioning his authenticity, his ability to lead and his strength when it comes to issues of national security.

Sports analogies dominate the media response; mostly boxing analogies as in, "Does Obama have a glass jaw?" "Can he take a punch?" Hillary is portrayed as a fighter and is admired for it while Obama is portrayed as being afraid to fight and characterized as a sissy. Obama is even referred to as a "bunny."

Meanwhile the "super delegates" are frozen waiting to see what happens in Pennsylvania, an industrial state like Ohio where Hillary has done better among white workers and where people have lost their jobs as a result of NAFTA-permissible corporate globalization initiatives that enabled them to make decisions to move jobs overseas. Interesting in that Hillary is the candidate who supported NAFTA from the get go while Obama questioned the implications and structure of NAFTA as to how it would affect the U.S. workforce from the start.

Most pundits agree that Hillary's campaign has been successful as of late in putting Obama, who was in the frontrunner position, in the defensive mode and they suggest his weakness has been in having to exhaust so much energy responding to a steady, ongoing barrage of attacks from Hillary.

It's thought that Hillary's been successful in taking him off his message. She seems to be getting through in making a case that she is the candidate of solutions while Obama is just all talk. Many think that Obama will be forced to fight Hillary on her terms in a way he is not accustomed to; dirty politics and misleading advertising campaigns that prey on people's fears and that spew out misrepresentations of the truth and accusations, putting their opponent on the defensive.

In the last few weeks, Obama's been shown wearing native attire while visiting Africa, been accused of having secret conversations with Canadian officials regarding NAFTA, been portrayed as a far left-wing liberal and even having Communist sentiments, been accused of lying in his literature about Hillary's platform positions, been characterized as a hysteria-raising, false-hope promising orator who's only strength is making good speeches and getting people excited. He's criticized for making people believe and for those who never believed or who long since stopped believing, it's discrediting their belief as delusional. Hillary's on her game.

The Clinton legacy has always been to come out of the corner throwing every punch you can get away with, whether below the belt or not and knowing that the referee may not always be watching and that in the end, people seem to be more impressed with who can beat up their opponent which people see as the kind of strength we need in the White House. They don't care whether it's a dirty fight or not. It's all about who wins.

It's all been reduced to a kind of TV realty show. It's sunk to the level of street fighting and viewers tune in hoping for a good brawl. It's the Roman Coliseum. It's who's left standing after the blood has spilled.

Obama has won more of the popular vote, more states by far and more of the elected delegates and inspired an amazing grassroots movement across the country, the likes of which we have not seen for more than a generation; some say since Robert Kennedy's campaign of 1968.

What's left and what is now the big issue after who wins Pennsylvania next month is that haunting question of how the super delegates will vote and what happens to Florida and Michigan where Obama was not even on the ballot. There's even talk of running a new primary for these states and Hillary's campaign has favored that versus going to the convention where the original decision to not award delegates from these states would more than likely be upheld.

With wins in Texas and Ohio, now the momentum talk is in Hillary's corner even after all of her losses in previous states where Obama emerged as the clear choice in overwhelming numbers.

It's worth mentioning that Rush Limbaugh in his national broadcast message to listeners, just prior to the Texas and Ohio primary, directed Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in order to help stop the Obama movement or at least slow down its momentum because the Republican Party has acknowledged that they would rather face Hillary in the November general election than Obama, given the national polls that show Obama with a clear advantage over McCain as the Republican Party's nominee.

National polls also show that if Hillary were the Democratic Party's nominee, that Obama voters would more than likely feel disenfranchised by the process and the millions of first-time voters who turned out for Obama across the nation would feel that it's all over and will have lost faith in the system. Many of them would drop out and simply not vote in an election where either Hillary or McCain were the choices given to them.

Eighty-five million dollars was raised in the last month of the Democratic campaign. The Republican party raised $14 million during the same period. Clearly McCain has not mobilized an inspired or motivated electorate.

Taken from Hillary's speech: "Americans don't need more promises. They don't need more speeches. America needs a President who's ready to work, ready to lead and ready to stand up for what's right. We're ready for health care, not just for some people, or most people but for everyone. America needs a president who's ready to take the call at 3 a.m. to stand up for our country. There's no time for speeches or on the job training."

Hillary is bare-knuckle fighting and the Clinton campaign machine is in motion. Though no one can project how Hillary could come out ahead in the popular vote or elected delegate count, her supporters are making the case that there's legitimacy in the super delegate system and that we should go back and revisit Florida and Michigan. It's pretty much what we could have figured.

The decision as to who will represent us in this country could very well have been taken out of the hands of the people. It's not the first time this has happened and it sends a message to the world that while we preach we do not practice.

Howard Glasser lives in Kelseyville.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}