From Talking Points Memo: President Barack Obama on Saturday resumed his push to overhaul the health care system, telling a Congressional Black Caucus conference that there comes a time when 'the cup of endurance runs over.'
'We have been waiting for health reform since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. We've been waiting since the days of Harry Truman,' he said in remarks at the caucus foundation's annual dinner. 'We've been waiting since Johnson and Nixon and Clinton.'
The public option has not been taken off the table in the nation's healthcare debate, President Barack Obama flatly declared Sunday.
Obama, appearing on the Spanish-language Univision's "Al Punto" program on Sunday, rejected the idea that he had abandoned the public (or "government-run") option for which he'd expressed much previous support.
"I absolutely do not believe that it's dead," Obama told Univision. "I think that it's something that we can still include as part of a comprehensive reform effort." Read it all on The Hill's Blog
by Tom Gallagher
Obama's statement that "I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last." Whether or not he really thinks that, let's hope no one else supporting universal health insurance does. For even if the President should accomplish everything he said he wants in his speech, there are going to be people who are not covered - a lot of them. And regardless of what any Senator might say, single payer will be on the table until they are covered. The President said: "There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single payer system like Canada's," but he claimed that this "would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have." Now, there are many things he might legitimately have said about the fight for a single payer system and the difficulty of achieving it. First off, there's nothing inherently shameful about compromise - it's a part of politics, just as it is a part of everyday life. What gives political compromise a bad name, however, is politicians claiming that a compromise between competing interests is not really a compromise at all, but a wonderful and better idea that they don't know why they hadn't thought of in the first place.
So Obama might legitimately have raised the point that there are powerful forces lined up against a single payer system, (and mentioned, if he wanted to be blunt, that the health insurance industry would go apoplectic - before going defunct.) And he could have spoken of how, if he were to seriously promote such a system, a lot of powerful people would turn their efforts to defeating him next time around and that they might even succeed, thereby jeopardizing other goals of his Administration. And it certainly would have been accurate to note that many people currently employed in the duplicative and wasteful private health insurance industry would no longer be needed and might have to be retrained for work in other fields, so their lives would be disrupted. (Provision for such retraining was actually written into the unsuccessful 1994 California single payer referendum.)
Unfortunately, Obama, who has in the past demonstrated a good understanding of what a single payer system would actually do, chose instead to make a statement he knows notjavascript:void(0) to be true. Such a system would not change "the health care most people currently have," but only the address where the health care provider would send the bill afterwards - just as many people whose bills are now sent to Medicare once had them paid by UnitedHealth or Aetna. Read it all at CommonDreams.org
By George S. McGovern
Sunday, September 13, 2009
For many years, a handful of American political leaders -- including the late senator Ted Kennedy and now President Obama -- have been trying to gain passage of comprehensive health care for all Americans. As far back as President Harry S. Truman, they have urged Congress to act on this national need. In a presentation before a joint session of Congress last week, Obama offered his view of the best way forward.
But what seems missing in the current battle is a single proposal that everyone can understand and that does not lend itself to demagoguery. If we want comprehensive health care for all our citizens, we can achieve it with a single sentence: Congress hereby extends Medicare to all Americans.
Those of us over 65 have been enjoying this program for years. I go to the doctor or hospital of my choice, and my taxes pay all the bills. It's wonderful. But I would have appreciated it even more if my wife and children and I had had such health-care coverage when we were younger. I want every American, from birth to death, to get the kind of health care I now receive. Removing the payments now going to the insurance corporations would considerably offset the tax increase necessary to cover all Americans.
I don't feel as though the government is meddling in my life when it pays my doctor and hospital fees. There are some things the government does that I don't like -- most notably getting us into needless wars that cost many times what health care for all Americans would cost. Investing in the health of our citizens will enhance the well-being and security of the nation.
We know that Medicare has worked well for half a century for those of us over 65. Why does it become "socialized medicine" when we extend it to younger Americans?
Taking such a shortsighted view would leave nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance and without the means to buy it. It would leave other Americans struggling to pay the rising cost of insurance premiums. These private insurance plans are frequently terminated if the holder contracts a serious long-term ailment. And some people lose their insurance if they lose their jobs or if the plant where they work moves to another location -- perhaps overseas.
We recently bailed out the finance houses and banks to the tune of $700 billion. A country that can afford such an outlay while paying for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan can afford to do what every other advanced democracy has done: underwrite quality health care for all its citizens. If Medicare needs a few modifications in order to serve all Americans, we can make such adjustments now or later. But let's make sure Congress has an up or down vote on Medicare for all before it adjourns this year. Let's not waste time trying to reinvent the wheel. We all know what Medicare is. Do we want health care for all, or only for those over 65?
If the roll is called and it goes against those of us who favor national health care, so be it. If it is approved, the entire nation can applaud.
Many people familiar with politics in America will tell you that this idea can't pass Congress, in part because the insurance lobby is too powerful for lawmakers to resist.
As matters now stand, the insurance companies claim $450 billion a year of our health-care dollars. They will fight hard to hold on to this bonanza. This is a major reason Americans pay more for health care per capita than any other people in the world. The insurance executives didn't cry "socialism" when their buddies in banking and finance were bailed out. But to them it is socialism if the government underwrites the cost of health care.
Consider the campaign funds given to the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health-care legislation. Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, and his political action committee have received nearly $4 million from the health-care lobby since 2003. The ranking Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, has received more than $2 million. It's a mistake for one politician to judge the personal motives of another. But Sens. Baucus and Grassley are firm opponents of the single-payer system, as are other highly placed members of Congress who have been generously rewarded by the insurance lobby.
In the past, doctors and their national association opposed Medicare and efforts to extend such benefits. But in recent years, many doctors have changed their views. In December 2007, the 124,000-member American College of Physicians endorsed for the first time a single-payer national health insurance program. And a March 2008 study by Indiana University -- the largest survey ever of doctors' opinions on financing health-care reform -- concluded that 59 percent of doctors support national health insurance. To have the doctors with us favoring government health insurance is good news. As Obama said: "We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it." George S. McGovern, a former senator from South Dakota, was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972.
Source: washingtonpost.com McGovern was the first presidential candidate I actively campaigned for as a young adult. I am still proud of that. I reprinted the entire piece here because of that, because I agree with him and for educational reasons because everyone should read it.
Obama's Wednesday night speech reassured the Democratic base that the President is deeply committed to getting universal coverage. But the speech also made clear that the White House has decided to side with the Senate Finance Committee and against the Democratic base on the details. The President was careful to note that a public option is only a means to an end and he remained open to other ideas (read: Conrad's cooperatives or Snowe's trigger). The speech included nothing about Medicare bargaining leverage, thereby letting the drug deal stand. The President clearly sided with Senate Finance on the funding mechanism of a tax or fee on high-end insurance rather than a surtax on the wealthy. And his promise to limit the costs of universal coverage to $900 billion put the President directly in league with the Senate Finance Committee rather than than the House, whose bill is projected to cost more than $1 trillion.
The Dem leadership got the message. Yesterday, Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that while he favored a strong public option, he could be satisfied with establishment of nonprofit cooperatives. And Nancy Pelosi, who as recently as two weeks ago said the House would not support a bill that didn't include a public option, passed up a chance to say it was a nonnegotiable demand. When pressed, she said that as long as legislation makes quality health care more accessible and affordable, "we will go forward with that bill."
But, again, the race has just begun. Your input is still important -- in fact, more important now than before. Read it all here.
Poll of 522 people 45 years and older taken after President Obama's Sept. 9th speech to a joint session of Congress:
Before the speech 70% of respondents said they had at least some questions or concerns about what was being proposed by either party with regard to health care reform. This includes 77 percent of Independents.
After the speech:
- Of those who had questions and concerns prior to the address, nearly three-quarters said that their questions and concerns were talked about or addressed during the speech. This includes 72 percent of Independents.
- Nearly seven in ten of those who reported hearing their questions and concerns talked about or addressed said that they were supportive of the proposals being talked about related to health care. This includes 63 percent of Independents.
- For each political affiliation, a majority of respondents said that reform of the health care system should be a priority for political leaders to address in 2009. This includes 70 percent of Independents.
- 58% of Democrats and 85% of republicans had concerns before the speech. After the speech 88% of democrats and even 56% of Republicans said their concerns were addressed. Overall 73% said their concerns were addressed.
- 63% of independents are now supportive of the proposal put forth by the president, along with 43% of Republicans. Overall 68% support the proposal.
- 76% now say healthcare should be a priority this year, including 70% of Independents and 56% of republicans.
Read more here. [PDF]
Dear Mr. President,
I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me – and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.
On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.
You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.
When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the President who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me-and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.
There will be struggles – there always have been – and they are already underway again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat - that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.
And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family’s health will never again depend on the amount of a family’s wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will – yes, we will – fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.
In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign- and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young President who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young President inspires another generation and once more on America’s behalf inspires the entire world.
So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend- and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.
At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.
And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.
With deep respect and abiding affection,
[Ted]
Source: Washington Times
If the idea is to have a public option waiting in the wings in case private insurers blow it, why wait for it at all? If it gets lower costs and wider coverage, it should be included right from the start.
What worries me isn't just that the mainstream media are calling Snowe's trigger "centrist," but that the White House might see it as an easy out. "I continue to believe that a public option within that basket of insurance choices would help improve quality and bring down costs," the President said Monday. Fine. But he hasn't yet said the public option is essential. He hasn't threatened to veto a bill lacking it. There's even reason to believe the White House has quietly encouraged Olympia Snowe to pursue her "trigger."
The best way to give Blue Dogs cover is for the President to explain clearly and boldly why the public option is essential to health care reform, and why he's ready to veto any bill that doesn't include it. That's also the only way to give the nation a good chance of getting true health care reform. Hopefully, that's what he'll do Wednesday evening. Read it all at Robert Reich's Blo
Obama should also explain why bipartisanship ain't what it used to be. This is a party out to cripple or kill reform, and with it the future success of Obama's Presidency. As the eminent Roosevelt scholar Jean Edward Smith recently argued, "This fixation on securing bipartisan support for healthcare reform suggests that the Democratic party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead."
The president should challenge the Blue Dogs. Place the burden on them to get out of the way of the majority in favor of a comprehensive plan. The question isn't whether the progressive majority is unreasonably resisting reform to save the public option. The question is whether a small minority of conservative Democrats will sabotage reform simply to stop the public option. Do the Blue Dogs wish to cripple their own President in his first year in office for seeking an objective that has been the stated goal of their party since the Truman administration?
Obama must lead the charge and rally the people who swept him into the White House. And challenge the Democrats. Make it clear to the Democratic Caucus in general, and to the Blue Dogs in particular, that for the sake of the country they must vote for cloture so that a bill that will accomplish substantive reform can have an up-or-down vote on the floor. Don't heed those who counsel incrementalism or bipartisanship at all cost. The art of the possible is not the same as the art of incrementalism. And healthcare reform enacted by a Democratic majority is still meaningful reform. Read it all at The Nation.
Why Obama Needed Single Payer on the Table
I don’t doubt that President Obama, a decent man, wants to provide universal health care to all citizens of this country. But his judgment in developing his strategy to reach that goal is profoundly flawed, and, as mentioned above, it may cost him the presidency – an outcome that would be extremely negative for the country. He should have called for a major mobilization against the medical-industrial complex, to ensure that everyone has the same benefits that their representatives in Congress have, broadening and improving Medicare for all. The emphasis of his strategy should have been on improving health benefits coverage for everyone, including those who are currently uncovered. And to achieve this goal – which the majority of the population supports – he should have stressed the need for government to ensure that this extension of benefits to everyone will occur.
That he has not chosen this strategy touches on the essence of U.S. democracy. The enormous power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries corrupts the nature of our democracy and shapes the frontiers of what is possible in the U.S. Given this reality, it seems to me that the role of the left is to initiate a program of social political agitation and rebellion (I applaud the health professionals who disrupted the meetings of the Senate Finance Committee), following the tactics of the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements of the 1960s and 1970s. It is wrong to expect and hope that the Obama administration will change. Without pressure and agitation, not much will be done. Read it all here.Vicente Navarro, M.D., Ph.D., professor of Health Policy at The Johns Hopkins University and editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Health Services. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the institutions with which he is affiliated. Dr Navarro can be reached at vnavarro@jhsph.edu
I agree with all three:
Lesson 1: The Center Does Not Hold Without the Left
Lesson 2: For the Right, Compromise is Death
Lesson 3: To Win the Middle, Go Left
The Choice: Pivot or Capitulate - Read it all
Transcript:September 4, 2009 BILL MOYERS: The editors of THE ECONOMIST magazine say America's health care debate has become a touch delirious, with people accusing each other of being evil-mongers, dealers in death, and un-American. Well, that's charitable. I would say it's more deranged than delirious, and definitely not un-American. Those crackpots on the right praying for Obama to die and be sent to hell — they're the warp and woof of home-grown nuttiness. So is the creature from the Second Amendment who showed up at the President's rally armed to the teeth. He's certainly one of us. Red, white, and blue kooks are as American as apple pie and conspiracy theories. Bill Maher asked me on his show last week if America is still a great nation. I should have said it's the greatest show on earth. Forget what you learned in civics about the Founding Fathers — we're the children of Barnum and Bailey, our founding con men. Their freak show was the forerunner of today's talk radio. Speaking of which: we've posted on our website an essay by the media scholar Henry Giroux. He describes the growing domination of hate radio as one of the crucial elements in a "culture of cruelty" increasingly marked by overt racism, hostility and disdain for others, coupled with a simmering threat of mob violence toward any political figure who believes health care reform is the most vital of safety nets, especially now that the central issue of life and politics is no longer about working to get ahead, but struggling simply to survive. So here we are, wallowing in our dysfunction. Governed — if you listen to the rabble rousers — by a black nationalist from Kenya smuggled into the United States to kill Sarah Palin's baby. And yes, I could almost buy their belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, only I think he shipped them to Washington, where they've been recycled as lobbyists and trained in the alchemy of money laundering, which turns an old-fashioned bribe into a First Amendment right. Only in a fantasy capital like Washington could Sunday morning talk shows become the high church of conventional wisdom, with partisan shills treated as holy men whose gospel of prosperity always seems to boil down to lower taxes for the rich. Poor Obama. He came to town preaching the religion of nice. But every time he bows politely, the harder the Republicans kick him. No one's ever conquered Washington politics by constantly saying "pretty please" to the guys trying to cut your throat. Let's get on with it, Mr. President. We're up the proverbial creek with spaghetti as our paddle. This health care thing could have been the crossing of the Delaware, the turning point in the next American Revolution — the moment we put the mercenaries to rout, as General Washington did the Hessians at Trenton. We could have stamped our victory "Made in the USA." We could have said to the world, "Look what we did!" And we could have turned to each other and said, "Thank you." As it is, we're about to get health care reform that measures human beings only in corporate terms of a cost-benefit analysis. I mean this is topsy-turvy — we should be treating health as a condition, not a commodity. As we speak, Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, has been fined a record $2.3 billion dollars as a civil and criminal — yes, that's criminal, as in fraud — penalty for promoting prescription drugs with the subtlety of the Russian mafia. It's the fourth time in a decade Pfizer's been called on the carpet. And these are the people into whose tender mercies Congress and the White House would deliver us? Come on, Mr. President. Show us America is more than a circus or a market. Remind us of our greatness as a democracy. When you speak to Congress next week, just come out and say it. We thought we heard you say during the campaign last year that you want a government run insurance plan alongside private insurance — mostly premium-based, with subsidies for low-and-moderate income people. Open to all individuals and employees who want to join and with everyone free to choose the doctors we want. We thought you said Uncle Sam would sign on as our tough, cost-minded negotiator standing up to the cartel of drug and insurance companies and Wall Street investors whose only interest is a company's share price and profits. Here's a suggestion, Mr. President: ask Josh Marshall to draft your speech. Josh is the founder of the website talkingpointsmemo.com. He's a journalist and historian, not a politician. He doesn't split things down the middle and call it a victory for the masses. He's offered the simplest and most accurate description yet of a public insurance plan — one that essentially asks people: would you like the option — the voluntary option — of buying into Medicare before you're 65? Check it out, Mr. President. This health care thing is make or break for your leadership, but for us, it's life and death. No more Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. President. We need a fighter. That's it for the Journal. I'm Bill Moyers. See you next time. Original Source: PBS - Bill Moyers Journal
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House is quietly talking about drafting formal health care legislation after allowing Congress to work on its own for months, CNN has learned.
Multiple sources close to the process told CNN on Friday that while the plan is uncertain, the administration is preparing for the possibility of delivering its own legislation to Capitol Hill sometime after President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
One source called the possibility of new legislation a contingency approach if efforts by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana, to craft a deal fall through.
The White House emphasized Friday that no formal bill has been written.
"The president has been reviewing all of the various legislative proposals, but no decision has been made about whether formal legislation will be presented," said Dan Pfeiffer, deputy communications director.
A source close to the White House said the administration is leaning toward dropping the public option, and continues to zero in on persuading Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe to come on board. Snowe has long pushed for a trigger option.
The source said the bill that would be presented to Snowe would leave out a public option but include a trigger provision that could lead to the introduction of a new government-run insurance plan under certain circumstances. The legislation would cover most, though not all, of the 46 million uninsured Americans. It would also include popular insurance reforms, such as ending the insurance industry practice of using pre-existing conditions to deny coverage.
This Democratic source also said that if the deal comes together, the key will be to successfully address the pushback from disaffected liberal legislators and congressional leaders.
President Obama took an initial step in that direction Friday afternoon, holding a conference call with some of the most liberal members of the House, who say they won't vote for a bill without a government-run insurance option.
Two congresswomen on the call said the president questioned them about how entrenched they are, even asking them to define what they mean when they call for a "robust" public option. Read it all at CNN.com
Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:
President Obama spoke with liberal Democratic leaders of the House this afternoon to discuss their push for a government-run public health care plan.
Yesterday members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote to the president that any health care reform bill that doesn’t include a “robust” public option will be “unacceptable.” The leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., wrote to the president that members of the CBC “are deeply concerned about the current discussions surrounding health care reform and the possibility that current components of the bill – such as a robust public option and myriad health disparity elimination provisions – may be stricken in order to lower its cost to about $500 billion.” Obama asked for them to define what they meant by a “robust” public option; he was told to stress similarities between the public option and Medicare. The members of Congress said people aren’t getting the correct information about what health care reform and the public option would be. If they understood the similarities, those with health insurance too, how that would drive down their costs, they might be more in favor it, they said.
The president supports the idea of a public option, but not as a way to get to a single-payer health care, sources say. He sees it as a means to an end -- the president will sign a bill that has a way to lower costs, keep insurance companies honest, and increase competition – it remains to be seen whether that would be a public option, a public option with a trigger mechanism that would kick in if certain benchmarks aren’t met, or non-profit co-ops.
A follow-up meeting between the president and caucus leaders will take place next Tuesday or Wednesday at the White House.”
You sent me an email on healthcare from the White House last month, one that went out to millions of people. Now I'm replying by sending one to you. You told me it was time for a reality check. Now I'm telling you the same thing. My message is very simple. As a lifelong FDR Democrat, I won't support any health care bill that doesn't have a robust public option. I'd much rather see a bill without one go down to defeat, than have a bill pass without one.
Apparently, by accounts in Politico and elsewhere, you've been deputized to let it be known that the public option is dead, and to try to appease the majority of us Americans who support it (by 55 to 41 percent, according to a very recent CNN poll) by assuring us that its "spirit" lives on. Sorry, David, that's not good enough. Neither is the "trigger" the White House is discussing with Sen. Snowe. You can be sure that's one trigger that will never be pulled.
I've read that if no bill becomes law, that would be a crushing blow to Obama's presidency. Maybe so. That would be too bad. But we liberals might not knock ourselves out to keep it from happening. Trouble is, you people don't get it. You may have to learn the hard way. Stop worrying about Grassley and Enzi and Rush and Sean and Baucus and Conrad, and Billy Tauzin and Karen Ignagni and their hundreds of lobbyists; and start worrying about the people who worked, paid and voted to put you in the White House. We can live without you if we have to. After all, we survived eight years of George W. Bush. But you folks can't continue to live in that big house on Pennsylvania Avenue without us! Liberals' strong support of Obama is a political love affair. So he should beware of a strong, angry, jilted lover. As columnist Eugene Robinson wrote:
Giving up on the public option might be expedient. But we didn't elect Obama to be an expedient president. We elected him to be a great one.
And if he turns out to be just another pol, then we can do without him. Read it allSandy Goodman, a retired producer for NBC Nightly News, is a freelance writer.
"Without a public option, this bill will do a lot of nice things but only by throwing a couple hundred billion dollars at insurance companies," says Nadler, [Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) ] adding that a public option is necessary to hold down the cost of health insurance. "What is the point of passing a bill that mandates people to buy insurance that is going to be unaffordable?" he says.
Nadler insists that a bill lacking a public option cannot pass the Democratic-controlled House, noting that in July, he and fifty-six other House Dems sent a letter [PDF] he had drafted to House Speaker Pelosi declaring they would not vote for health reform legislation without a public option. (At the moment, it looks as if there's practically no Republican support for any health care reform measure that might be crafted by House Democrats.)
Though a public option can likely make it through the House without much assistance from Obama, Nadler notes points out that no such bill could succeed in the Senate absent pressure from Obama. If Obama doesn't make an effort, Nadler says, "I believe it will cause a very big split" in the Democratic Party." "From a progressive point of view," Nadler says, "we've already compromised five or six times." He cites liberal Democrats' willingness to give up on a single-payer approach and to agree to several restrictions on a public insurance plan. But he acknowledges that voting against a bill without a public option will be a "test" for progressive Democrats: "A lot of them have said they will vote against such a bill, but will they?"
What of the argument that the House Dems should not permit the perfect to be the enemy of the good? Isn't half a loaf better than none? "I am convinced," Nadler remarks, "that you can't take a loaf without the public option because that's not sustainable, with the costs going up. If we did this, what will we accomplish in the end?" Read it all at Mother Jones"I believe it will cause a very big split" in the Democratic Party." - I agree.
U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy went to his deathbed looking forward to a reunion with his assassinated brothers - certain he could proudly tell them he had continued their legacy through the president who will deliver his eulogy today, U.S. Rep. William Delahunt told the Herald yesterday. Read it all at the Boston Herald
|
Rate this video up at YouTube | Sign The Petition
