AYANNA PRESSLEY DEFEATS MIKE CAPUANO INCUMBENT (POLITICAL UPSETS)

AYANNA PRESSLEY, NEWBIE DEFEATS MIKE CAPUANO INCUMBENT (POLITICAL UPSETS):

FIRST IN GEORGIA (STACEY ABRAMS); NOW IN MASSACHUSETTS.

SUPER CANDIDATE OBAMA HAS ENDORSED STACEY ABRAMS.

WAKE UP DEMOCRATS, BLACK VOTERS CAN NOT BE REPLACED.

THE BLACK VOTE IS STILL LOYAL AND POWERFUL.

NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WINS WITHOUT A PERCENTAGE OF BLACK VOTES.


Post Sources: CNN, NY Times, Politically Georgia, TIME, Yahoo News, Youtube


***** Another Democratic incumbent upset by primary challenger -- this time in Massachusetts


Democratic Rep. Mike Capuano has conceded defeat to Boston city councilor Ayanna Pressley in the Massachusetts primary for his US House seat Tuesday, the latest upset to rock the Democratic Party and showcase a restive base eager for change.

Pressley's win comes less than three months after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ousted the No. 4-ranking House Democrat, Rep. Joe Crowley of New York, in a primary.

In his concession speech, Capuano said the district was clearly upset with the status quo and that he shared those feelings.

"I will tell you, I'm sorry it didn't work out but this is life and this is OK. America is going to be OK," Capuano said, adding, "Ayanna Pressley is going to be a good congresswoman and Massachusetts will be well served."

Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley did not argue that Capuano was too moderate. In fact, she said, the two would vote the same way. Instead, the 44-year-old Pressley -- already a rising star in Democratic politics -- cast the race as about Democrats' need for a new, more assertive style in the Donald Trump era.

"This is a fight for the soul of our party. This is a fight for the future of our democracy," Pressley said at a recent canvassing event in Cambridge. "We might vote the same way, but we will lead differently. These times require and this district deserves bold, activist leadership."

Ocasio-Cortez tweeted her support for Pressley on Tuesday night, writing "Congratulations to my sister in service, @AyannaPressley, on continuing her historic path into Congress tonight."

Pressley is now poised to become the only black member of Massachusetts' mostly male congressional delegation.

She'd argued on the campaign trail that systemic inequalities had worsened in a district that was once represented by John F. Kennedy and where the majority of voters are nonwhite.

"It's about who I listen to and it's about who I govern with. And there are a lot of people in this district who feel left out and left behind and ignored -- and it's not just women, it's not just people of color," Pressley told CNN in a recent interview. "It runs the gamut. And I think after a generation, the district deserves a choice."

The race was just one of a slate of contested primaries in Massachusetts on Tuesday. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Republican Gov. Charlie Baker -- both heavily favored to win re-election -- both got general election opponents.

Secretary of state Bill Galvin -- Massachusetts' longest-serving statewide official, in office since 1995 -- fended off a Democratic primary challenge from Boston city councilor Josh Zakim, who conceded.

The race focused on Massachusetts' voting laws: Galvin highlighted changes that modernized the laws early in his tenure. But those laws now lag Democrats' preference nationally for same-day and automatic voter registration -- which Zakim has pushed. Galvin has since endorsed those changes, too -- but Zakim has cast him as being slow to do so.

Zakim had influential supporters, including Boston Mayor Marty Walsh and US Rep. Seth Moulton. Zakim also picked up the Massachusetts Democratic Party's official endorsement. But Galvin, a well-known figure who has previously been the leading statewide vote-getter, coasted on Tuesday.

ANGELO COLON-CORTIZ IS VANESSA MARCOTTE'S KILLER (SANCTUARY CITIES)

ANGELO COLON-CORTIZ IS GOOGLE EMPLOYEE VANESSA MARCOTTE'S KILLER (SANCTUARY CITIES):


ANGELO COLON-CORTIZ IS NOT INNOCENT.

HE IS NOT AN INNOCENT IMMIGRANT.

HE BRUTALLY MURDERED VANESSA AND TRIED TO BURN HER BODY.

CORTIZ'S BAIL IS $10 MILLION.


Sources: Daily Mail, MassLive, YouTube


****** Married FedEx worker, 31, accused of raping and murdering Google executive while she jogged appears in court and has bail set at $10million

Angelo Colon-Ortiz, 31, pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated assault, aggravated assault and battery, and assault with intent to rape.

Prosecutors expected to file murder charges against him in about a month
Colon-Ortiz is accused of raping and killing Vanessa Macrotte, whose naked body was found on August 7, 2016 in Massachusetts.

Police arrested Colon-Ortiz on Saturday after DNA found on her hands was linked to him.

Colon-Ortiz is a recent transplant from Puerto Rico who is married and works for FedEx in the Worceset area.

A suspect accused of raping and murdering a Google executive while she was out jogging near her mother's Massachusetts home last summer was arraigned this morning on assault charges and ordered held on $10million cash
bail.

Angelo Colon-Ortiz, 31, was taken into custody on Saturday in connection to the August 2016 killing of 27-year-old Vanessa Marcotte in Leominster, Massachusetts.

The suspect, a US citizen who had only recently moved from his native Puerto Rico to Worcester, Massachusetts, was led into Leominster District Court on Tuesday morning and used the services of a Spanish-English interpreter to follow the legal proceedings.

Ortiz was arraigned on criminal counts of aggravated assault, aggravated assault and battery and assault with intent to rape.

Prosecutors said they sought the multimilion-dollar bail because they expect to charge him with murder within about a month.

Judge Mark Noonan agreed to set Colon-Ortiz’s bail at $10million and scheduled his pre-trial conference for May 24.

Attorney Edward Ryan Jr representing the 31-year-old suspect, who was described in court as a married FedEx employee, according to the Boston Globe, entered not guilty pleas to the assault counts on Colon-Ortiz’s behalf. He did not argue for lower bail, but reserved the right to seek lower bail later.

Vanessa Marcotte’s father, John Marcotte, and uncle Steven Therrien were present at the arraignment but made no statements to the press.

State police arrested Colon-Ortiz in Worcester after police used DNA found on Marcotte's hands to link him to the killing.

Worcester District Attorney Joseph Early Jr commended Marcotte's bravery at a press conference on Saturday.

'It was through her determined fight and efforts that we obtained the DNA of her killer,' he told the crowd.

Residents from the community applauded as Early confirmed Colon-Ortiz's arrest, which came after police built a DNA profile of Marcotte's killer.

They used that profile - and a report of a dark SUV spotted near the scene of the August 7, 2016 killing - to identify the suspect, Early said.

In a written statement, her parents said: 'After eight long months, we're able to take the first step toward justice for Vanessa.

'She was a beautiful, intelligent, and generous young woman whose passion for giving back to the community will always be remembered.

'As we move forward, her spirit will live on through The Vanessa T Marcotte Foundation that strives to empower women to live boldly and fearlessly.'

According to its website, the foundation's goal is to to help women 'live free from the fear of violence.'

It aims to to that by 'partnering with organizations that deliver educational programs to promote female empowerment, challenge and undermine gender stereotypes, and provide mentorship opportunities [for women].'

Marcotte, a graduate of Boston University, was found near her mom's Princeton, Massachusetts, home on August 7, 2016. Her hands, feet and head had been burned.

The New Yorker, who was visiting her mother at the time, was found dead after she didn't return to their home from a run.

Colon-Ortiz is being held in at the state police barracks in Millbury on $1 million bail.

Early Jr said that a Massachusetts State Trooper saw a dark SUV in Worcester, similar to the one that had been spotted driving from the scene.

The man driving fitted a description of the suspect, he said, so the trooper went to the man's home and was able to take a DNA sample from the man's cheek.

The test results, which came in on Friday, said that the sample matched DNA found on Marcotte's body.

Colon-Ortiz was then arrested, and is set to make his first appearance in court on Tuesday.

Early Jr said that Colon-Ortiz was working near where Marcotte was killed on the day of her brutal death. He has no criminal history.

In February, Early Jr said they had made a DNA breakthrough in the case, and revealed that they were seeking a Hispanic man of average height.

The suspect was also likely to have had scratches or cuts on his face, neck, hands and arms that day, police said.

They added that they believed him to be the same man seen driving a dark colored SUV in the area around the time that the young jogger was killed.

Police have not revealed how they acquired the DNA, saying only that they got it during the course of their investigation, and that it was on Marcotte's hands.

Marcotte vanished on an afternoon run while on a visit to the home of her mom in Worcester from New York.

Her naked body was found at around 8.20pm in woodlands near the home.

It's believed she was killed some time between 1pm, when she left her mom's home, and 4pm.

She had been sexually assaulted, and her hands, feet and part of her head were burned.

Marcotte's shocking murder left her family shattered, they said towards the end of last year.

Her uncle, Steven Therrien, read an emotional statement at a church in the town on December 31, asking for help finding the young woman's killer.

'Not a day goes by that we don't reflect on the enormity of our loss. She had already achieved much but we know she had much more to do.

'She was a loving, caring, intelligent young woman who had her whole life ahead of her.'


Marcotte's parents, Rossana and John Marcotte, stood silent next to Therrien at the news conference, holding back tears.

Her father held a banner that read: 'Justice for Vanessa.'

And at Marcotte's funeral, her best friend, Leah Abrahams, gave a moving eulogy to her slain friend.

'She was so perfect, it was otherworldly,' she said.

'Something about Vanessa always reminded me of the ocean - so breathlessly beautiful, quiet and peaceful.'

She later said: 'You epitomize grace, light, humility, and absolute magic.'

Marcotte was killed just weeks after Queens jogger Karina Vetrano was brutally raped and murdered while she was out for a run. A suspect in her death, Chanel Lewis, admitted murdering her in February.

MITT ROMNEY vs HILLARY CLINTON In 2016: What Do You Think??

#HILLARYvsROMNEY2016

HILLARY CLINTON vs MITT ROMNEY IN 2016: WHAT DO YOU THINK??

It's pretty clear HILLARY CLINTON is going to campaign again for the Oval Office in 2016.

It's also pretty clear CHRIS CHRISTIE will be one of her Opponents.

But what about MITT ROMNEY throwing his hat in the ring again ??

I know his WIFE doesn't want him to but....

I would be stoked to see MITT ROMNEY Win the 2016 GOP Nomination and run against HILLARY CLINTON!

If MITT does decide to run again, I think MARCO RUBIO would make a GREAT GOP Vice-President pick. (just my opinion)

As for the Haters who reject MITT ROMNEY as a possible 2016 GOP U.S. Presidential Nominee, EAT ME!

Now please don't get it twisted.

I would absolutely LOVE....LOVE....LOVE to see HILLARY CLINTON become the First legally elected Woman U.S. President because I Strongly feel she would make a GREAT President, who will Fairly represent both MIDDLE CLASS & LOW INCOME Voters just as her husband former U.S. President BILL CLINTON did.

However......

I would also absolutely LOVE.....LOVE......LOVE to see MITT ROMNEY run again.

ROMNEY'S last campaign was very Well-Organized & I believe he learned a lesson or two from Pres OBAMA'S Election MACHINE.

I think ANN ROMNEY should re-consider the possibilities & allow MITT to run again.

PRAY about it ANN.

Like HILLARY, Gov ROMNEY definitely has a lot to offer Our Country.

The third time just might be a Charm for him!

HILLARY CLINTON vs MITT ROMNEY IN 2016: WHAT DO YOU THINK??


Sources: CBS News Online, Youtube

Repeal Obamacare! Ignore SCOTUS Ruling! GOP Leaders Launch 2012 Repeal Campaign (What About The People?)

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court historically ruled Pres. Barack Obama's Affordable Health Care Act i.e., "Obamacare" to be Constitutional.

This includes the Mandatory Coverage provision which allows the Federal Government to Penalize Citizens who Refuse to purchase Health Care Insurance or who Refuse to Enroll in any kind of Health Care Insurance program, not excluding Medicaid & Medicare.

Many U.S. Presidents have tried however only one Truly Succeeded in Reforming our nation's Health Care Insurance System FOREVER.

Is it a Perfect Law?

Of Course Not!

However Perfect should NEVER be the enemy of what is Good.

Thus the Affordable Health Care Act is a Good Law which not only allows Children/ Dependents to remain on their Parents' Health Care Insurance plans until the age of 26, but also prohibits Health Care Insurance Companies from Denying Citizens the right for Coverage due to Pre-Existing Conditions.

The Affordable Health Care Act will Also help Create Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs in the Health Care Industry.

And......

Most Importantly it will ultimately within the next 3 years Lower Health Care Insurance Premiums, allowing more Uninsured people to have Health Care Insurance Coverage versus using Hospital Emergency Rooms to receive Medical Care.

This is GREAT!!!

Absolutely GREAT!!!

Even Skeptics like myself agree that the SCOTUS decision to Uphold the Affordable Health Care was a Wonderful Decision!

Hold it!

Because Not everyone is celebrating.

Not everyone is happy to see Millions of Uninsured American Citizens have Affordable Access to Quality Health Care.

NOT Everyone!

Who isn't happy about this landmark legal decision?

Most GOP Leaders!

That's right!

Most GOP Leaders are Angry & Unhappy to see Millions of American Citizens have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care in this Country.

Instead of celebrating & agreeing with the SCOTUS Decision on this ruling, they are plotting and scheming to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act.

How Selfish & Stupid!

What about the PEOPLE who Elected them into Public Office?

What about the Millions of Uninsured, Underinsured, Sick people who will benefit from this ruling?

Don't they matter?

Apparently NOT!

Because Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, John Boehner & Michelle Bachmann are planning to use ALL of their Political Capital and more Taxpayer Money to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act i.e,., "Obamacare".

GOP Leaders have now launched a Tax Mandate/ Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign to Defeat Pres. Obama this Fall and Completely Ignore the recent SCOTUS ruling of his Affordable Health Care Act.

This is So Sad!

Thus Regardless of whom this GOP Repeal Effort will harm (American Voters), GOP Leaders are Hell-bent on making the Affordable Health Care Act Obsolete.

Regardless of the fact that Mitt Romney created the Original Blue Print for the Affordable Health Care Act via "Romneycare", GOP Leaders are Laser-Focused on Obliterating "Obamacare".

By the way "Romneycare" has been Very Successful in the State of Massachusetts, with more than 98% of the Population in that State being Properly Insured and the Health Care Insurance Premiums more Affordable than in other states.

Regardless of the Hundreds of Thousands of Health Care Industry JOBS that will be
Destroyed, GOP Leaders are Determined to wipe the Affordable Health Care Act off the Face of this Earth.

Why?

Because Most GOP Leaders are using the Affordable Health Care Act to hide behind RACISM.

They HATE Pres. Obama and Everything he stands for due to him being a BLACK Leader.

If Mitt Romney or George W. Bush had Passed Comprehensive Health Care Legislation, everyone of those GOP Leaders currently Opposing the Affordable Health Care Act would be 100% on board with Romney or Bush.

However because a BLACK Man passed this Important, Necessary Legislation (FOR THE PEOPLE), GOP Leaders are now Wroth with HATE.

And since the Affordable Health Care Act is Pres. Obama's Signature Legislation, the ONLY way those GOP Leaders can Eliminate his Complete Existence & Legacy is to Repeal that Law.

Please correct me if I'm Wrong but since the SCOTUS has already ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be Constitutional and LEGAL, I don't see how GOP Leaders can Ignore this Law or Repeal it.

Any effort by Congress to Repeal the Affordable Health Care Act would simply be Symbolic at best because the Law can NEVER legally be completely Repealed. EVER!

I believe GOP Leaders are LYING to the American People just to raise Money for Mitt Romney's Campaign.

Those GOP Leaders in Congress know good & well that they can NOT easily Repeal a Comprehensive Health Care Insurance Act that was Passed by Congress and Ruled Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

They know this!

So they have instead decided to LIE to Voters for Political Gain by attacking Justice John Roberts a Republican, launch a Massive Repeal "Obamacare" Campaign & Encourage Hospitals and Doctors to Largely Ignore the SCOTUS Health Care Law Ruling.

This is CRAZY!

I've often said that Racism makes people STUPID & Crazy, now I know its True.

It doesn't matter if Pres. Obama attempts to pass Financial Industry Reform, Comprehensive Education Reform, Student Loan Reform, Health Care Insurance Reform, Criminal Justice System Reform, Comprehensive Tax Reform, Affordable Housing Reform, Small Business Reform, Elderly Care Reform, Wall Street Reform, Tort Reform, Employment Discrimination Reform, etc.,

Whatever type of Meaningful Legislation Pres. Obama attempts to Pass, he will ALWAYS be blind-sided by Severe Political Opposition from some RACIST GOP & Democrat Leaders.

So what can the Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team do to Diminish what GOP Leaders are plotting against the Affordable Health Care Act?

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team Need to Launch a Major Campaign to Educate the American People on ALL the Good, Effective Components & Provisions included within "Obamacare".

Educate the American VOTERS about why Justice John Roberts a True Conservative, decided to cast his Vote with the Court's so-called "Liberal" Justices.

Justice Roberts cast his Vote alongside Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor because the Affordable Health Care Act is Effective, Constitutional Legislation that will HELP All American Citizens including Many Children, have Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care without being Denied Coverage by Greedy Health Insurance Monopolies who previously used Pre-Existing Conditions to NOT Provide Insurance.

Democrats & Pres. Obama's Re-election team MUST Broadcast the Benefits of the Affordable Health Care Act from all 4 Corners of American Soil.

NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST!!!!

Broadcast those Benefits Non-Stop from Now until the November Election!!

On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Health Care Act to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Thank You Pres. Obama!

Thank You Justice Roberts!!!

The American People Thank You Immensely!!!!








Roberts Hits the Reset Button

The Supreme Court’s decision upholding virtually all of the health care reform law (with the exception of a provision on Medicaid that does not really have much practical impact) is a great development, first of all, for Americans. The Affordable Care Act will provide insurance for tens of millions of working people and it will eventually help rationalize and bring down the costs of health care for everyone. This is a huge victory for President Obama at a critical time and a big loss for the right.

The decision also says a lot about Chief Justice John Roberts, who was on the verge of writing himself a reputation after seven years in office as a highly partisan player who was using see-saw majorities to further not just a conservative judicial philosophy but also the broad aims of the neo-conservative wing of the Republican Party.

This week began, however, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the majority in striking down most of Arizona’s immigration law and strongly reaffirming the power of the federal government to make immigration policy as part of its overall power to make foreign and national security policy.

Today, Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, including the individual mandate to buy health insurance. It’s true that he rejected the government’s commerce clause defense—that it can impose a mandate under its power to regulate interstate commerce. With this reasoning, he arguably weakened the Commerce Clause itself, which has been the foundation of so many important laws and court rulings in the modern era, including those guaranteeing all Americans’ civil rights.

The Chief Justice made it clear from the start, in his testimony at his confirmation hearing, that he would apply a rigorous test for Commerce Clause arguments. “It’s not a question of abstract fact,” he said, “does this affect interstate commerce or not, but has this body, the Congress, demonstrated the impact on interstate commerce that drove them to legislate.”

That part of the ruling could, in the long run, prove even more significant than upholding the health care reform law. But the health care ruling still was momentous, and it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts was instrumental in making that happen. He did so by taking a relatively refined view: The requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is not really a mandate at all, but a tax, and is therefore constitutional since Congress clearly has the power to tax and spend.

As Scotusblog noted this morning, “That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.”

Chief Justice Roberts could have chosen to ignore that narrow way out and joined the four right-wing judges in striking down the entire law – an act of judicial recklessness that would have been read as an endorsement of Mr. Romney’s presidential candidacy. As it is, the Chief justice could hardly be accused of throwing his support to Mr. Obama.

This is going to be hard for right-wingers to swallow, since Chief Justice Roberts was their great standard bearer for conservative judicial and political thought and against “judicial activism.” But he has enhanced, in no small way, the reputation of a court whose standing has suffered greatly since Bush v Gore.

The next step for the right is to try to repeal the health care law through the legislative process. Only about an hour after the Court’s decision was announced, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor scheduled a vote for July 11.





Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.

The decision was a victory for Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats, affirming the central legislative achievement of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

At the same time, the court rejected the argument that the administration had pressed most vigorously in support of the law, that its individual mandate was justified by Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. The vote was again 5 to 4, but in this instance Chief Justice Roberts and the court’s four more conservative members were in agreement.

The court also substantially limited the law’s expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program that provides health care to poor and disabled people. Seven justices agreed that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority by coercing states into participating in the expansion by threatening them with the loss of existing federal payments.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who had been thought to be the administration’s best hope to provide a fifth vote to uphold the law, joined three more conservative members in an unusual jointly written dissent that said the court should have struck down the entire law. The majority’s approach, he said from the bench, “amounts to a vast judicial overreaching.”

The court’s ruling was the most significant federalism decision since the New Deal and the most closely watched case since Bush v. Gore in 2000. It was a crucial milestone for the law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, allowing almost all — and perhaps, in the end, all — of its far-reaching changes to roll forward.

Mr. Obama welcomed the court’s decision on the health care law, which has inspired fierce protests, legal challenges and vows of repeal since it was passed. “Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives are more secure because of this law,” he said at the White House.

Republicans, though, used the occasion to attack it again.

“Obamacare was bad policy yesterday; it’s bad policy today,” Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said in remarks near the Capitol. “Obamacare was bad law yesterday; it’s bad law today.” He, like Congressional Republicans, renewed his pledge to undo the law.

The historic decision, coming after three days of lively oral arguments in March and in the midst of a presidential campaign, drew intense attention across the nation. Outside the court, more than 1,000 people gathered — packing the sidewalk, playing music, chanting slogans — and a loud cheer went up as word spread that the law had been largely upheld. Chants of “Yes we can!” rang out, but the ruling also provoked disappointment among Tea Party supporters.

In Loudoun County, Va., Angela Laws, 58, the owner of a cleaning service, said she and her fiancé were relieved at the news. “We laughed, and we shouted with joy and hugged each other,” she said, explaining that she had been unable to get insurance because of her diabetes and back problems until a provision in the health care law went into effect.

After months of uncertainty about the law’s fate, the court’s ruling provides some clarity — and perhaps an alert — to states, insurers, employers and consumers about what they are required to do by 2014, when much of the law comes into force.

The Obama administration had argued that the mandate was necessary because it allowed other provisions of the law to function: those overhauling the way insurance is sold and those preventing sick people from being denied or charged extra for insurance. The mandate’s supporters had said it was necessary to ensure that not only sick people but also healthy individuals would sign up for coverage, keeping insurance premiums more affordable.

Conservatives took comfort from two parts of the decision: the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.

Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenges brought by 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided,if not frivolous.

“To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the framers, who were practical statesmen, not metaphysical philosophers.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an opinion joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented on this point, calling the view “stunningly retrogressive.” She wondered why Chief Justice Roberts had seen fit to address it at all in light of his vote to uphold the mandate under the tax power.

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and a champion of the health care law, said that it was “important to look at the dark cloud behind the silver lining.”

“Federal power has more restrictions on it,” he said, referring to the new limits on regulating commerce. “Going forward, there may even be laws on the books that have to be re-examined.”

The restrictions placed on the Medicaid expansion may also have significant ripple effects. A splintered group of justices effectively revised the law to allow states to choose between participating in the expansion while receiving additional payments or forgoing the expansion and retaining the existing payments. The law had called for an all-or-nothing choice.

The expansion had been designed to provide coverage to 17 million Americans. While some states have indicated that they will participate in the expansion, others may be resistant, leaving more people outside the safety net than the Obama administration had intended.

Although the decision did not turn on it, the back-and-forth between Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the four liberals and the joint opinion by the four conservatives — Justice Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — revisited the by-now-familiar arguments. Broccoli made a dozen appearances.

“Although an individual might buy a car or a crown of broccoli one day, there is no certainty she will ever do so,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “And if she eventually wants a car or has a craving for broccoli, she will be obliged to pay at the counter before receiving the vehicle or nourishment. She will get no free ride or food, at the expense of another consumer forced to pay an inflated price.”

The conservative dissenters responded that “one day the failure of some of the public to purchase American cars may endanger the existence of domestic automobile manufacturers; or the failure of some to eat broccoli may be found to deprive them of a newly discovered cancer-fighting chemical which only that food contains, producing health care costs that are a burden on the rest of us.”

All of the justices agreed that their review of the health care law was not barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, which allows suits over some sorts of taxes only after they become due. That could have delayed the health care challenge to 2015. The conservative dissenters said that the majority could not have it both ways by calling the mandate a tax for some purposes but not others.

“That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of sophists,” they said.

As a general matter, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision in the case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393, offered no endorsement of the law’s wisdom.

Some decisions, the chief justice said, “are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”

Justice Ginsburg, speaking to a crowded courtroom that sat rapt for the better part of an hour, drew a different conclusion.

“In the end,” she said, “the Affordable Care Act survives largely unscathed.”


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, AP, Boston Globe, CNN, Forbes, McClatchy Newspapers, Mediaite, NBC Politics, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

"Outsourcing Pioneer!" Mitt Romney Invested Heavily In Companies That Outsourced American Manufacturing Jobs!

That's Right! Mitt Romney was responsible for the Outsourcing American Jobs trend by large Corporations.





Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.

“They’ve been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs,” he told workers at a Toledo fence factory in February. “If I’m president of the United States, that’s going to end.”

Speaking at a metalworking factory in Cincinnati last week, Romney cited his experience as a businessman, saying he knows what it would take to bring employers back to the United States. “For me it’s all about good jobs for the American people and a bright and prosperous future,” he said.

For years, Romney’s political opponents have tried to tie him to the practice of outsourcing American jobs. These political attacks have often focused on Bain’s involvement in specific business deals that resulted in job losses.

But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field.

Over the past two decades, American companies have dramatically expanded their overseas operations and supply networks, especially in Asia, while shrinking their workforces at home. McKinsey Global Institute estimated in 2006 that $18.4 billion in global information technology work and $11.4 billion in business-process services have been moved abroad.

While the export of jobs has been disruptive for many workers and communities in the United States, outsourcing has been a powerful economic force. It has often helped lower the prices that American consumers pay for products and created a global supply chain that has made U.S. companies more nimble and profitable.

Romney campaign officials repeatedly declined requests to comment on Bain’s record of investing in outsourcing firms during the Romney era. Campaign officials have said it is unfair to criticize Romney for investments made by Bain after he left the firm but did not address those made on his watch.

In response to detailed questions about outsourcing investments, Bain spokesman Alex Stanton said, “Bain Capital’s business model has always been to build great companies and improve their operations.

We have helped the 350 companies in which we have invested, which include over 100 start-up businesses, produce $80 billion of revenue growth in the United States while growing their revenues well over twice as fast as both the S&P and the U.S. economy over the last 28 years.”

Until Romney left Bain Capital in 1999, he ran it with a proprietor’s zeal and attention to detail, earning a reputation for smart, hands-on management.

Bain’s foray into outsourcing began in 1993 when the private equity firm took a stake in Corporate Software Inc., or CSI, after helping to finance a $93 million buyout of the firm. CSI, which catered to technology companies like Microsoft, provided a range of services including outsourcing of customer support. Initially, CSI employed U.S. workers to provide these services but by the mid-1990s was setting up call centers outside the country.

Two years after Bain invested in the firm, CSI merged with another enterprise to form a new company called Stream International Inc. Stream immediately became active in the growing field of overseas calls centers. Bain was initially a minority shareholder in Stream and was active in running the company, providing “general executive and management services,” according to SEC filings.

By 1997, Stream was running three tech-support call centers in Europe and was part of a call center joint venture in Japan, an SEC filing shows. “The Company believes that the trend toward outsourcing technical support occurring in the U.S. is also occurring in international markets,” the SEC filing said.

Stream continued to expand its overseas call centers. And Bain’s role also grew with time. It ultimately became the majority shareholder in Stream in 1999 several months after Romney left Bain to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Bain sold its stake in Stream in 2001, after the company further expanded its call center operations across Europe and Asia.

The corporate merger that created Stream also gave birth to another, related business known as Modus Media Inc., which specialized in helping companies outsource their manufacturing. Modus Media was a subsidiary of Stream that became an independent company in early 1998. Bain was the largest shareholder, SEC filings show.

Modus Media grew rapidly. In December 1997, it announced it had contracted with Microsoft to produce software and training products at a center in Australia. Modus Media said it was already serving Microsoft from Asian locations in Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan and in Europe and the United States.

Two years later, Modus Media told the SEC it was performing outsource packaging and hardware assembly for IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Computer Corp. The filing disclosed that Modus had operations on four continents, including Asian facilities in Singapore, Taiwan, China and South Korea, and European facilities in Ireland and France, and a center in Australia.

“Technology companies, in particular, have increasingly sought to outsource the business processes involved in their supply chains,” the filing said. “. . . We offer a range of services that provide our clients with a one-stop shop for their outsource requirements.”

According to a news release issued by Modus Media in 1997, its expansion of outsourcing services took place in close consultation with Bain. Terry Leahy, Modus’s chairman and chief executive, was quoted in the release as saying he would be “working closely with Bain on strategic expansion.” At the time, three Bain directors sat on the corporate board of Modus.

The global expansion that began while Romney was at Bain continued after he left. In 2000, the firm announced it was opening a new facility in Guadalajara, Mexico, and expanding in China, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea.

In addition to taking an interest in companies that specialized in outsourcing services, Bain also invested in firms that moved or expanded their own operations outside of the United States.

One of those was a California bicycle manufacturer called GT Bicycle Inc. that Bain bought in 1993. The growing company relied on Asian labor, according to SEC filings. Two years later, with the company continuing to expand, Bain helped take it public. In 1998, when Bain owned 22 percent of GT’s stock and had three members on the board, the bicycle maker was sold to Schwinn, which had also moved much of its manufacturing offshore as part of a wider trend in the bicycle industry of turning to Chinese labor.

Another Bain investment was electronics manufacturer SMTC Corp. In June 1998, during Romney’s last year at Bain, his private equity firm acquired a Colorado manufacturer that specialized in the assembly of printed circuit boards. That was one of several preliminary steps in 1998 that would culminate in a corporate merger a year later, five months after Romney left Bain. In July 1999, the Colorado firm acquired SMTC Corp., SEC filings show. Bain became the largest shareholder of SMTC and held three seats on its corporate board. Within a year of Bain taking over, SMTC told the SEC it was expanding production in Ireland and Mexico.

In its prospectus that year, SMTC explained that it was in a strong position to meet the swelling demand from other manufacturers for overseas production of circuit boards. The company said that communications and networking companies “are dramatically increasing the amount of manufacturing they are outsourcing and we believe our technological capabilities and global manufacturing platform are well suited to capitalize on this opportunity.”

Just as Romney was ending his tenure at Bain, it reached the culmination of negotiations with Hyundai Electronics Industry of South Korea for the $550 million purchase of its U.S. subsidiary, Chippac, which manufactured, tested and packaged computer chips in Asia.

The deal was announced a month after Romney left Bain. Reports filed with the SEC in late 1999 showed that Chippac had plants in South Korea and China and was responsible for marketing and supplying the company’s Asian-made computer chips. An overwhelming majority of Chippac’s customers were U.S. firms, including Intel, IBM and Lucent Technologies.

A filing with the SEC revealed the promise that Chippac offered investors. “Historically, semiconductor companies primarily manufactured semiconductors in their own facilities,” the filing said. “Today, most major semiconductor manufacturers use independent packaging and test service providers for at least a portion of their . . . needs. We expect this outsourcing trend to continue.”


Sources: Boston Globe, CBS News, Washington Post, Youtube

Romney's Bain Role Was Reformer & Successful Business Investor NOT Job Creator!

For the Last time...

Mitt Romney's role at Bain Capital was NOT to Create Jobs!
Romney's Role at Bain was to Reform Businesses & Make Money! That's It!
He's running as a Reformer & a Businessman NOT a Politician!

Its okay to examine Romney's Job Creation record at Bain & as Governor of Mass.
Yes Massachusetts was No.47, however it was NOT No. 47 for Three Consecutive Years in a Row!

The U.S. Economy has Experienced Long Term, High Unemployment for Three Consective Years.

And its double & triple in BLACK Communities.








Tall Tales About Private Equity

PRESIDENT OBAMA started his general election campaign by taking aim at Mitt Romney’s job creation record at Bain, setting off a lively debate over the fairness of the attacks.

I am among those who have been drawn into the argument — there was even a snippet of me defending private equity in a Romney campaign ad.

As a former Obama administration official, I was uncomfortable about being used in a Romney ad in support of his position.

However, I was also concerned that the Obama ads, while narrowly accurate, might be seen to portray Bain Capital (and implicitly, private equity) in an ugly light because a few of the companies the firm invested in went bankrupt while Bain Capital still made money

On Monday, Mr. Obama struck the right balance, emphasizing that he wasn’t attacking private equity but was questioning Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital credentials to be the job creator in chief.

That’s fair, particularly because Mr. Romney himself has been foolishly reweaving history to claim, as recently as last week, that he helped create 100,000 jobs during his time at Bain.

In fact, Bain Capital — like other private equity firms — was founded and managed for profit: ideally, huge amounts of gain earned legally and legitimately. Any job creation was a welcome but secondary byproduct.

The language in one prospectus seeking Bain Capital investors was clear: “The objective of the Fund is to achieve an annual rate of return on invested capital in excess of the returns generated” by other investments. Any job creation was accidental.

In Mr. Romney’s case, his jobs assertion rests heavily on just a few early investments.

Originally hatched to provide venture capital to young enterprises, Bain Capital notched a few such successes, notably Staples and Sports Authority. These were small stakes in companies — about $2.5 million in Staples — over which Bain had little influence.

While I defend the role financiers play in making our economy work, I also concede that Mark Zuckerberg was far more central to the success of Facebook and its 3,200 jobs than the venture capitalists who invested early.

Although Bain Capital sold off those early investments years ago, Mr. Romney takes credit for every job ever created at every company Bain Capital invested in during his tenure — while ignoring jobs eliminated after his departure.

“The steel factory closed down two years after I left Bain Capital,” he said last week about GST Steel, the Kansas City, Mo., company that went bankrupt in 2001. “I was no longer there, so that’s hardly something which is on my watch.”

Meanwhile, when Staples went public in 1989, it had 1,100 employees; at the end of 1998, right before Mr. Romney exited Bain, it had 42,000 workers. Yet Mr. Romney takes credit for the 89,000 employed at the close of 2010.

As the years clicked by, Bain Capital and Mr. Romney smelled the chance to make more money by raising larger amounts. That, in turn, led them toward classic leveraged buyouts — the purchase, often heavily financed by debt, of more established companies.

These enterprises were often what Wall Street describes as “undermanaged,” which means the Bain Capital team could take “aggressive action” that often included cutting costs — read: jobs — to increase profitability.

That’s not wrong; it’s part of capitalism. Whatever its flaws, private equity has made a material contribution to sharpening management. But don’t confuse a leveraged buyout with job creation.

Under Mr. Romney’s leadership, Bain Capital engaged in the less attractive practice of putting more debt on seemingly successful investments in order to take dividends out. In at least four instances of Bain Capital investments during Romney’s tenure, these “recapped” companies, of which two were featured in the Obama ads, subsequently went bankrupt, costing thousands their jobs.

To be sure, some of Bain’s large leveraged buyouts — notably, Domino’s Pizza — added jobs. But Mr. Romney left Bain Capital two months after the Domino’s investment (7,900 new jobs claimed) was finalized.

Aware of private equity’s reputation, Mr. Romney still trots around the country erroneously calling himself a “venture capitalist.”

And in a further effort to deflect attention from the Bain Capital debate, Mr. Romney last week argued that President Obama was responsible for the loss of 100,000 jobs in the auto industry over the past three years.

That’s both ridiculously false (auto industry and dealership jobs have increased by about 50,000 since January 2009) and a remarkable comment from a man who said that the companies should have been allowed to go bankrupt and that the industry would have been better off without President Obama’s involvement.

Adding jobs was never Mitt Romney’s private sector agenda, and it’s appropriate to question his ability to do so.


View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

"Romneycare 2.0" vs "Obamacare"/ Affordable Health Care Act: Thank You Mitt Romney!

When Mitt Romney was Governor of Massachusetts he loved "Romneycare". Now that he's a Presidential Candidate he hates it. But.....
‎"ObamaCare"/ Affordable Health Care Act is RomneyCare 2.0. Thank You Mitt Romney!









Romney on health care: Then and now

On the two-year anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, Republican presidential candidates are turning up the heat on front-runner Mitt Romney, blasting the former Massachusetts governor for providing a "blueprint" they claim led to President Barack Obama's controversial health care reform.

Among the attacks, rivals point to an op-ed Romney wrote in 2009, in which he recommended the Bay State's health care plan as a model for the federal government.

In the op-ed, Romney wrote "the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find" a "better way."

Romney essentially called on Obama to require Americans to buy insurance as part of the federal health care plan, imposing what Romney called "tax penalties" as a backstop.

Opponents use that argument to pin Romney as a supporter of individual mandates.

Romney made similar arguments in a 2009 interview with CNN's Jim Acosta, saying "there are number features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans."

He explained that the Massachusetts plan insured people "without a government option," though it did include a health insurance mandate, which some tea party Republicans find unappealing.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum has especially pointed to Romney's 2009 op-ed in recent weeks and argues the former governor would be the weakest candidate to compete against Obama based on the issue.

On Friday, Santorum's campaign released a hard-hitting statement, saying "Romneycare = Obamacare" and leveled charges that Massachusetts now allows for "free taxpayer funded abortions" with co-pays starting at $50. Newt Gingrich's campaign has also attacked Romney over the abortion issue.

While Massachusetts does provide state assistance in abortion payments, the health care law that Romney signed in 2006 did not mention abortion coverage, according to PolitiFact. His campaign points out that an independent agency, the Commonwealth Connector, was responsible for developing criteria for state assistance on such matters, not the governor's office.

"Sen. Santorum is desperate to salvage his flailing campaign and all he can do is recycle widely-debunked claims," Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement responding to Santorum's attacks Friday. "No matter how many false attacks he includes in his speeches, Rick Santorum cannot hide the fact that he is an economic lightweight who has zero job-creation experience."

Obama also referenced Romney's Massachusetts law this week, saying he designed the federal plan after the Bay State model and claimed Romney is "now pretending like he came up with something different."

On Friday, Romney penned another op-ed in USA Today, defending his actions as governor on health care and stating why he would repeal the federal law on his first day in office.

"President Obama's program is an unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement, and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives," Romney wrote. "To the extent that we have any federal regulation, it should focus on helping markets work."

Romney has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that the Massachusetts law worked well for his state, but he would not impose federal health insurance requirements nationwide, instead leaving states to create and regulate their own programs.

"Most Americans want to get rid of the (Affordable Care Act), and we are among those Americans," Romney said. "I want to get rid of it, too."


View Larger Map


Sources: CATO Institute, CBS News, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

Affordable Health Care Law's Effective Message Lost To Negative GOP Rhetoric

How Obama Lost The Messaging War Over Health Care Law

The sweeping health overhaul law turns 2 years old this Friday. And as it heads toward a constitutional showdown at the Supreme Court next week, the debate over the measure remains almost as heated as the day President Obama signed it into law.

In fact, public opinion about the law remains divided along partisan lines to almost exactly the same extent it was when the law was signed on March 23, 2010, according to the latest monthly tracking poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Democrats mostly like the measure. Republicans mostly hate it.


Michael Cannon, an opponent of the law who works for the libertarian Cato Institute, says he's not a bit surprised that its popularity hasn't grown as many Democrats predicted it would.

"Even if this law was written exactly as its supporters would have liked, you still can't put lipstick on this pig," he says. "The law just takes too much from too many people to be popular with the American public."

Opponents of the law say the main reason for that is the so-called individual mandate, which requires most Americans to have health insurance or pay a fine starting in 2014.

"There was something fundamentally different about trying to jam the individual mandate down the throats of the American people," says Tom Miller, another opponent of the law from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "Even people who had insurance, who were buying it — it just didn't resonate with their core gut instincts and larger values and history."

But supporters say the reason the law hasn't won more love is considerably more complicated.

Princeton sociology professor and health care watcher Paul Starr says part of the problem that so much of the law hasn't taken effect yet. "They're only really going to become aware of the specifics of the legislation as we get close to the point where there's enrollment in health plans and where people actually see how the health insurance exchanges actually work and how the subsidies work," he says.

And there's another big factor in the the lack of support — a lot of people who might like the law misunderstand what it actually requires.

For example, in a March 2011 poll, Kaiser (like most other groups polling on the subject) found that two-thirds of respondents said they opposed the individual mandate. But when it was explained that in most cases simply having employer-provided insurance would satisfy that requirement and that most employers were expected to continue to provide such coverage, opposition dropped to 35 percent.

"Probably 95 percent of the voting public either meet the individual requirement or are exempt from it," says Chris Jennings, a former health aide to President Bill Clinton and a supporter of the new law. "Why aren't these messages coming through better than they obviously are?"

It probably doesn't help that the Obama administration has been spending more effort trying to put the law into effect than working to dispel some of the myths about it.

"I don't think that was our primary job," says Nancy-Ann DeParle, White House deputy chief of staff and one of the key administration architects of the health law. "I really think our primary job was making sure that the changes that are happening to our insurance system were implemented in a careful, deliberate, transparent fashion."

DeParle blames the misperceptions — particularly about the pivotal individual mandate — on the law's many political opponents. She says, "The fact is for the vast majority of Americans they'll just check a box that says, 'Yes, I have insurance. '"

But the administration's lack of messaging, not to mention the political polarization around the law, has frustrated some of the law's other supporters.

"What messaging?" asks John Rother, who runs the nonpartisan National Coalition on Health Care. "I think the problem with something that's this controversial is it's always much easier to criticize it is than to defend it. And given that, I think the advocates for the legislation have been missing in action."

Princeton's Starr says there's another reason that opponents of the measure outnumber supporters. The entire structure of the law — preserving a private insurance system with an individual insurance requirement — was originally a Republican idea. "The president and Democrats adopted that approach in the hope of getting moderate support," Starr says.

Yet Republicans have unanimously turned against it. And they're not the only ones.

"Many liberals were never enthusiastic about it to begin with," says Starr. And that shows up in the polls. "Many of the people who are unfavorable are actually unfavorable from the left and are unhappy about the law, because it isn't a single-payer national health insurance plan."

That may be yet another reason why President Obama spends a lot more of his time on the campaign trail these days talking to his Democratic supporters about things other than healthcare.


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, CNN, NPR, Youtube, Google Maps

Elizabeth Warren vs. Scott Brown In 2012! Its Official! Go Elizabeth!

Elizabeth Warren launches US Senate campaign with Mass. tour

Harvard Law professor and consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren officially launched her Democratic campaign for the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, hoping for a chance to take on Republican Sen. Scott Brown in next year's election.

Warren, who greeted commuters at a subway station in Boston before embarking on a tour of the state, cast herself as fighter for the middle class, saying she's "stood up to some pretty tough folks over the past few years."

"There's been a lot of very powerful interests who have tried to shut me down, squeeze me, push me sideways and so far it just hasn't worked," Warren said. "I'm willing to throw my body in front of a bus to try to stop bad ideas that are going to be harmful to the middle class."

Warren was heavily courted by Democrats hoping to win back the seat long held by Sen. Edward Kennedy, who died in 2009 after a long battle with brain cancer. Democrats are also trying to hold onto their narrow Senate majority by ousting Brown.

Warren was tapped by President Barack Obama last year to set up a new consumer protection agency, but congressional Republicans opposed her leading the office. She returned to Massachusetts this summer.

Supporters say her image as a crusader against well-heeled Wall Street interests and her national profile will give her candidacy muscle, though she's never run for political office.

Some Democrats, including Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, have voiced skepticism about how strong a candidate she will be, given her lack of political experience.

Warren said she knows she has to make her case in a crowded primary if she wants a chance to challenge Brown.

Brown political adviser Eric Fehrnstrom called Warren's entrance into the race evidence of a "crowded, long and divisive Democratic primary."

"In the meantime, people are hurting and they are looking for work. Scott Brown is going to keep his focus on creating jobs, keeping taxes low and getting spending and debt under control," Fehrnstrom said.

Republicans have already branded Warren as a liberal academic from Cambridge whose Harvard ties put her out of touch with working families. They've also mocked her as an outsider whose roots are in Oklahoma where she grew up and not Massachusetts.

Warren has lived in Massachusetts for nearly two decades and said what's most important is what's in a candidate's heart.

"People just want to know ... are you there for big corporations? Are you there for families like mine?" she said. "I think people know where I'm really from."

Democratic leaders are banking that her national profile will help her raise the money needed to topple Brown, who has more than $10 million in his campaign account.

A recent Boston Globe poll showed Brown as the most popular major politician in the traditionally Democratic state. Brown shocked the political establishment by beating Attorney General Martha Coakley in last year's special election to succeed Kennedy. He was a little-known state senator who cast himself as a moderate, an average guy with his trademark barn coat and pickup truck. He once posed as a Cosmopolitan magazine centerfold.

Warren has spent the past several weeks meeting with party activists and voters. She's already gotten a boost from EMILY's List, which raises money for female Democratic candidates.

Commuters who shook hands with Warren said they were keeping an open mind.

Katherine Kinzel, a 25-year-old Boston resident and researcher at a local hospital, voted for Brown but described Warren as "genuine."

"I'm still waiting to see what she has to say, how she plays out against the other Democratic candidates," said Kinzel, an independent voter. "There's still a long way to go."

Chad Capellman, a 38-year-old website manager from Quincy, said he's impressed with Warren's fighting spirit.

"I can tell just from everything I've seen and heard and what's she's put up with in Washington that there's something different about her," he said. "It sounds like a `Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' kind of thing." The 1939 Oscar-winning movie tells the story of a Washington outsider appointed to the U.S. Senate who refuses to back down when surrounded by corruption.

Warren planned to travel Wednesday to New Bedford, Framingham, Worcester, Springfield, Lowell, and Gloucester to meet voters.

Other Democrats already announced include Setti Warren, no relation to the consumer advocate, the first-term mayor of the affluent Boston suburb of Newton and the state's first popularly elected black mayor; City Year youth program co-founder Alan Khazei; immigration attorney Marisa DeFranco; state Rep. Tom Conroy; Newton resident Herb Robinson; and Robert Massie, who unsuccessfully ran for lieutenant governor in 1994.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Boston Globe, Youtube, Google Maps