In the Alice-in-Wonderland world of a respected foreign-policy deep thinker like Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, repressive US-supported military dictators can be treated as patriotic and well-intentioned, while an elected president who defies the US empire can be casually smeared without so much as a word of justification.

Zakariah begins his Nov. 19 piece (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html) by recounting speeches at the UN on the same day in Sept., 2000 by Pakistan's military strongman Pervez Musharaff and President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela:

"The two men couldn't have been more different. Musharraf delivered a scripted address barely looking up from his text. He ticked off a series of substantive points, recited facts and statistics, and left abruptly once he was done. Chavez, on the other hand, was full of smiles and guffaws. He mingled before and after his talk, gave an off-the-cuff speech, spoke of his great love of America, its people, culture and baseball. He quoted Walt Whitman. When it was time to leave, he reluctantly walked away. "This difference might explain the two leaders' divergent fates. Musharaff, for all his flaws, has been a far better president than Chavez, who despite Venezuela's oil bonanza has run the country into the ground." [emphasis added].

However, Musharraf, according to Zakariah's analysis, has unwittingly ignited massive unrest after years of popularity and economic growth by dissolving the Supreme Court, jailing dissidents, and clamping down on the media.

Up until now, Musharraf was simply trying to earnestly and straightforwardly guide it toward "moderation and modernity," as Zakariah charitably explains it. "He reaped the rewards of his actions, gaining popular approval at home (for the first five years of his rule) as well as staunch international support, especially from the Bush administration," we are told. Zakaria cites Pakistan's annual growth rate of 7% as evidence of Musharraf's success (meanwhile, under Chavez,
"Venezuela's real GDP has grown by 76 percent" since 2003, according to the Center on Economic and Political Research (http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1250/77/) , which doesn't exactly prove that Chavez has "run the country into the ground.)

Moreover, Zakariah does not trouble himself with the question of how much of that growth trickled down to Pakistan's poor (By comparison, the CEPR report notes the dramatic decrease in Venezuela's poverty, which "dropped by 31 percent from 1998 to the end of 2006 – from 43.9 percent of households to 30.6 percent.") Despite his best efforts, Zakariah tells us, Musharraf stumbled, as he "was never able to master the key skill you need to lead a nation--politics." So Musharraf's approval rating has tumbled to about 20%. (Chavez's approval rating stands at 57%, the LA Times reported 11/15/07))

CREDENTIALS AS 'PRESIDENT'
First, it must be noted, Musharraf possesses unique credentials as a "president" he is a self-selected and seized power in a 1999 military coup (which the US did virtually nothing to challenge, and has instead vastly increased military aid since then ), normally earning one the title of "dictator." In contrast, Chavez has stood for election as president three times, but was briefly unseated by a US-applauded military coup in 2002. But Chavez was returned in power in after a few days when a tide of mass protests forced the military to yield and allow a return to democracy. He withstood an effort by Venezuela's wealthy and light-skinned elite to recall him (aided by former Clinton advisors James Carville and Paul Begala) by capturing 58% of the vote. In 2006, he won reelection with 62% of the vote.

Still, Zakariah's unsupported assertion about Musharraf's superiority as a "president" to Chavez is apparently supposed to trigger nods of assent from Americans who have incessantly heard leaders of both parties--from Bush Administration officials to Hillary Clinton--state that he is a troublemaker and unworthy of high-level direct discussions. Apparently, a stance of resistance to US economic and political domination of Latin America, capped by a UN speech daring to mock George W. Bush for acting as if he "owns the world," is sufficient cause to be considered a pariah and major threat to US security.

In sharp contrast to Chavez, who is clearly a master "politician," the stolid, sincere Musharraf has been tripped up by his single-minded devotion to just trying to do his best for all of Pakistan, Newsweek's Zakaria would have us believe. Having dissolved the Supreme Court so that it could not rule against him running for reelection next year, Musharraf has indeed committed a colossal political error. He never anticipated the massive outpouring of democratic-minded professionals taking to the streets.

Along with that tragic mistake which Zakariah sees sympathetically as committed by "a non-politician," Zakariah might wish to account for these other steps taken by Musharraf:

• Arresting members of the Supreme Court, hundreds of lawyers, and uncounted pro-democracy advocates, while at the very same time, his supposedly anti-terrorist regime released 25 to 29 (media accounts vary) members of the Taliban in a prisoner exchange.
• Shutting off almost all independent media access within Pakistan, including the Internet.
• As chief of the military, diverting at least $10 billion in US military aid intended for anti-terrorist activity near the border with Afghanistan into the purchase of conventional military weapons which have no apparent purpose except to enhance Pakistan's ability to wage war against India.
• Permitting the dissemination of nuclear-weapons technology throughout the world via the work of Dr. A.Q. Khan and a network of collaborators who almost certainly extended into the military and the ISI intelligence service.

While US ally Pakistan was engaged in this widespread disperson of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, the US has been threatening war against Iran over its legal development of nuclear power and long menaced North Korea, a fellow member of the "axis of evil," over unproven charges that it was proliferating nuclear weapons to other nations. As it turned out, Pakistan was actually the culprit. (By the way, Dr. Khan, the master proliferator, has been pardoned by Musharraf.)

While Zakaria chooses to avoid discussing these acts by Musharraf, he offers one reassuring assertion and an ominous warning. Zakaria optimistically informs us, despite the current unpleasantness, that Pakistan has "serious traditions of law, human rights, and democracy."

To the extent Pakistan embodies those traditions, however, they have been cautiously nurtured at the grass roots outside government scrutiny and without the backing of the US government, which has a long tradition of backing dictatorships in Pakistan. The US provided crucial assistance to dictators like the brutal Zia ul-Haq in the 1970's (whose politics were the antecedents of today's Al Qaeda and Taliban), helped in setting up Pakistan's infamous ISI (that nation's version of the CIA), and used Pakistan to assemble a team of fanatical Islamists (including Osama bin Laden) from nearly 40 nations to wage a holy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The most horrifying blowback from assembling and arming the Islamic fanatics was felt on Sept. 11, 2001.


Despite this sordid history (with which he does not bother the reader), Zakariah warns us of the dire consequences of slashing US military aid to Pakistan. The US already caused severe alienation among military leaders when it temporarily suspended military assistance after Pakistan proudly exploded its first nuclear weapon in 1998. "Were such a break to take place a second time, it is unlikely that Washington would ever again be trusted by Pakistan's military establishment," Zakaria says ominously.
RISK: LOSING TRUST OF PAKISTAN'S MILITARY
Losing the trust of Pakistan's military establishment is an interesting proposition. After all, haven't they proven to be a consistent bulwark of democracy in their own nation? Haven't they sought to prevent nuclear proliferation? Haven't they tried to avoid any provocative actions against fellow nuclear power India, which carries potentially devastating consequences? Haven't they courageously broken all their past ties to the Taliban and other extremists? Haven't they deployed the $10 billion-plus in US military aid to wage a ferocious struggle to wipe out terrorists on their frontier with Afghanistan? ("No" is the correct answer to all of the above.)

While George W. Bush and Co. could not be taken seriously about democracy promotion when they were supporting Musharraff, the leaders of Saudia Arabia, and other tyrannies, what about the rest of us? If we as Americans--especially the Democrats in Congress--truly believe in supporting democracy and human rights, the time has come to end aid to the military men who cast such an enormous shadow over Pakistani society.

Voter disgust with both political parties may create support a third party in 2008, much to chagrin of those talking heads once more calling for the Dems to stick rigidly to the center. (See Marty Kaplan, The Suicide Strategy--Not!" (at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/the-suicide-strategy-not_b_71741.html )

But I don't expect the worldview of elite pundits or top Democratic consultants to be even slightly dented by a new survey showing popular disgust with the current bi-partisan system, which is fundamentally shaped by legal payoffs and policy paybacks. Recognizing that the conventional wisdom about the need for more timid, tepid centrism is dead wrong? Realizing that Bush and the increasingly hard-Right Republicans have shifted the definition of "centrism" many degrees to the right?

No way. The supposed formula for victory--being moderate even on the most intense concerns of the voter--has been proven wrong election after election in Democratic presidential defeats. Even with the apparent exception of Bill Clinton--who rammed through NAFTA and signed welfare reform, among many betrayals of his Democratic base--it is crucial to remember that he ran in 1992 as a something of a populist promising economic policies that would "put people first."

But the wisemen of the Democratic Party--many of them, like Robert Rubin and Roger Altman, drawn from Wall Street--are pressing hard to keep the party on a "moderate" course that avoids a sharp break from the agenda of corporate globalization or even the speedy withdrawal from Iraq promised to voters in 2006.

MAJORITY VIEWS EXCLUDED
Bold issue positions that would distinguish the Democratics have long been ruled off the radar screen of acceptable political options. For example:

• 67% of Americans favor a healthcare system like those in Canada or Britain (Business Week, 5/15/05);
• 77% of Americans are opposed to the outsourcing of US jobs (Pew Research poll released for Labor Day 2006);
• 76% of Americans support full public funding of elections, recognizing that a small outlay of taxpayer dollars up-front will help to prevent hugely expensive policy paybacks down the road , according to a Public Campaign poll.
• Some 69% of US citizens want an end to the US military occupation of Iraq (I believe that was an NBC/Wall St. Journal poll)

Further, 72% of US soldiers in Iraq wanted a complete pullout by the end of 2006 (!), according to a James Zogby poll. (This poll produced fascinating results, because the troops still in Iraq--based on what I have heard from veterans--tend to shut off discussion of anti-war positions. Thus, individual polling produced results far different from what current soldiers are willing to say among their comrades, for whatever reason.) Additionally, the Iraqis themselves--whose views on the occupation of their country are discussed in the mainstream US media about as often as the estimated 1.2 million civilian deaths (that is, almost never) --feel strongly opposed to the presence of the US and British occupiers by an 82% margin (leaked British Ministry of Defence poll, August 2005). Meanwhile, the Iraqi Parliament has voted that any renewal of authorization of the US presence must obtain 2/3 approval, presenting a major legal barrier to the occupation.


MAJORITY FAR TO THE LEFT OF DEMS
Nonetheless, the Democratic-held Congress has been intimidated by the illusion that "the surge" will somehow restore stability, thus buying into Bush's occupation without end. So on the most critical issues of the day--Iraq, health care (listed in polls not only as the most pressing domestic concern, but also the #1 "economic issue" for Americans), the outsourcing of jobs, and the roots of corporate domination of both Democratic and Republican administrations (ie., heavy dependence on corporate CEO campaign contributions), two-thirds to three-quarters of the American people are far to the Left of positions that can barely be discussed within the Democratic Party, much less mainstream discourse.

But the vast majority of Americans who hold such positions imagine themselves to hold "far-out" views that are unacceptable to most other people, because a) such stances barely enter mainstream media discourse or even the speeches of Democratic leaders and b) their prevailing majority status (with the exception of Iraq) is never widely discussed in the conventional corporate press.

Imagine if a cohesive vocal group of Democratic and progressive leaders articulated and defended those views day after day through news media that treated such views respectfully and stressed that they represented the positions of most Americans. As an indicator of how poorly the mainstream media are performing, only in the alternative media and the blogosphere do the majority's support for fundamental change find any consistent outlet. No wonder Karl Rove grumbled about the Web, "People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe [ie., holding views backed by 2/3 or more of Americans, but unacceptable to discuss in elite circles] of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog." (Quoted in NY Times, Nov. 11, 2007)

But despite majority support on key issues, those who articulate progressive views are dismissed not just by Karl Rove but by the leading levels of the Democratic Party and their donors as "the nutty fringe." In responding to this reality, progressives need to recognize what I consider two difficult truths:
1) The US political system makes it virtually impossible for a third party to play anything but a spoiler role, thereby forcing us--at least for the forseeable future--into creating a coherent Left within the Democratic Party.
2) Spreading information and opinion via the web extends our reach, but in the main, still leaves us mostly reinforcing or venting our outrage to those who already agree with us. We must therefore devote much more energy to opening up the mainstream media to coverage of progressive viewpoints and activities.

Until we find effective means of impacting the corporate-influenced Democratic Party and the corporate-run mainstream media, those of us pushing for genuine economic democracy at home and an end to empire will be effectively marginalized.

Groucho Marx told a great joke about being caught in bed with a married woman by her husband. Groucho claims that he escaped the husband's potentially-fatal wrath by totally befuddling him.

Audaciously denying the obvious, Groucho demanded, "Who are you going to believe--your own eyes or what I tell you?"

PUBLIC HAS SEEN ENOUGH, THANK YOUR VERY MUCH

When 109 House Democrats voted with the Bush Administration to approve yet another "free trade" agreement with Peru, they were cynically calling upon working Americans to disregard what their own eyes have told them about the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, the model for the Peru deal.

These House Democrats and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would like to convince us that we are watching the passage of a "trade" agreement. (John Edwards expressed his strong opposition). They know that if they called the deal what it really is--another green light for the outsourcing of US jobs--they would have almost no support among working Americans.

A Pew Research Center poll released in September, 2006 showed 77% of Americans opposed to the outsourcing of US jobs. Opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals (a description that surely fits the Peru agreement) has even been rising among high-income Americans, with the University of Maryland finding 55% opposition among those earning more than $110,000 a year.

But by substituting the mantra of "free trade" for a more accurate label of "job outsourcing," Clinton, Obama, and the 109 House Democrats are counting on Americans ignore the empty factories and crumbling and inner cities they view every day, as a result of massive US job losses resulting from NAFTA.

UNFULFILLED PROMISES
Contrary to what Bill Clinton and other free-trade advocates promised, NAFTA did not promote genuine trade with Mexico.

The slight lowering of tariffs, combined with protections for US investments in Mexico, was supposed to increase the supply of jobs as US firms would supposedly be able to sell more products to Mexico, and thus hire more US workers. While 66 major corporations proclaimed that NAFTA would result in increased employment in their US facilities, 61 actually slashed jobs in the US.

Despite all the "free trade" rhetoric, NAFTA merely provided iron-clad protections for corporations and investors who wanted to annex Mexico as a low-wage suburb for US firms.

MEANINGLESS LABOR PROTECTIONS

Meanwhile, labor and environmental safeguards in "side agreements" have been totally ignored when union organizers are fired or arrested and as environemental problems have intensified.

As with NAFTA, the Peru trade deal includes some "fig-leaf" provisions that are supposed to serve as "labor protections." Reps. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Sander Levin (D-Mich.)--once seen as dependable allies of workers, but now tainted by their central role in ramming through this deal-- have claimed that the labor protections in this deal are incorporated directly in the agreement, not in weak side agreements.
'Vague, undefined, and unenforceable '
However, Columbia Prof. Mark Barenberg notes that the agreement only commits Peru and the US to "vague, undefined, and unenforceable labor 'principles' and their own domestic laws." Moreover, the Peru deal contains sanctions for labor-law violations that are weaker than existing trade laws.

An estimated 70% of the trade with Mexico consists of intra-firm transfers within the same US-based firm. In other words, components made in the US by, say, GE, are shipped to Mexican "maquiladora" plants for assembly in low-wage (80 cents to $1 an hour is a typical border wage) GE plants and then "exported" back to the US.

WAGES DROP ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BORDER
Industrial wages on both sides of the US-Mexican border have declined since NAFTA went into effect, with Cargenie Endowment estimating a 24% drop in Mexico. The Economic Policy Institute has documented over 900,000 NAFTA-related job losses in the US.

RETRAINING NO SOLUTION
Of every 100 workers displaced by mass layoffs like those caused by NAFTA, 73 will face a significant drop in earnings or be forced to retire, according to Louis Uchitelle, author of The Disposable American. Only 27 regain or improve upon their old standard of living. Retraining programs, the favored "get-well" card of the New York Times (see 11/8/07 editorial exhorting the Democrats to vote for the Peru deal) and others backing the corporate agenda of shifting jobs and investment overseas, delivers little meaningful help to displaced workers.

But NAFTA, by providing a huge supply of low-wage labor and investment guarantees, has been good for the tiny circle of US citizens who really matter. NAFTA boosted the profits and CEO pay of US-based corporations. For example, in one year, then-GE CEO Jack Welch earned $92 million, more than his 15,000 serfs employed in GE plants in Mexico.

The vote on the Peru trade agreement it exposes the emptiness of Obama's campaign for "change. What happened to his old speeches from his 2004 Senate race about the plight of displaced industrial workers in southern Illinois? Seemingly terrified of veering too far from Clinton's program, Obama is offering very little reason for his followers to take him seriously when he talks about reshaping America.

Given that Hillary Clinton is the front-runner with a double-digit lead, her position on the Peru trade deal is yet another sign of how little she differs from the Republicans on issues of substance like the continued occupation of Iraq, the preparations for war against Iran on specious grounds, and the vast inequality and environmental degradation deepened by corporate globalization. In particular, Clinton's stance reveals the hollowness of her rhetoric asserting that "globalization must work for working Americans." Instead, it reflects a consistent pattern of backing corporate globalization.

The only exceptions occur when a signficiant portion of Corporate America opposes a particular deal, as when she fell into line only after the auto industry took a stand against the proposed trade deal with South Korea. But thus far, Clinton's stance on issues have mattered far less in the polls than her image as someone who rouses the ire of Republicans, thereby suggesting that she represents a major threat to the interests of the powerful.

Paradoxically, Clinton is by far the most conservative of the Democratic candidates at a time when polls and public statements indicate that the base of the Democratic Party is infuriated with the congressional wing's surrender on issue after issue.

THIS IS A PARTY OF OPPOSITION?

Almost every day, we are confronted with the reality that the Democrats are not a party of serious opposition to the Bush agenda. This sad reality is reinforced by the reluctance to shut off the flow of funds for continued occupation of Iraq, the confirmation of Michael Mukaysey as attorney general despite his support of virtually absolute presidential powers and his unwillingness to brand waterboarding as torture, and even retreating from a long-awaited resolution on Turkey's genocidal war against Armenians in 1915 because it threatened to inconvenience Bush's never-ending war against Iraq.

This latest capitulation to Bush on the Peru trade deal, like NAFTA in 1993, shows once again the leading Democrats' contempt for both the economic suffering of their traditional blue-collar base and the vast majority opposition to corporate globalization.

But three questions remain:

• First, will Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have to pay a price for their very tangible support of corporate globalization when the chips are down?

• Second, will such surrenders to the corporate agenda once again, as in 1994, convince the public that the Democrats are barely distinguishable from the Republicans? Many Democratic-leaning citizens could conclude that voting for the Democrats is an exercise in futility, thus disastrously driving down the turnout of Democrats' core constituencies.

• Third, the nomination of a right-of-center Democrat like Clinton might also trigger a third-party candidacy backed by many Democrats whose views are not even dimly reflected by Clinton. Even the fresh memories of the 2000 election, with Nader's campaign playing a part in the GOP victory may not undercut this sentiment, especially if Clinton continues to argue that the Iraq War has been poorly-directed rather than fundamentally immoral. (Let's keep in mind that the Nader campaign was a tiny factor compared to the GOP's massive and coordinated disenfranchisement of African-Americans in Florida, as documented by UK-based journalist Greg Palast)

If Hillary Clinton continues down her present course, she will be driving away many voters who will see little difference between her and Guiliani or Romney on the most critical question of this era.

This posting was prompted by Adele Stan's piece in the latest American Prospect on-line site ( http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=hatin_on_hillary#postComment) analyzing the various types of purported "Hillary Haters." The absurdity of her typologies sadly reflects the reflexive embrace of Hillary Clinton as "a candidate who can win," an amnesia-plagued nostalgia for Bill Clinton's presidency, and an unwillingness to grapple with the fact that the Democratic front-runner offers so little of what we need to reverse the engorgement of the rich and neglect of ordinary Americans--from Hurricane Katrina's disposable African-American poor to displaced autoworkers in Kenosha--and empire-building and unbounded aggression abroad.

Ms. Stan obviously seeks to divert the debate over the future of the Democratic Party from a sober analysis of Hillary Clinton's actual record into speculation about the emotional roots of Hillary Clinton's critics.

I would suggest another basis for opposing Hillary Clinton (which Ms. Stan would nonetheless translate into pathologically "hating") Hillary Clinton: an examination of her actual record.

Unfortunately, coming to grips with Hillary Clinton positions and votes suggests that her election in 2008 would mean far less than a thorough repudiation and reversal of George W. Bush's global and domestic policies. If Hillary Clinton has forcefully rejected the doctrines of "pre-emptive war," "free trade" (ie., unlimited outsourcing of US jobs and enthroning corporate power via trade agreements; while Clinton spoke out against the proposed deal with South Korea, she did so only after the big US automakers did so), and corporate-dominated healthcare, I must have missed these statements

Specifically: 1) Hillary Clinton not only voted for the Iraq War but also revealingly voted against Sen. Carl Levin's amendment calling for the exhaustion of all diplomatic alternatives. (Clinton of course refuses to admit that her pro-war vote was disastrously wrong.) Clinton's recent statements envision continued US military action against the relatively marginal Al Qaeda of Iraq force which was entirely non-existent before the US occupation.


2) In this context of her stance on Iraq, her decision to vote for the Kyl-Lieberman Bill branding the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist force looks less like a failure to learn from recent history than a cynical attempt to shamelessly appeal to hawks. Her later embrace of Sen. Jim Webb's bill calling for diplomacy on Iran (Webb reportedly didn't know Sen. Clinton signed on) looks less like a sincere commitment to peaceful processes than an attempt to stanch a self-inflicted wound in her image.

3) Her reliance on chief advisor and pollster Mark Penn, CEO of the notorious Burson-Marsteller law firm is deeply disturbing. Burson-Marsteller's recent clients have included Blackwater USA (now Penn says that Blackwater is being dropped) and the government of Colombia, which has presided over an era of extermination of union leaders yet wants a "free trade" agreement with the US. Other familiar faces in her camp like James Carville have been tainted by their association with an unpopular right-wing president in Bolivia and the corporate-led coalition that staged a coup against democratically-elected Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as outlined in the film "Our Brand is Crisis" and other sources.

4) Hillary Clinton's reprise of an insurance company-centered healthcare policy, despite the disastrous defeat this plan suffered (and in some ways generated) in 1994 shows her deep loyalties to corporate power that reach back to her days as a Wal-Mart board member. While her plan is not radically different than those of other front-runners Barack Obama and John Edwards (except for Edwards' very explicit inclusion of a "single-payer option), most disturbing is how Clinton arrived at her new plan." It has been widely reported in Newsweek and elsewhere that Clinton developed her current plan in close consultation with the reigning powers of our health system: the insurance and drug companies.

The insurance companies add absolutely nothing to the delivery of health care in the US except an enormous bureaucratic burden estimated to be $350 billion to $400 billion. In fact, insurers' profits depend on their ability to scrutinize and harass both patients and doctors in order to discourage the use of the best health treatments if they are more costly. It is no wonder that 67% of US citizens favor a health system like Canada or Britain's where insurers' role is marginalize. (Business Week poll, May, 2005). Yet Clinton contemptuously ignores the overwhelming public distrust of insurers and instead fervently insists on carving out a privileged place for the insurers in directing our health treatments under a "mangled care" system. Clinton's recent debate criticisms of insurers seem far less meaningful and heart-felt than her heavy reliance on medical interests for both campaign contributions and consultation on the shaping of her insurer-centric health plan.

5) Clinton has paraded her credentials as a feminist and as a committed fighter for the interests of women and children. Yet where was she in 1996 when her husband and Congress repealed part of the landmark Social Security Act aimed primarily at protecting young single mothers? Yes, "welfare as we know it" has been thoroughly crushed; unfortunately, the poverty and powerlessness of single mothers and their kids have reached levels unknown since the Great Depression. Despite all this and more, Ms. Stan pities Hillary Clinton for "being reduced to a symbol."

Instead, I would expect Ms. Stans to be absolutely jubilant over the corporate media's neglect of the substance of Clinton's record and her inflation into somehow being a major symbol of resistance to the policies of George W. Bush.

If Clinton continues to get kid-gloves treatment from both the major media and people who identify as "feminists" like Ms. Stan, both the Democratic Party and the nation are in very deep trouble.

Private for-profit insurance is the very cause of our healthcare crisis--not the solution (MJS editorial, 10/7 "Mandating Coverage: A Sensible Solution" )

"Private insurers maximize profits mainly by limiting benefits or by not covering people with health problems," points out Dr. Marcia Angell of Harvard Medical School. "The United States is the only advanced country in the world with a health care system based on avoiding sick people."

How will a mandate for individual coverage address this basic yet perverse motive of the health-insurance industry? Nor will it address the enormous waste from this huge private-sector bureaucracy dedicated expressly to denying insured to those with "pre-existing conditions" and refusing coverage to the insured whenever possible.

The amount of excess administrative overhead in the US as been estimated to range from $98 billion a year by the corporate-friendly McKinsey Group consulting firm to $399 billion by Harvard Medical School scholars and Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler writing in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Mandating that individuals purchase private insurance will not address this administrative waste, and thus fail to contain the astronomical costs of insurance premiums. Nor will individual mandates guarantee coverage of the 47 million uninsured. Such a mandate is flopping in Massachusetts and is sure to fail nationally, simply because the near-poor could not afford it before the mandate was imposed and cannot afford it now.

As for the alleged virtue that individuals should pay private health insurers simply because it is "familiar," why not recognize that Americans are also very familiar with paying for libraries, police and fire protection, and other basic public goods through public mechanism? Healthcare is an essential human need, and trying to further "corporatize" it will only add to the cost and complexity.

The Journal Sentinel contends that a single-payer, like those in Canada, Taiwan,and France, is not "politically doable," If so, there are two simple reason: insurers' campaign contributions short-circuit democracy by intimidating Congress and state legislatures, while elite politicians and the media like the Journal Sentinel refuse to recognize the overwhelming majority opinion of the American people, To cite just one poll, Business Week (5/17/05) summarized its own poll in these terms: “67% of all Americans think it’s a good idea to guarantee healthcare for all US citizens, as Canada and Britain do, with just 27% dissenting,” .

As Leo Brideau, president and CEO of Columbia St. Mary's healthcare in Milwaukee,. explains it, private insurers "don't take any risk by simply serving as third-party claims processors and yet spend 70 cents of the premium dollar on health care and the rest goes to shareholders."

Since for-profit health insurers take no risk yet add immensely to healthcare costs and complexity, they must no longer be the commanding force in our healthcare system. Replacing them with a single state-level payer, funded by employers, workers, and the public, would dramatically cut costs, ensure access, and improve quality. This step is long overdue.

The willingness of presidential candidates--especially the Democrats' Hillary Clinton (whose lackluster plan was based on close consultation with the medical-insurance industry), Barack Obama and John Edwards--to confront this reality and confront the for-profit health insurance industry will be a fundamental test of their fitness to lead America in 2008.