Thanks

They were not supposed to be there.

It was going to be a 8-8, 9-7 type of season, at best.

But there they were. A first-round bye and Walrus Holmgren coming to town; all was right with the world. Green Bay was again title town.

Hey, Seattle fans, remember this?

Third down, wrapped in the arms of Seattle defensive end Brandon Mebane, Green Bay’s hill billy Brett was all but sacked. Or so it seemed.

Filtered through the persistent snow that happened upon that historic city, upon that historic stadium, the play again reminded of why we love our quarterback, why Brett is...well, Brett.

Thirty one other quarterbacks in the NFL would have been sacked on that particular play, but Brett…well just asked Donald Lee how that play turned out. A stumbling, off balance, anything but fundamental underhand flip through the flakes, and we had it, a personification of the career that has enthralled a city for 17 years. He improvised, found a way, and gave us one last reminder of just how lucky we were to have had a front row seat to history.

Today Brett Favre retired.

There it is said. At face value, a simple statement. But for those who it resonates deepest, it is as confusing and nuanced as any. It is an exclamation point punctuating a career that defined not only a city, a state and franchise; but also an era.

In all reality, it was an inevitable conclusion. After all, Elway, Marino, Tarkington and Montana all retired. But try convincing any fan elbow deep in a Krohls West bag of fries, or enjoying a cold Miller Lite at the Stadium View of this ‘inevitability’ and you will be met with confusion. For them, this is not only an absurd comparison, but one not worth discussion.

Number 4 has defined a city for 17 years. Monday through Friday residents are a hard working, no frills lot. But come Sunday, this otherwise blue collar town became sexy. Green Bay had its Hollywood star. A release from an otherwise mundane existance, he was Brett; and he put a town that was otherwise an afterthought on the map.

It’s hard, but all good things must come to an end.

Entertainer, winner, champion, only a few of the descriptors that help shade the portrait that is Brett Favre’s legendary career. Here it is, a send off with the type of simplicity that I think the unassuming man with the southern drawl would himself very much appreciate. See yah Brett, and thank you.

Look! This campaign does have substance: economy

The disdain for the Bush tax cuts on the part of both Democratic candidates is nearing campaign legend status. For a comparison, think Grover Cleveland's battles with protectionists during the 1892 campaign, or Howard Taft fighting William Jennings Bryan over reform in 1908. Not working for you? Try this one, think, Al Gore and the RNC battling over the creation of the internet in 2000 - it's big.

But beyond this inherant hatred for the Bush tax cuts, what else is in the democratic canidates economic plans?

Clinton's plan would start by regressing the rate of income tax paid by upper-income people to the levels seen in the 1990s.

She will also provide matching tax credits to families who save money. The plan includes a dollar-for-dollar match for the first $1,000 a married couple saves, and a 50 percent match on families the first $1,000 savings for married couples earning $60,000 - $100,000. In order to qualify for matching funds, a family has to do their saving in a new American Retirement Account, a Hillary proposed new approach to retirement savings (discussed later).

Obama's biggest tax credit is the, Making Work Pay credit, it would provide a tax credit up to $500 for single payers and up to $1000 for working families. Obama says this will do two things, it will negate payroll taxes on the first $8,100 of income, and second, while maintaining a funding source for social security.

Up next on our magical mystery tour of tax credits, college affordability.

Under Obama's perfectly cheesily titled Create the American Opportunity tax credit, the first $4,000 of college education for 'most Americans' would be free, the use of most, instead of all, is never explained. After the initial $4,000, Obama says his plan would pay for two-thirds the cost of tuition at an 'average public college or university.'

Clinton's credit would double the HOPE tax credit, it would raise the benefit a person can receive from $1,650-$3,000. She would also increase the maximum Pell Grant, tying its value to the cost of tuition.

On retirement, Obama and Hillary offer similar plans. Both would create an automatic workplace pension, this would provide a retirement plan for people who have no employer-based plan. A major aspect of Clinton's plan would establish the American Retirement Account. Money put into this account would be subject to Clinton's matching policy. Additionally, money saved is put into your account via direct-deposit, the same way direct-deposit for payroll works.

Obama would also create an IRA direct-deposit system. His plan will also automatically enroll employees into a workplace pension plan, unless they opt-out. Employers who do not offer a retirement plan will have to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account. Like Clinton, Obama will match funds saved in his new these new retirement accounts. He will expand the Savers Choice tax credit to match up to $1,000 of savings for a family earning under $75,000.

Clinton says she will pay for the American Retirement Account's matching tax cuts by freezing the estate tax at $7 million per couple. Obama does not say where the money for his plan will come from.

Look! This Campaign does have substance: Mortage/Housing crisis

On the housing crisis, Clinton offers a more drastic and broad moving proposal, but both devote a lot of resources to the issue.

To the ire of many, the focal point of Clinton's plan is a 90 day moratorium on foreclosures. The moratorium would keep borrowers un-homeless until the second part of Clinton's plan, a rate freeze on adjustable rate loans.

This freeze would last for at least five years, or until subprime loans could be converted to more "affordable" loans. Clinton will also require status reports on the progress that Wall Street is making in converting subprime loans into affordable ones.

Obama's plan is anchored by what he calls a Foreclosure Prevention Fund, a $10 billion fund that will help, well, let's just say it's name is not very original. Under his plan, borrowers facing foreclosure would be allowed to refinance their loans through either the Federal Housing Authority or government-sponsored-mortgage-giants Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae.

Obama's fund would also help home owners who bought houses they can not afford sell those houses - basically, assistance for people who made bad choices. The specifics include, providing additional time and assistance to borrowers in order to help them pay back any losses from selling their home and the waiving of certain income taxes that result from borrowers selling their homes to avoid foreclosure.

Both candidates would also address bad guy lenders who, like Dan Aykroyd circa-1977, blatantly covered up the true danger of the product they were pushing. Sitting with a Consumer Reporter (Candice Bergen), toy salesmen, and all around sleaze, Irwin Mainway (Akyroyd) explains that his company's toy, Mainway's Bag O'glass, is nothing more than "an interesting toy, you know?" With the type of greasy arrogance that made Mainway an SNL favorite, mortgage brokers gave dangerous, Bag O'Glass, loans to borrowers - all the while promising, they're nothing more than interesting loans, you know?

Under Obama's STOP FRAUD Act, new penalties for Mainway-lenders found guilty of fraud would be enacted, and the Government Accountability Office would be required to monitor some state lending programs in a effort to find, and get rid of, programs that are unfair to borrowers.

Clinton combats predatory lenders through transparency. Her plan would require mortgage brokers to tell borrowers that their compensation rises are tied to the level of mortgage rates and fees. In other words, the higher the rates and fees, the more money the borrower pockets. She also wants to create a federal registry of mortgage brokers, so borrowers can easily look up violations or complaints levied against a broker. Currently there is no centralized way to look up such information.

Clinton would give a boost to local housing trust funds, under her plan she would create a $1 billion fund to give federal support to local housing trust funds, eliminate pre-payment penalties and require that lenders disclose the taxes and insurance costs when going over the loan with a borrower. Currently, lenders can exclude these 'hidden costs' from the underwriting assessment, thus they are able to qualify people for mortgages they can not afford.

Obama's plan would create a universal 10 percent universal mortgage credit and create the HOME score, an easy to understand rubric that would help borrowers compare prices and understand the full cost of a loan.

Look! This campaign does have substance: Foreign Relations (not Iraq)

With the glare of a thousand suns glaring back, let's look at the bald spot of both Clinton and Obama's platforms, foreign policy. It is actually quite incredible that both miss the point so dramatically.

Outside of Iraq, it could be argued that China and Palestine-Isreal are the two biggest foreign policy hurdles facing the next administration - but neither candidate has an explicit plan to address the two hot spots.

On China.

Clinton started out 2007 framing our one-sided relationship with China as "an erosion of our own economic sovereignty." Clinton also sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, urging them to ensure that foreign governments do not own too much of our debt.

Beautiful rhetoric, but unfortunately this faint attempt at beginning to address China ended early in 2007, as promising sentiment turned to a lame, hollow platform. Clinton's foreign policy aspirations are laid out in an eight page piece, written by Clinton, in Foreign Policy magazine (the article is the main foreign policy link on her website). Of the eight pages, a scant 132 words are devoted to China, 67 of which are dedicated to the description of a climate change plan that would have the United States, China and Japan work together to create greater energy efficiencies.

Clinton's plan is laughable, not ha-ha funny, but, wow, this is actually her plan funny - but at least she feigns interest in China, that is more than Obama can say.

Zero, zilch, nada, that's what you will find in Obama's official foreign policy platform regarding China. In one debate, Obama said China was "neither our enemy nor our friend" - its a good thing Obama is the change candidate, as decisiveness may not be his thing.

On Israel-Palestine.

Both take a decidedly pro-Israel stance. Neither thinks Hamas should be recognized until they recognize Israel's right to exist, stop the violence and abide by past agreements between Israel and Palestine. There are a few shiny objects thrown in to distract onlookers from the otherwise drab opaque that is their Middle East plans. For example, Obama supports continued development of the Arrow Missile Defense system (designed to thwart attacks from Iran), and Hillary supports the security wall between Israel and the West Bank.

But for the most part, both plan fit nicely into their candidates’ overall foreign policy motif - minimalist.

On Iran, Clinton has taken a harsher stance than Obama. In a move chided by many of her Democratic counterparts, Clinton voted for a resolution labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Clinton has maintained that she supports further diplomacy with the region, but some see Clinton as a Democrat capable of supporting military action with Iran.

Obama's plan centers on diplomacy, with the prospect for incentives. If Iran were to abandon its nuclear program and give up its support of terrorism it could receive incentives under the Obama plan. Such sugar cookies could include: membership into the World Trade Organization, economic incentives and normalized diplomatic relations.

Both candidates’ see Afghanistan as the 'forgotten front-line’ and both would redirect troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Obama would redeploy two brigades to Afghanistan; he would also call for NATO to increase their efforts in the region. Like Clinton, he also calls for measures to end corruption in the Afghan government and secure the boarder. But like the rest of his plan, offers no way to pay for the plan.

Clinton does not give exact troop numbers, but simply says we must engage in counter terrorism efforts in Afghanistan. She would combat oppey production by funding crop-substitution programs. Her plan, unlike Obama's, directly deals with the countries infrastructure, she says that if elected she would initiate a large-scale road building project.

Both candidates fail to say how they will pay for much of their foreign policy platforms, and in many cases they are less than specific. Foreign policy for the Democrats is, at best, a work in progress.

Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Health Care

Thanks John. Edward's has finally pulled the plug, making my overview of candidate policies a bit easier.

The key difference between the two remaining candidates health care plans is choice v. requirement. Obama's plan would provide people the choice to obtain affordable health care insurance, while Clinton's would require it - the dreaded universal health care.

Both would allow people who are happy with their current coverage to maintain their coverage. Both would also offer a new public plan, crafted in the image of Medicare, and offer the same type of plan offered to members of Congress.

To ensure that those who can not afford insurance are able to meet the requirement of insurance Clinton's plan would offer: refundable tax credits, limit premiums to a percentage of income and create a tax credit for small businesses to encourage them to cover employees.

Obama's plan touts low premiums and co-pays (without providing specifics). Obama would also offer subsidies to those who do not qualify for SCHIP or Medicare. He would require that all children are insured (a notion implicit in Clinton's universal plan) and raise the age that young adults can stay on their parents plan up to 25.

Both would eliminate insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. To achieve this Clinton says she would require that insurance companies automatically renew a person's policy if they wish to remain in that policy. It would also prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on age, gender or occupation.

Additionally, under Clinton's plan, premiums collected by insurers must be dedicated to quality health care coverage, not excessive profits or marketing. Obama's plan offers a similar measure, but he sees it as a way to increase competition. Under his plan only insurance companies in regions that lack competition would be required to dedicate premiums.

In an effort to reign in the cost of prescription drugs, both would repeal the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, which forbade Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies. This cost saving measure is rooted in precedent, the Veterans Administration's ability to directly negotiate prescription drug prices has been seen as a success.

Both candidates want to help reduce cost by stopping overpayments to Medicare. Obama proposes eliminating payments made to Medicare's private plan alternative, called Medicare Advantage. Obama says that the government pays 12 percent more to treat patients with comparable conditions through Medicare Advantage than it does through traditional Medicare. Clinton does not specify how she would end Medicare overpayments.

Obama's plan would also include protection from the catastrophic cost associated with catastrophic illness/injury. The plan would reimburse employers a percentage of catastrophic cost that employers incur above a certain, undetermined, threshold. Clinton's plan includes no such provision.

Clinton estimates her plan will cost $110 billion a year, she plans to pay for it, in part, by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those earning $250,000 a year. She also will limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.

Obama estimates his plan will cost between $50 to $60 billion a year once fully implemented, and he will also fund it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making $250,000 per year.

I try to inject a bit of personality and humor into my posts, but the only thing drier than health care reform is Fred Thompson on the stump. Needless to say health care, like Grandpa Fred, does not lend itself to humor.

Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Iraq

Well, in a New Hampshire-esque curveball, it turns out there are differences in the Democratic presidential canidate's Iraq plans. Who knew?

Let's jump in.

All want some sort of large troop withdrawl, but the three plans resemble Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - their different.

Edwards wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and wants to achieve a full withdrawal in 9 to 10 months. Edward's plan would leave one brigade behind to protect the embassy and a couple hundred to guard humanitarian workers.

His plan is the most aggressive. Clinton's does not provide a target troop withdrawal, but says she would direct her Department of Defense, her Secretary of Sate, and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to begin withdrawal withing 60 days. She wants to move...but she is undeceive, like a color-blind guy nervously idling away at a traffic light.

Obama would immediately begin the withdrawal of one or two brigades a month (a brigade is roughly 1,500-3,500 troops). He would continue this until all combat troops were out, he anticipates this taking until late 2009.

All want to leave some troops in the region, but again, there are differences.

Obama and Clinton do not provide specifics, but simply say that they would leave some number of troops in the country to fight Al Qaeda and protect US interests in the country. Obama's plan would remove troops from secure areas first.

Edward's plan provides troop estimates. He would leave 3,500 to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect embassies and humanitarian workers. Edwards also wants quick reaction troops in friendly countries, in case of genocide and to stomp out Al Queda safe havens.

On a topic in which she once used as a means to attack Obama's experience, which countries in the region to negotiate with, Clinton's Iraq plan displays a classic example of politician blabber. Earlier, she criticized Obama's foreign policy inexperience because he said he would engage hostile countries like Syria. Under Clinton's plan she would gather a regional stabilization group including: key allies, other global powers and all bordering states. It is this last group that best highlights Clinton's aptitude for politician blabber (take a look at which country is placed snugly next to Iraq's Northwest boarder).

Instead of saying, oops, I guess I would also bring Syria to the table, my bad. She slipped the idea into the politically euphemistic, regional stabilization group. Umm, that's good blabber. Obama actually takes a stronger stance than Clinton. He says he would encourage Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to steam the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. A clenched fist, to Hillary's foam finger.

On the issue of continued training of the Iraqi security force, there are differences in all three plans.

Edwards would intensify the training, while Obama would tie our continued training to the stipulation that the Iraqi security forces do not become sectarian. Clinton has not really addressed the issue.

Under Obama and Clinton's campaigns the United Nations would be given a fairly prominent role. Obama would have the UN convene a constitutional convention. The council would address issues such an oil revenue sharing, De-Ba'thification and Federalism. He would also have the UN create a team that would investigate possible war crimes, in an effort to prevent genocide.

Clinton's plan involves a multi-billion dollar plan, lead by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, to address the needs of refugees. Additionally, to help curtail sectarian violence she advocates the appointment of a high level UN representative to help broker a peace deal between Iraq's three ethnic groups.

Edwards does not give the UN an explicit role in his Iraq plan.

Im sure I missed a ton, there is much more to cover. It may be incomplete, but there is a rough outline of each Democratic canidate's Iraq plan, including their, apparently elusive, differences.

Introducing the 'Look! This campaign actually has substance

The largely cosmetic election coverage thus far has led to a common dogma. The Republican front runners have different ideas and are varied on the issues, while the Democratic front runners are homogenous, their electability hinging on personality, not substance.

But this is lazy coverage. A very simply carousing of the candidate’s web sites and you can find many differences between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Yes, for the sake of conversation I will still consider Edwards a front-runner.

In what I am calling 'Look! This campaign actually has substance', over the next couple posts I will take salient issues, outline the candidate’s stance on each, and highlight the differences between the three.

First up immigration.

At the risk of being called a liar, you will have to forget what I said above about differences in policy, the Democratic front-runners stances on immigration are quite similar.

Each plan stresses securing the boarders, brining people out of the shadows and protecting families, but none explains how these goals would be accomplished.

Edwards and Obama's plans mirror one another, while Clinton's is underdeveloped and gives very little insight into what she would do if elected.

All of the candidates want to strengthen the boarders, but Edwards is the only one who steps outside of ambiguities and offers some concreteness to his plan. Under his immigration reform plan, Edwards would double the number of boarder patrol agents, both Obama and Clinton say that securing the boarders is important but offer no insight into how they would accomplish such security.

Another aspect implicit in all three plans is a path to citizenship. Both Obama and Edwards want those here illegally to pay (a yet undetermined) fine, learn English and get in the back of the line and wait their turn to become US citizens. Clinton's only says that she opposes a guest worker program, which Edwards supports, but does not further elaborate.

Clinton does emphasize protecting families. In early 2007 she authored an amendment which would have allowed legal immigrants, with green cards, to bring their immediate families up from Mexico. The amendment capped the number of family members at 87,000.

Overall, the Democratic front-runners all have weak, ill-defined immigration policies high on rhetoric and low on numbers. Obama has the most developed policy, but that is not saying much-akin to being the skinniest kid at fat camp.