The Hon. Peter Bunting, (right) Member of Parliament for Central Manchester in Jamaica and General Secretary for the Opposition PNP in Jamaica receives the Glasspole Cooke Award for Achievement at the 26th Annual Jamaica National Movement Awards & Dinner in New York City. Others in photo are L-R Horace Thomas president of JNM and Desmond Clarke, vice-president. Mr Bunting was the keynote speaker at this year's gala last Saturday in Queens, NY. While here, Mr Bunting connected with hundreds of thousands of Jamaicans on his short trip, undertaking a grueling schedule of press interviews with Diaspora media in New York City, South Florida, Atlanta, New Jersey, Atlanta and Los Angeles.

General Secretary of the People’s National Party – Honorable Peter Bunting was the keynote speaker at 26th annual awards dinner dance of the Jamaica National Movement – The event took place on Saturday, July 17, 2010 in Queens, New York.   CaribPress caught up with this multifaceted politician and businessman via telephone, and we are pleased to share his insights on the dynamic situation with the “Dudus Affair”, as well as his assessment of the impact of the global economic downturn on his constituents.

CPress: In your opinion, what are the lessons learned on handling this dynamic situation with the “Dudus Affair” from a government standpoint?

Hon. PB: Well, I think first of all there was absolutely inappropriate, improper and in my opinion, corrupt interference in the law enforcement process.

We received thousands of extradition requests from the United States every year and they are handled in a particular way.  First of all, they are dealt with in secret, so the subject of the extradition is not tipped off until the warrant of arrest is being executed.  They are usually not subjected to the political interference; they are handled by the officers of the justice department or our attorney generals or director of public prosecution departments or by our police officers.  Politicians should really stay away from interfering in this process.  It has caused a great deal of mistrust with the political officials involved, the prime minister, the minister of justice and the minister of national security.  It has, I think, tainted Jamaica’s image internationally.  We appear to be a country that governs by the rule of law, but operate based on a country that was very good for business if you were in organized crime.

CPress: What are you hearing from your constituents in Central Manchester on the challenges they are facing?

Hon. PB: The main concern is the recession.  We have been impacted by the global recession.  Particularly the reduction in demand for commodities such as aluminum and that has caused the closure of two processing plants in our area, which were major employers.  Therefore, that has really hit the economy of our constituencies.  Unemployment is a big issue now.  While the entire country is in a recession, we are probably in a deeper recession because of the specific impact on the bauxite and our industry.  As I said, we do not have tourism and the economic diversification like some of the other parishes.

CaribPress: Tell our Readers about the parish that you represent.

Honorable Peter Bunting: I represent Central Manchester, which is the Central Southern part of Jamaica.  My constituents are on a 2,000 feet high plateau.  It is quite cool and that’s probably why it was named Manchester after the English kind of weather we have there most of the time.  It’s where most of the bauxite, mining and processing have taken place in Jamaica.  And it also is the home of Northern Caribbean University, one of the three primary universities in Jamaica.  Manchester is not typically considered a tourist destination, but it is a very popular place for returning residents.  It is real pretty, cool, low crime and quite a pleasant environment for living.  We have one of the oldest golf courses in the hemisphere that was built in the 19th century [Manchester Golf Club was founded in 1868 and is the first golf course in the Caribbean].  So, there are a few interesting features to the community. 

CPress: You have a very multifaceted career as a mechanical engineer and businessman.  How did you make the transition to government and politics?

Hon. PB: I have always been drawn to politics.  My father was not involved in politics at an electoral level.  But he was always fascinated and involved with it at some level.  I think he always talked to me about politicians and public service and those he admired.  So I think from an early age, as young as a teen-ager, I started going to political meetings.  It was a time of very charismatic leadership in Jamaica – Michael Manley was the prime minister.  He was really very inspirational and charismatic.  I had the opportunity to be exposed to Michael Manley.  After coming back from University, at one point I actually worked for him.  And that was inevitable my entry into the representation of politics.  “It was my exposure to then Prime Minister Michael Manley (and leader of the people’s national party) that transitioned what was an interest into a commitment to be a part of the political process.  Prime Minister Michael Manley was a mentor for me.”

CPress: What is the latest on the situation, specifically the violence that was ongoing in West Kingston?

Hon. PB: First I must tell you that as the opposition spokesman on national security, I was really in the vanguard of the group of opposition and civil society organization that brought pressure on the government.  You would recall for nine months they [the government] equivocated and attempted to frustrate the extradition request for Christopher “Dudus” Coke.  We really led the charge and were joined by the umbrella group of churches and many of the private sector organizations and NGO’s.  In fact – in the end – calling for Prime Minister Bruce Golding to resign for having put his individual interest, this alleged drug lord who had close ties to the Jamaica Labor Party (JLP) and to the prime minister’s own constituency, for putting his interest ahead of the rest of the nation.  I have been one of the most strident voices in parliament and in public pressuring the government, when the prime minister finally capitulated and signed the authority to proceed with the extradition and end the operation at Tivoli and subsequent apprehension and extradition of Coke.

What we have now seen in the ensuing 6-7 weeks is a dramatic reduction in murder and crime rate generally in Jamaica, particularly in the murder rate.  In June the murder rate was down by 30 percent.  In July, month to date, it is down by over 50 percent.  That is obvious that Coke, The Shower Posse and their headquarters in Tivoli Gardens was a substantial center of influence for organized crime in Jamaica.  The operation and removal of Coke and the operation to degrade the capacity for violence in Tivoli Gardens has really had a beneficial effect across the entire country.

CPress: How do you describe the mood of the country today?

Hon. PB: I would say the country is at a crossroads, a watershed period.  The mood is hopeful.  There is a sense of assertiveness of the broader civil society to hold the government accountable and to raise the bar for accountability by our leaders.  I think there is a momentum in that direction.  And if that sustains, I think the term outlook would be great for Jamaica overall.

CPress: How do you define your responsibilities with the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ)?

Hon. PB: We really are responsible for supervising the electoral system in Jamaica.  Jamaica historically had some challenges to do with the elections and confrontation during election time.  During the late 1970’s, an agreement was arrived at by two parties to form the commission to really work towards a more perfect electoral system.  And it has made tremendous advances over the last three decades – To the point where we are looked at as a standard electoral organization in the Central American and Caribbean region.  We are often used to provide technical advice to some of the other organizations.

CPress: What major issues or current issues is the commission working on?

Hon. PB: The major issue that we are working on is political party financing and the elements related with political party financing.  Looking at campaign financing, looking at disclosure, looking at whether there should be term limits, state funding to some degree – These are the issues that we are dealing with now.

CPress: If you were advising a young person just starting out in his or her career, what advice would you offer?

Hon. PB: I would tell them to try and do work that they are passionate about.  Then it never will feel like work.  It will be like you are being paid to do something which you would do for free.

CPress: What obstacles have you faced or do you expect to face in your career?

Hon. PB: I have been very fortunate and have had many opportunities for leadership at a relatively young age. I have had challenges, but nothing that would stand out as being an obstacle.  I have been successful at all the electoral contests that I have participated in.  I have been fairly successful in all my business ventures. I know there have been challenges and roadblocks along the way, but nothing so significant.

CPress: What’s next for Hon. Peter Bunting?

Hon. PB: Right now I am the Executive Officer for the party [People’s National Party].  I run the party on a day-to-day basis.  I run the party secretarial.  I am in charge of political organization.  Therefore, my next major goal is to prepare the party for the upcoming general election, which is due in another two years.  They will be on an election alert.  There was a poll done a month or two ago that shows our party [People’s National Party] ahead of the government quite substantially, leading 2:1 actually.  We have to hold a steady course and make sure that the things we are doing right are continued and shape up on those that need improving.

Nominated by President Barack Obama, Birotte is the first black U.S. Attorney to the post, which makes him the top federal attorney in the Central District of the U.S. Department of Justice, an area that includes Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

Birotte, the 43-year-old – son of Haitian immigrants, had this to say after the swearing-in, “Becoming U.S. Attorney was the opportunity of a lifetime, an incredible gift that comes with awesome responsibility.”

In his remarks – the newly appointed U.S. Attorney Andre Birotte highlighted several priorities for the office, including white-collar crime, public corruption, violent crime and terrorism.  And above all, the office must focus on being “justice drive”.

“Justice driven means that we must maintain the highest standards of integrity, fairness and excellence that comes with working for the Department of Justice,” Birotte said.  “Justice driven is not negotiable, do the right thing, the right way all the time,” he added.

U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. administered the oath of office to Birotte, and California Court of Appeal Justice Nora M. Manella, a former U.S. Attorney who hired Birotte as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1995, spoke at the event.

Birotte, who worked for the Los Angeles Police Commission – five civilians who oversee the operations of the agency – had been inspector general since 2003 and served as assistant inspector general from 2001 to 2003.

From 1995 to 1999, he was a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office he now heads.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office, which currently employs 275 attorneys, serves more than 18 million residents in Southern California. It is the nation’s largest federal prosecutors’ office after the District of Columbia, which handles both federal and non-federal crimes in Washington.

Birotte graduated from Tufts University in 1987 and the Pepperdine University School of Law 1991. He started his legal career as a deputy public defender for Los Angeles County, a job he held from 1991 to 1995.

For the Governor Race: Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown

Speaking at the Los Angeles Athletic Club, Brown said town hall exchanges would bring variety to a contest that has so far been dominated by Whitman’s scripted television and radio ads.

Brown, 72, made his proposal a day after the party faithful selected their nominees in the state primary.

“Let’s go to the people of California and have an unscripted exchange about the issues that we face,” Brown said. “These are tough issues, there’s not a quick solution around the corner here.”

Brown’s fundraising has been no match for Whitman’s wealth, so the debates could provide inexpensive exposure for the Democrat.

Whitman countered by demanding that Brown provide his vision for the nation’s most populous state. She reminded reporters that she has released a 48-page policy book detailing her proposals.

“So I would call on Jerry Brown to lay out a plan for California, then at least we’ll have something to debate about,” Whitman said during an appearance in Orange County with fellow Republican and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, who won the GOP nomination to challenge U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Whitman, 53, a former eBay chief executive, has sunk $71 million of her own money into her campaign so far and has said she would spend an unprecedented $150 million to win her first public office.

Brown, a former two-term governor, was unchallenged in the primary and has spent about $400,000 so far this year. He currently has $20.6 million in cash on hand and will enjoy the backing of organized labor during his campaign.

Brown has been playing up his frugality. Meanwhile, it’s unclear how voters will view Whitman’s vast fortune as the state struggles with high foreclosure rates and unemployment that has remained above 12 percent for months. Much of her campaign spending has gone for chartered jets, fancy fundraisers in Beverly Hills and political consultants.

It wasn’t the first time the Democratic insider has challenged Whitman to debate.

During the state Democratic Party convention earlier this year, Brown suggested a three-way debate with Whitman and her challenger in the GOP primary, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner.

Poizner accepted and Whitman declined.

On Tuesday, Whitman received 64 percent of the Republican vote compared to Poizner’s 27 percent. Brown received 84 percent of the Democratic vote with no serious contenders from his party.

Whitman portrayed herself as an outsider who will deliver jobs and small businesses to California. Brown owes much to the labor groups that are funding his campaign, she said.

“If you give me the honor of being your next governor, the special interests and public employee unions won’t stand a chance, because I will owe my office to no one but you,” Whitman told supporters Tuesday night at a hotel in Universal City.

Brown said he would not be afraid to stand up to those who resist budget cuts as the state faces a $19 billion deficit in the next fiscal year starting in July.

“I will involve the people of California because what is at stake here is almost the re-founding of what our state government is. And that can’t be done in a back room, it’s not gong to be done like a CEO who slashes jobs and outsources them to foreign countries,” Brown said.

Primary Election - Los Angeles

Republican Tim Donnelly had a narrow primary lead to succeed Assemblyman Anthony Adams in a district straddling Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties.

Donnelly, a small businessman from Twin Peaks in San Bernardino County, founded the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California in 2005, but left the organization in 2006.

Donnelly, 44, said he decided to get involved after concluding that illegal immigration was driving up the cost of California prisons, education and social programs. It is his first run for public office.

“They (the federal government) pass the bill on to us. Isn’t that what the American Revolution was about? Taxation without representation,” Donnelly said in a telephone interview. “Illegal immigration is really just a touchstone into the much larger issue of government encroaching on our individual liberties.”

He said he isn’t opposed to illegal immigrants themselves: “I have a great deal of empathy for them. But we can’t solve all of Mexico’s problems.”

Donnelly held a 40-vote edge over his better-funded opponent, newspaper executive Chris Lancaster, with about 1,000 provisional ballots to be counted. The winner will face Democrat Darcel Woods in a heavily Republican district.

Adams, R-Hesperia, survived a recall effort last year after he voted to raise taxes. He was one of six Republicans who joined Democrats in voting for temporary increases to the vehicle license fee and the sales and income taxes in early 2009. He decided against seeking re-election.

Races for two other Assembly seats also remained undecided after voters chose from nearly 340 candidates for 100 legislative seats in Tuesday’s primary.

Michael Allen was leading in the Democratic contest to replace Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, who is running for state Senate.

Even tighter was the Sacramento fight to follow termed-out Assemblyman Dave Jones, who won the Democratic nomination for insurance commissioner. Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson had a slight edge over Sacramento City Council member Kevin McCarty in that Democratic primary.

Other tight races include contests to succeed termed-out Democratic state Sens. Denise Ducheny of San Diego and Dean Florez in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

Democratic Assemblywoman Mary Salas was leading former Assemblyman Juan Vargas for the Southern California seat.

Republican Tim Thiesen was ahead of Phillip Wyman in the San Joaquin Valley race.

The winners will face unopposed candidates from the opposite party in the November general election.

More than 20 bills have been introduced and as many as a dozen might be voted on this week as lawmakers face a deadline to pass bills out of their house of origin.

Because of California’s sheer size, its implementation of the new law could serve as a model for other states. The state has 8.2 million uninsured residents, nearly equivalent to the population of New Jersey. The number has ballooned in recent years as Californians lost jobs and health insurance due to the recession.

The bills seek to enact reforms signed into law by President Barack Obama in March. Among other changes, they would prohibit health insurers from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions and create an exchange through which individuals could buy insurance.

A separate bill would take state reforms further than federal requirements by making insurance companies obtain state approval before raising their fees.

The bills are considered works in progress that will change over the course of the legislative session, as the state learns more from the federal government about specific requirements in the law.

Republican lawmakers say the flurry of legislative activity is premature because upcoming elections could shift the balance of power in Congress and result in a repeal of the federal reforms. They also say the exchange, a marketplace through which individuals and small-business owners can buy health insurance at affordable rates, could lead to higher insurance rates because fees will be imposed on insurers to recoup its operational costs.

Despite resistance from members of his own party, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made health care reform a priority. He introduced his own plan in 2007, but it failed, in part because of concerns about runaway costs to the state in future years.

The Republican governor threw his support behind the national reform plan in April, and his office has been meeting with lawmakers to work through the details.

One of the first steps is to establish an exchange. The idea is to create a consumer-friendly website that could be used to compare and buy health insurance plans, similar to the packages offered by employers.

It also would serve as a place to screen whether an individual is eligible for Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for the poor, or other state services.

The state would use federal money to run the exchange. It would create a new entity to operate it or work with a nonprofit organization, said Jennifer Kent, Schwarzenegger’s deputy legislative secretary.

Under the federal law, states can decide whether their exchanges will act as tough negotiators to get the best rates for customers or play a less intrusive role in the market.

Kent said Schwarzenegger wants to have the exchange created before he leaves office in January, although it would not be fully operational until 2014.

“He really has always grasped the issue, in terms of if you don’t reform this system, because it’s so badly broken it only succeeds to be a drag on the economy,” Kent said.

Legislative leaders have introduced two bills to create the exchange.

Under SB900, the exchange would have a website and online calculator that would allow consumers to compare plans and cost, said Sen. Elaine Alquist, D-Santa Clara, who introduced the bill and is chairwoman of the Senate Health Committee.

“The goal is to get Californians enrolled in a health plan in 30 minutes or less, rather than in hours or days,” Alquist said in an e-mailed response.

Under Alquist’s proposal, the exchange would negotiate and enter into contracts with health plans. It would be run by a board whose members are appointed by the governor and Legislature.

AB1602, a similar proposal introduced by Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, also is expected to be voted on next week. That bill would create an exchange, eliminate annual and lifetime limits on health care coverage, and raise the age for children to stay on their parents’ insurance to 26, among other provisions.

The state is closely following the example of Massachusetts, which set up its own exchange in 2006. Lawmakers and the governor’s staff have met with Jon Kingsdale, the executive director of Massachusetts Connector, that state’s health insurance exchange, who will consult with California as it develops its own version.

“He runs the largest exchange in the country, but from a scale factor, we are so going to dwarf that,” Kent said.

Still, there is plenty to be learned from Massachusetts, especially when it comes to insurance companies jacking up premiums, said Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento.

“Massachusetts thought prices would go down,” he said. “But what happened was, when people were legally required to buy insurance, insurers took advantage of that and raised their prices.”

That’s one reason Jones introduced AB2578, which would require insurance companies to obtain approval from the state Department of Insurance or the Department of Managed Health Care before raising their prices on premiums and copays. He calls it the missing piece of national health care reform.

Anthem Blue Cross proposed raising health insurance premiums by 39 percent before rescinding the increase, and Blue Shield announced an increase of up to 75 percent on small group policy holders.

“I think the public and policy makers have finally had it with these yearly double-digit health insurance and health premium increases,” Jones said.

Other bills seek to ban insurers from denying health insurance or specific treatments to patients with pre-existing conditions.

Children would be protected from this practice under a bill by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles. AB 2244 would prohibit health insurers from excluding or limiting coverage to anyone under the age of 19 because of a pre-existing condition. It also would get tough on insurers by declaring that if a company does not sell policies to families with children, it would forfeit its right to sell insurance to large employers.

“We have an opportunity here in California … to be a catalyst for the strongest protections for kids in the nation,” Feuer said.

___

Online:

The main health care bills to be considered in the Assembly and Senate this week are AB1595, AB1600, AB1602, AB1825, AB1887, AB2244, AB2470, AB2477, AB2578, SB890, SB900, SB1088 and SB1163.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov

http://www.senate.ca.gov

Friday is the last day for bills to pass their first house. About 360 measures will be up for votes starting Tuesday after lawmakers return from a Memorial Day break.

The list would have been longer had it not been for California’s $19 billion budget deficit. Appropriations committees last week derailed dozens of bills for fear the state can’t afford the associated cost.

The bills that clear their originating chamber will soon start working their way through committees in the opposite house. Bills must pass both the Senate and Assembly by Aug. 31.

The legislation is a mix, from consumer protections to paparazzi restrictions to gun controls.

Here are some of the bills scheduled for Senate votes this week:

_ The secretary of state’s official pre-election ballot pamphlet would tell voters which groups are financially backing initiatives under a bill by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord. His SB1202 would require listing the five top contributors to each ballot measure and the amount of their contributions as of 110 days before Election Day.

_ Sports agents representing student athletes would have greater scrutiny and more restrictive contracts, under SB1098. The measure by Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, would require agents to register with the Department of Industrial Relations. Student athletes would have 14 days to opt out of contracts, and agents would have to notify the student’s school within three days of signing the document.

_ It would be tougher for local governments to file for bankruptcy under an Assembly bill that was amended in the Senate. AB155 by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, would require governments to go before the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission before filing for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. The local governments could override the commission’s recommendation.

_ California could soon set its own comfort standards for airline passengers stuck on the tarmac for more than two hours. SB1264 by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would require commercial airlines to provide passengers with food and beverages, restrooms, fresh air and lighting. The state Public Utilities Commission could fine airlines up to $27,500 per passenger for violations.

_ Customers could redeem gift certificates or gift cards for cash if the remaining value is less than $20 under a bill by Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro. Her SB885 also prohibits charging dormancy fees for unused cards. Her bill was prompted by the estimated $6.4 billion worth of gift cards that went unspent nationally in 2008.

_ Private employers would have to give employees time off to donate organs or bone marrow under SB1304. The bill by Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, would give employees of private companies the same leave rights that are available to many public employees.

_ Consumers could opt out of receiving telephone directories under a bill by Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco. His SB920 would require directory publishers to put information on the cover of their directories telling recipients how they can avoid getting the printed listings in the future.

Here are some of the bills scheduled for Assembly votes this week:

_ It would be illegal to openly carry a gun in public, even if it’s unloaded, under a bill by Assemblywoman Lori Saldana, D-San Diego. The bill, AB1934, would make it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed handgun on any public street or in a public place. Saldana says unloaded guns pose a threat to public safety, in part because gun owners are allowed to carry ammunition with them. Republicans say the bill would infringe on a person’s right to bear arms.

_ Individuals convicted of illegally carrying a gun would be banned from owning a firearm for 10 years under AB2186 by Assemblyman Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles. De Leon says studies show that criminals convicted of firearm-related offenses are more likely to commit a violent offense. The bill would apply to individuals convicted of illegally carrying a concealed firearm in a motor vehicle, carrying a loaded firearm or permitting firearms in their vehicles.

_ A criminal’s conviction as a juvenile would no longer count toward the state’s Three Strikes law under AB1751 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco. Ammiano says the current law discriminates against juveniles who often are not given a jury trail. Republicans say the bill would put Californians at risk by allowing the release of convicted criminals who have committed serious crimes in the past.

_ Paparazzi could be arrested for loitering outside a celebrity’s home or work place under legislation by Assemblywoman Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles. AB2479 also would make it a crime under California’s anti-stalking statute for paparazzi to participate in surveillance activities outside schools of a celebrity’s child. Bass says her bill is an effort to stem the aggressive tactics of paparazzi vying to get valuable photos and recordings of celebrities.

_ Medical marijuana storefronts would be banned within 600 feet of a school under AB2650 by Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo. Local governments that already have enacted ordinances governing the location of cooperatives and dispensaries would be exempted. Cities would be allowed to impose more stringent regulations under the bill. Medical marijuana advocates say the bill could result in the closure of dispensaries that serve thousands of ill patients.

_ Supermarket shoppers would be charged for grocery bags beginning in 2012 under legislation by Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Santa Monica. AB1998 would ban grocery stores, large pharmacies and convenience stores from providing free plastic or paper bags. Only recycled paper bags made of 40 percent post-consumer material could be sold to shoppers who forget to bring their own bags. Brownley has said disposable bags are wasteful, and kill or maim marine wildlife and cost Californians more than $25 million a year to collect and truck to landfills. The California Taxpayers’ Association says disposable bags are affordable and convenient.

_ The state would have a new Department of Energy led by a cabinet head under legislation by Assemblyman Mike Villines, R-Clovis. The department would replace the California Energy Commission. AB2561 is sponsored by the Schwarzenegger administration as a way to consolidate state energy policy.

_ Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would need to win legislative approval to sell two dozen state office buildings under a bill by Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate. The Republican governor has promoted the sales as a way to help close California’s $19 billion budget deficit. AB2605 also would require the administration to perform a 50-year cost-benefit analysis before selling the buildings. Lawmakers have questioned whether selling and then renting back the buildings makes economic sense.

The candidates: Steve Poizner, Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown

LOS ANGELES  _ Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown on Saturday challenged his potential GOP rivals to an unprecedented bipartisan debate before the state’s June primary, responding to criticism that he has been slow to enter the political fight.

Outgunned by the personal wealth of Republicans Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, Brown told cheering delegates at the state party’s annual convention that the campaign for governor cannot be purchased with millions in television ads.

Instead, he called for a series of “honest, prime-time” three-way debates before the June 8 primary.

“Let’s hear the different ideas,” Brown said. “The key here, is this a democracy?”

If the debates happen, they’ll be a two-man affair. Poizner, the state’s insurance commissioner, was quick to accept the invitation, but Whitman’s campaign rejected the proposal after initially saying it was open to considering it. Instead, her campaign said Brown should debate other Democrats who will appear on the June ballot.

Brown, a 40-year veteran of California politics, faces only token opponents.

The former eBay chief executive has poured $59 million from her personal fortune into the race. Much of the money has been used to blanket the airwaves with television and radio ads and collect a stable of experienced political consultants.

Whitman and Poizner have debated previously, but it would be highly unusual to conduct a bipartisan debate before winners are selected in the primary.

With California mired in recession and struggling with perpetual budget deficits, Brown said all three leading candidates owe it to voters to debate publicly about how they would solve the state’s fiscal crisis, address cuts to public schools and universities, and create jobs.

“These are not ordinary times,” he said. “We face an extraordinary crisis.”

Brown’s challenge drew the loudest reaction from delegates gathered at the Los Angeles Convention Center and came as Democrats are trying to reclaim momentum in an election year that presents a number of challenges for the party in power.

Surveys show Brown and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, who is seeking a fourth term, running about even with their potential Republican challengers.

The convention marks the start of the party’s effort to sell its vision to voters left angry by the bruising recession. Speakers portrayed Democratic efforts at the national level to reform health care, stimulate the economy and impose regulations on Wall Street as steps that will benefit the working class and middle-income Americans.

Party leaders proclaimed what is emerging as a central campaign strategy _ criticizing the top Republican candidates as wealthy corporate pawns who are out-of-touch with the needs of middle-class Californians.

Boxer urged Democrats to unite behind her candidacy with the excitement witnessed at tea party rallies around the nation.

“I need you by my side,” she told more than 1,000 cheering party delegates attending the California Democratic Party’s annual convention.

“We passed health care reform and we should be proud of it, proud of it,” Boxer told the crowd. “I need you to be excited, as excited as the tea party people are. Will you help me?”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa opened Saturday’s session with a full-throated endorsement of the party’s top candidates.

While Brown and Boxer face no serious opposition in the June primary, both have been subject to constant attacks by the Republicans vying to challenge them in November.

Villaraigosa sought to counter one of the Republicans’ attacks against Boxer, that she has accomplished little during her three terms in the Senate. He credited Boxer with bringing federal transportation dollars that will double the city’s rail system and create 166,000 construction jobs.

“It may be the most important Senate race in the country,” Villaraigosa said. “Now I can tell you she’s fought for us, and she needs us to fight for her.”

Villaraigosa said the party will go on offense: “Democrats, it’s game time.”

Illustration of the Democrats and Republican candidates

LOS ANGELES  _ Democrats facing a tough election year dared Republicans on Saturday to challenge them on issues from Wall Street regulations to health care reform, testing what they hope will be a winning message with most voters in the fall.

Democrats at the state party’s annual convention had a brash message at a time when polls show President Barack Obama’s popularity slipping and party candidates in tight races across the country: Bring it on.

“Democrats are for protecting the peoples’ interest; Republicans are protecting the special interests. Democrats are protecting consumers and small businesses on Main Street; Republicans are protecting big banks on Wall Street,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told nearly 2,000 cheering delegates inside the Los Angeles Convention Center.

“That is our fight,” Pelosi said.

With her re-election in doubt, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., urged Democrats to unite behind her candidacy with the excitement witnessed at tea party rallies around the nation.

“We passed health care reform and we should be proud of it, proud of it,” Boxer told supporters waving yellow “Boxer 2010” signs. “I need you to be excited, as excited as the tea party people are. Will you help me?”

Attorney General Jerry Brown, outgunned in the gubernatorial race by the personal wealth of Republicans Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner, drew the loudest reaction from the delegates when he criticized them for waging a high-dollar campaign over the airwaves.

Instead of an advertising spending extravaganza, Brown said voters want to hear from the candidates directly about issues related to jobs, repairing the state’s perpetual budget deficit and cuts to public school and universities.

He called for a series of “honest, prime-time” three-way debates before the June 8 primary.

“Let’s hear the different ideas,” Brown said. “The key here, is this a democracy?”

The offer was intended in part to answer criticism that Brown has so far been a sluggish campaigner.

If the debates happen, they’ll be a two-man affair. Poizner, the state’s insurance commissioner who is trailing Whitman in polls, was quick to accept the invitation. But Whitman’s campaign rejected the proposal after initially saying it was open to considering it.

Instead, her campaign said Brown should debate other Democrats who will appear on the June ballot.

Brown, a former two-term governor who has held a variety of offices during his 40-year career in California politics, from secretary of state to mayor of Oakland, faces only token opponents.

Whitman, a former eBay chief executive, has poured $59 million from her personal fortune into a campaign that could become the most expensive gubernatorial race in U.S. history. Much of the money has been used to blanket the airwaves with television and radio ads and pay for a stable of experienced political consultants.

Whitman and Poizner, a wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur, have debated previously, but it would be highly unusual to conduct a bipartisan debate before winners are selected in the primary.

With California mired in recession and facing record unemployment, Brown said all three leading candidates owe it to voters to stake out their positions and debate in public.

“These are not ordinary times,” he said. “We face an extraordinary crisis.”

Surveys show Brown and Boxer, who is seeking a fourth term, running about even with potential Republican challengers.

Just 18 months after Democrats flocked to the polls to support Obama’s candidacy, party leaders are clearly worried about the mood of voters. Incumbents are feeling voter wrath across the country, and California Democrats are likely to put two career politicians on the top of the ticket: Boxer has been in Washington for nearly three decades and Brown’s career in politics began in the 1960s.

The convention marks the start of the party’s effort to sell its vision to voters left angry by the bruising recession. Speakers portrayed Democratic efforts at the national level to reform health care, stimulate the economy and impose regulations on Wall Street as steps that will benefit the working class and middle-income Americans.

Party leaders proclaimed what is emerging as a central campaign strategy _ criticizing the top Republican candidates as wealthy corporate pawns who are out-of-touch with the needs of middle-class Californians.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa opened Saturday’s session with a full-throated endorsement of the party’s top candidates.

While Brown and Boxer face no serious opposition in the June primary, both have been subject to constant attacks by the Republicans vying to challenge them in November.

Villaraigosa sought to counter one of the Republicans’ attacks against Boxer, that she has accomplished little during her three terms in the Senate. He credited Boxer with bringing federal transportation dollars that will double the city’s rail system and create 166,000 construction jobs.

“It may be the most important Senate race in the country,” Villaraigosa said. “Now I can tell you she’s fought for us, and she needs us to fight for her.”

Villaraigosa said the party will go on offense: “Democrats, it’s game time.”

After a year of riotous argument, decades of failure and a century of spoiled hopes, the United States is reaching for a system of medical care that extends coverage nearly to all citizens. The change that’s coming will reshape a sixth of the economy and shatter the status quo.

To the ardent liberal, President Barack Obama’s health care plan, passed by the House on Sunday night, is a shadow of what should have been, sapped by dispiriting downsizing and trade-offs.

To the loud foe on the right, it is a dreadful expansion of the nanny state.

To history, it is likely to be judged alongside the boldest acts of presidents and Congress in the pantheon of domestic affairs. Think of the guaranteed federal pensions of Social Security, socialized medicine for the old and poor, the civil rights remedies to inequality.

Change is coming, but in steps, not overnight. The major expansion of coverage to 32 million people _ powered by subsidies, employer obligations, a mandate for most Americans to carry insurance, new places to buy it and rules barring insurance companies from turning sick people away _ is four years out.

In contrast, on June 30, 1966, after a titanic struggle capped by the bill signing a year earlier, President Lyndon Johnson launched government health insurance for the elderly with three simple words, as if flicking a switch: “Medicare begins tomorrow.”

Obama practically needs a spreadsheet to tell people what’s going on and when with the law he will sign after the Senate takes final action this week.

Yet he and LBJ share a distinction: They are the only two presidents to succeed with a transcendent health care law.

“We rose above the weight of our politics,” Obama said late Sunday night in relishing the House victory on a 219-212 vote. “We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things.”

You can be sure Obama, a student of history, is aware of how LBJ captured the moment when Medicare became law with his pen. That happened in Independence, Mo., in the presence of the very first American to sign up for the program: Harry Truman. The ex-president had ended a world war but could not achieve national health insurance in his time.

“Care for the sick, serenity for the fearful,” Johnson promised that day. “In this town, and a thousand other towns like it, there are men and women in pain who will now find ease.”

Said Truman: “I am glad to have lived this long.”

Ted Kennedy lived long enough to see a goal of his lifetime take shape but not long enough for it to happen. His death last summer was almost the death of the whole plan because a Republican won his Senate seat, changed the voting balance and left despondent Democrats in search of a second wind, which they found.

Why is this so hard? In part, because self-reliance and suspicion of a strong central government intruding into people’s lives are rooted in the founding of the republic, and still strong.

In 1854, President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to treat health as anything but a private matter that is none of the government’s business.

Seventy-five years later, the American Medical Association denounced proposals for organized medical services as an “incitement to revolution” at the hands of “Medical Soviets.”

And that wasn’t even about government-run health care. The AMA’s fierce opposition to collectivism included objections to private health insurance, the norm today, and the pooling of doctors into what became health maintenance organizations decades later.

No wonder would-be health reformers were thwarted one generation after another even as they made deep imprints on the nation in other ways.

Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t do it _ and he’s carved into Mount Rushmore.

Franklin D. Roosevelt rewrote the social compact with his job and retirement security and regulatory expansion, all in the jagged teeth of the Depression, then took the nation to war. He made national health insurance a second-tier priority and it eluded him.

Even so, social responsibility for medicine grew.

In 1930, citizens paid nearly 80 percent of the nation’s medical costs from their own pocket. Government at all levels covered a mere 14 percent, with industry and philanthropy picking up the few remaining crumbs. Insurance was barely in the picture.

Federal and state programs now cover half the cost of health care purchased in the country and were expected to go over 50 percent in the next year or two even absent Obama’s plan. By that measure, the government takeover of health care that opponents warn about is happening regardless of congressional action.

Why the creep of government in health care? In part, because individualism isn’t the entire American story. The idea of watching out for each other is also in the nation’s fabric.

Besides, as much as Americans hate overbearing government and higher taxes, give them a federal benefit and then just try to take it away. Today’s hot potato becomes tomorrow’s cherished check.

That’s one reason government programs grow _ and why Democrats dared to push for a less than popular package mere months from congressional elections, when people were telling their leaders to create jobs instead.

Johnson, full of beans after his Medicare victory, realized all of this.

“The doubters predicted a scandal; we gave them a success story,” he crowed a month after the law took effect, as hundreds of thousands of patients entered hospitals for treatment covered by the government and some 6 million children and needy adults began getting benefits.

“Where are the doubters tonight?” he asked. “Where are the prophets of crisis and catastrophe? Well, some of them are signing their applications; some of them are mailing in their Medicare cards because they now want to share in the success of this program.”

Obama can only hope for such a first-blush reception. He took on the cause of universal coverage after a campaign in which he did not promise it, intending only to secure insurance for all children and shrink the pool of uninsured adults. His health care ambition grew in office, quickly.

More than a quarter century before, Ted Kennedy came close to the prize with none other than the Republican president, Richard Nixon, who embraced ideas that mainstream Republicans today cannot tolerate. Nixon was ready to force businesses to provide health insurance to their workers or pay heavy penalties.

Sound familiar? It will.

At its core, Nixon’s proposal is a pillar of Obama’s plan today. Nixon’s willingness to subsidize coverage for the working poor is also seen in the plan, though writ larger.

Back then, Kennedy’s union and liberal allies gambled that by spurning Nixon, they’d get something better later. They didn’t. In similar fashion years after that, President Bill Clinton aimed high and crashed hard.

Clinton no doubt drew on his own failure when, in December, he advised Democrats to pass what they could manage and not make it an all-or-nothing fight. “America,” he said, “can’t afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

Obama absorbed these lessons.

For him, a system with government as the sole or principal payer of everyone’s medical bills was a nonstarter, nice for the ideologues and other countries but not the American way. He would have liked the option of a government-run plan competing in the marketplace, but didn’t need it.

For months he stood so far back from the legislative nitty-gritty that it was hard to tell what he stood for.

In the end, he stood for more than the incremental steps that succeeded in the past, and for less than the towering ideas that failed.

“This is what change looks like,” Obama said a few moments later in televised remarks that stirred memories of his 2008 campaign promise of “change we can believe in.”

Widely viewed as dead two months ago, the Senate-passed bill cleared the House on a 219-212 vote. Republicans were unanimous in opposition, joined by 34 dissident Democrats.

A second, smaller measure _ making changes in the first _ cleared the House shortly before midnight and was sent to the Senate, where Democratic leaders said they had the votes necessary to pass it quickly. The vote was 220-211.

Obama’s young presidency received a badly needed boost as a deeply divided Congress passed legislation touching the lives of nearly every American. The battle for the future of the health insurance system _ affecting one-sixth of the economy _ galvanized Republicans and conservative activists looking ahead to November’s midterm elections.

Far beyond the political ramifications _ a concern the president repeatedly insisted he paid no mind _ were the sweeping changes the bill held in store for Americans, insured or not, as well as the insurance industry and health care providers that face either smaller than anticipated payments from Medicare or higher taxes.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation awaiting the president’s approval would extend coverage to 32 million Americans who lack it, ban insurers from denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and cut deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade. If realized, the expansion of coverage would include 95 percent of all eligible individuals under age 65.

For the first time, most Americans would be required to purchase insurance, and face penalties if they refused. Much of the money in the bill would be devoted to subsidies to help families at incomes of up to $88,000 a year pay their premiums.

The second measure, which House Democrats demanded before agreeing to approve the first, included enough money to close a gap in the Medicare prescription drug coverage over the next decade, starting with an election-season rebate of $250 later this year for seniors facing high costs.

Much of the cost would be covered by the pharmaceutical industry, which made a deal months ago with the White House in which it pledged to spend lavishly on television ads to help pass the bill.

It also included sweeping changes in the student loan program, an administration priority that has been stalled in the Senate for months. It would have the government originate all student loans, denying banks and other private lenders of a lucrative business they have long had. Much of the savings would go into increased Pell Grants for needy college students, but black and Hispanic colleges would also benefit.

For the president, the events capped an 18-day stretch in which he traveled to four states and lobbied more than 60 wavering lawmakers in person or by phone to secure passage of his signature domestic issue. According to some who met with him, he warned that the bill’s demise could cripple his still-young presidency, and his aides hoped to use the victory on health care as a springboard to success on bills to tackle stubbornly high unemployment that threatens Democratic prospects in the fall.

Obama watched the vote in the White House’s Roosevelt Room with Vice President Joe Biden and dozens of aides, exchanged high fives with Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff, and then telephoned Speaker Nancy Pelosi with congratulations.

“We proved that we are still a people capable of doing big things,” he said later in the White House East Room. “We proved that this government _ a government of the people and by the people _ still works for the people.

Crowds of protesters outside the Capitol shouted “just vote no” in a futile attempt to stop the inevitable taking place inside a House packed with lawmakers and ringed with spectators in the galleries above.

Across hours of debate, House Democrats predicted the larger of the two bills, costing $940 billion over a decade, would rank with other great social legislation of recent decades.

“We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans, said Pelosi, D-Calif., partner to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the grueling campaign to pass the legislation.

“This is the civil rights act of the 21st century,” added Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the top-ranking black member of the House.

Republicans readily agreed the bill would affect everyone in America, but warned repeatedly of the burden imposed by more than $900 billion in tax increases and Medicare cuts combined.

“We have failed to listen to America,” said Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, leader of a party that has vowed to carry the fight into the fall’s midterm elections for control of Congress.

The final obstacle to the bill’s passage was cleared at mid-afternoon when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The White House announced the president would issue an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.

A spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed skepticism that the presidential order would satisfy the church’s objections.

Republican abortion foes also said Obama’s proposed order was insufficient, and when Stupak sought to counter them, a shout of “baby killer” could be heard coming from the Republican side of the chamber.

The measure would also usher in a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor. Coverage would be required for incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, $29,327 a year for a family of four. Childless adults would be covered for the first time, starting in 2014.

The insurance industry, which spent millions on advertising trying to block the bill, would come under new federal regulation. They would be forbidden from placing lifetime dollar limits on policies, from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions and from canceling policies when a policyholder becomes ill.

Parents would be able to keep children up to age 26 on their family insurance plans, three years longer than is now the case.

A new high-risk pool would offer coverage to uninsured people with medical problems until 2014, when the coverage expansion would go into high gear.

Obama has said often that presidents of both parties have tried without success to achieve national health insurance, beginning with Theodore Roosevelt early in the 20th century.

The 44th president’s quest to succeed where others have failed seemed at a dead end two months ago, when Republicans won a special election for a Massachusetts Senate seat, and with it, the votes to prevent a final vote.

But the White House, Pelosi and Reid soon came up with a rescue plan that required the House to approve the Senate-passed measure despite opposition to many of its provisions, then have both houses pass a fix-it measure incorporating numerous changes.

To pay for the changes, the legislation includes more than $400 billion in higher taxes over a decade, roughly half of it from a new Medicare payroll tax on individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples over $250,000. A new excise tax on high-cost insurance policies was significantly scaled back in deference to complaints from organized labor.

In addition, the bills cut more than $500 billion from planned payments to hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and other providers that treat Medicare patients. An estimated $200 billion would reduce planned subsidies to insurance companies that offer a private alternative to traditional Medicare.

The insurance industry warned that seniors would face sharply higher premiums as a result, and the Congressional Budget Office said many would return to traditional Medicare as a result.

The subsidies are higher than those for seniors on traditional Medicare, a difference that critics complain is wasteful, but insurance industry officials argue goes into expanded benefits.

Voters may not buy it.

And that could mean a disastrous midterm election year for Obama and his fellow Democrats.

“We proved that this government _ a government of the people and by the people _ still works for the people,” the president said late Sunday, beginning his sales pitch from the White House one hour after Congress passed the sweeping measure.

“This isn’t radical reform but it is major reform,” he added. “This is what change looks like.”

Obama and the Democrats are certain to look for a much-needed political lift from the legislation, a capstone for a young presidency and a party after decades of trying to remake the nation’s health care system.

But there’s no guarantee they’ll get it.

For now at least, Obama is savoring victory; he looks strong, principled and effective for getting something huge done in a city Americans detest.

Still, the near-term reward could easily be forgotten come November.

This campaign season already has been unforgiving for the White House and the Democratic Party, with a monumental loss in the Massachusetts Senate election and a spate of debilitating congressional retirements. And conditions seem ripe for the electorate to punish the party in power.

Voters are furious. They hate Washington. They also detest incumbents. They’re concerned most about the economy. And unemployment that’s hovering near 10 percent. They’re also split over whether Obama’s health plan is good for a nation with enormous budget deficits and climbing debt.

How those variables play out is anyone’s guess.

Even so, Obama reassured rank-and-file Democrats before they cast what he rightly called a tough vote.

“It will end up being the smart thing to do politically because I believe that good policy is good politics,” the president said Saturday at the Capitol.

Nearby, enraged tea party protesters filled the grounds and the steps of adjacent office buildings, railing against the measure and promising to fire lawmakers who backed it. Protesters were back Sunday, the message the same.

Ahead of the vote, a Gallup poll showed more Americans believe the measure will make things worse rather than better for the country as a whole and for them personally. And most polls show most people don’t like the plan although some surveys showed Americans giving high marks to individual elements.

“It’s very unusual that you have a major policy that doesn’t have a majority of support in the public,” said George Edwards, a Texas A&M University presidential historian. “When they enjoy the benefits of the bill, they may come around. But that may take some time.”

Also unclear is how voters will treat Republicans. Some of the measure’s elements go into effect immediately, such as coverage for children on their parents’ policy until age 26 and prescription drug benefits for seniors. Republicans could be tagged obstructionists if the electorate likes these provisions and if the economy improves.

From now on, Obama and the Democrats will promote the measure’s benefits while countering Republican nay-saying and griping about process. The president also will focus primarily on voters’ most pressing concern _ jobs. And that may endear him to voters more than the passage of his signature domestic issue.

Obama’s immediate concern is holding Democratic majorities in Congress. His own political re-election is a while off, but the White House is almost surely focused on it, too.

His job-performance rating is hovering near 50 percent and may not rise even after he put so much political capital on the line.

Past presidents have either seen their poll numbers stay the same or dip following passage of divisive, though history-making, measures.

That was true for Lyndon B. Johnson’s Civil Rights Act and Great Society agenda in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan’s economic measures in the 1980s, and George W. Bush’s tax cuts in the early 2000s. The exception was Bill Clinton, who saw his support increase in the 1990s after signing a contentious budget measure and welfare reform legislation. But it eventually fell.

Obama’s political boost may come later.

“There’s a bump for the history books,” said Fred Greenstein, a Princeton University presidential scholar. “When historians ask if this is a kind of squandered presidency, there will be health care to point to.”

The immediate future is less certain.

Will voters give Obama credit for addressing the issue if many Americans won’t feel most changes immediately? Or will voters punish Democrats for a year of partisan wrangling that has exacerbated Americans’ anti-Washington feelings and diverted focus from the economy? Will health care even be on the minds of Americans struggling through recession?

Throughout the yearlong debate, the GOP derided the bill as “socialized medicine” and warned that it would be devastating. But Republicans may find themselves looking sheepish given that the status quo won’t change for most people for years.

Democrats now have an accomplishment around which to unite. Also, critical constituencies like senior citizens and young voters will feel change soon. And independent voters may praise Obama for showing that a Democratic majority can make Washington work.

Still, Democrats face a public fed up with Washington and disappointed by a president elected to change it. A year of bitter haggling and legislative maneuvering may feed into the argument _ successfully stoked by Republicans _ that Democrats have failed to fix Washington.

That’s the reason some Democrats now worry about losing control of Congress.

“The voters will have their say on the politics,” says White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Still, he adds: “The president was and the Congress were sent here to address the problems that people face in this country, and that’s what voters want us to see.”

At nearly midnight in Washington, with a big swath of country asleep or headed that way, Obama strode into the ornate East Room with Vice President Joe Biden backing him. There was no hour too late for the president to embrace this moment.

“I want to thank every member of Congress who stood up tonight with courage and conviction to make health care reform a reality,” Obama said as the top members of his own health care team stood beaming nearby. “I know this wasn’t an easy vote for a lot of people. But it was the right vote.”

Obama was proud but not unrestrained in victory, mindful that the Senate still has not gotten to a companion bill to fix problems with the one that just passed. The sense was one of perseverance after a debate with so many turns and doubts.

“We did not fear our future,” Obama said. “We shaped it.”

The final day had been a low-key one for Obama. No more fiery speeches, no trips to Capitol Hill, no ventures outside the White House gates at all.

Instead, the most visible spokesman for health care reform spent the final day of an exhaustive lobbying campaign out of public view.

Aides said he was roaming the West Wing, getting updates, calling lawmakers with thanks as a huge legislative win was imminent.

As the president said when he crashed a morning meeting of senior staff, this was a big day. But the spotlight fell on the House of Representatives.

The first glimpse of the president on Sunday did not come until late at night, after the final House vote on legislation to revamp health insurance rules for millions of people. But the announcement that he would give such a statement underscored that Obama was sensing victory _ and history.

Beforehand, the White House released two photos showing hand-picked images of a president in a serious fight for votes until the end.

In one, Obama was on a cell phone talking to an unidentified lawmaker from the office of his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. The president was surrounded by Emanuel and four other legislative and political advisers. There wasn’t a smile in the room.

The other photo showed Obama in the Oval Office, sleeves rolled up, working the phones again in conversation with another unnamed lawmaker.

Obama called more than a dozen lawmakers on Sunday and got in touch with more than 90 during the week, the White House said without identifying them.

Before nightfall, the only burst of Obama news came in a press release.

Obama revealed he would issue an executive order to make sure that the emerging health care legislation would uphold all federal funding restrictions on abortion. That step had the enormously important effect of locking in the votes of a bloc of anti-abortion House Democrats.

After that, around the White House, it was mostly a matter of counting down until the House acted.

Obama watched the main House vote on the Senate-approved health care bill in the Roosevelt Room with Biden and about 40 other members of the White House staff. When the bill won enough votes to pass, the room burst into applause and hugs.

The ex-presidents are spearheading U.S. fundraising in response to the Jan. 12 earthquake. Tapped by President Barack Obama for the role, they are making the one-day visit to assess recovery needs.

Charged memories of their policies toward the impoverished Caribbean nation are already mixing with frustration over deplorable living conditions among the 1.3 million homeless quake survivors. Supporters of ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide have scheduled protests for Monday _ demanding the return of their exiled leader and pleading for more aid.

“We are going to bring our message to the presidents, that our situation here is no good. The way people are living in Haiti is no way for anyone to live,” said Fanfan Fenelon, a 30-year-old resident of the Bel Air slum.

Monday will be Bush’s first trip to Haiti. Clinton, who is the U.N. special envoy to the country, has made two visits since the quake and five in the past two years. He also visited as president.

The pair will arrive in a country struggling to feed and shelter victims of the magnitude-7 quake, which killed an estimated 230,000 people. Hundreds of thousands still live in dangerous camps, some already flooding ahead of the April rainy season.

On Sunday, a small earthquake caused an apartment building to collapse in the northern city of Cap-Haitien, killing at least three people, according to U.N. spokesman Louicius Eugene. Three people were rescued from the rubble.

President Rene Preval’s government has criticized non-governmental organizations for not being accountable to the Haitian state. In turn, Haitian officials have been accused of ineffectiveness and corruption. On Tuesday, a group of Haitian and U.S. human-rights advocates will ask the Organization of American States for an inquiry into why $2.2 billion in aid has not helped more people.

Those exchanges will only grow more heated with the approach of the March 31 donors’ conference at the United Nations, where the Haitian government will ask for $11.5 billion.

Enter Clinton and Bush, an unlikely duo that have arguably shaped Haiti’s history as much as anyone alive today.

Clinton presided over a refugee crisis borne of the 1991 ouster of Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected president. He returned Aristide to power in 1994 with a force of 20,000 U.S. troops.

Many of the country’s elite have disliked him ever since. Aristide’s luster dimmed for others as his two nonconsecutive terms gave way to accusations of rigged elections, pocketed foreign aid and attacks on opponents.

Bush is acutely remembered by many Haitians _ especially the thousands in Port-au-Prince’s teeming slums _ as the U.S. leader whose administration chartered the plane that flew Aristide back into exile during a 2004 rebellion, then backed an interim government that carried out reprisals against his supporters.

“We don’t have a very good ’souvenir’ of President Bush, as you might suppose,” said Patrick Elie, who served as a defense official under both Aristide and Preval. “I hope that this crisis is not another opportunity to weaken the Haitian state even more.”

Business leaders and others in positions of power are excited for the presidents’ visit.

“The fact that two presidents of the United States are coming to visit is proof that the subject of the reconstruction of Haiti is not a partisan issue,” said Patrick Delatour, Haiti’s tourism minister and part-owner of a construction company who was tasked by Preval with leading reconstruction efforts.

The nonprofit Clinton Bush Haiti Fund has raised $37 million from 220,000 individuals including Hollywood actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who gave $1 million, and Obama, who among other donations gave $200,000 of his Nobel Peace Prize. About $4 million has gone to such organizations as Habitat for Humanity, the University of Miami/Project Medishare mobile hospital in Port-au-Prince and the U.S. branch of the Irish charity Concern Worldwide.

The rest has yet to be allocated. There is heated discussion, inside Haiti and out, about where future funds should go.

James Morrell, director of the Washington-based Haiti Democracy Project, said he welcomes the ex-presidents’ efforts but that government corruption will block any serious effort to develop the country.

“They need to go back to Obama and say, ‘Let’s not put all our eggs in one basket,”’ he said.

Others want nothing to do with the visit at all.

“Those people have a lot of money. They could do something for Haiti, but they haven’t done it,” said So An, a powerful leader of Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party. “I don’t want any words from now on, I want action.”

On a street corner in the Bel Air slum this weekend the debate over the presidents’ visit was already under way.

Neighbors crowded into a narrow alley behind partially collapsed buildings to shout their opinions: Bush is bad, Preval ineffective and Clinton disappointing as U.N. envoy.

But all agreed _ they’ll take any help they can get.

After an Oval Office meeting, Obama stood beside Preval in the White House Rose Garden to praise the Haitian leader’s courage and the heroic work of Americans who rushed to help as rescue workers or with generous donations.

Obama said the challenge now is “to prevent a second disaster” with the start of the rainy season in a country where masses of people are without shelter.

“The situation on the ground remains dire,” Obama said, “and people should be under no illusion that the crisis is over.”

More than 230,000 people perished in the ruins of the Jan. 12 earthquake. Obama called it an “international tragedy” and said he was proud the United States has played a leading role in relief efforts.

Moving forward, the president told Preval, Washington will remain a partner with Haiti on the long road to recovery and reconstruction.

The gray-bearded Preval stood erect as he listened to Obama, responding with words of gratitude.

“I thank you not only for the material support but the moral support, the psychological support that made us know we were not alone,” the Haitian leader said.

At the same time, he said, rebuilding must take place in a way that benefits the entire country, not just the most devastated areas.

He said spreading “health care, education and jobs for all men and women” across his country would prevent “migratory flows to the big cities,” which produced the sprawling and poorly built slums of the capital, Port-au-Prince.

Obama assured the Haitian leader that U.S. commitment “must and will endure” and that “America will be your partner.”

Preval also met with leaders in Congress, and the House timed his visit to pass legislation directing U.S. officials to take the lead in urging multilateral development institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to cancel all of Haiti’s debt. The Senate last week approved similar legislation.

Haiti owes some $828 million to these institutions, including $447 million to the Inter-American Development Bank and $284 million to the IMF.

Debt relief, said bill author Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is “the simplest but most important thing we can do.” She said it would “allow the government of Haiti to focus its meager resources on the essentials.”

The measure also asks the Treasury secretary to use his influence to bring about the cancellation of the $400 million Haiti owes individual countries.

As Preval was in Washington, the U.S. military hospital ship Comfort lifted anchor off Haiti for the return cruise to Baltimore. The Comfort has been stationed off the country’s coast for seven weeks, treating more than 800 earthquake victims.

The U.S. military also is scaling back in Haiti. The total number of U.S. forces there is expected to drop to about 8,000 in coming days, from a peak of around 20,000 on Feb. 1.

Welcome to the presidential no-spin zone.

Obama put together a production of government in the television age, a health care reality show. He used his platform to direct discussion on the specifics of reform, cut off opponent posturing and make points of his own.

Yet he was only a host _ not a producer _ and television networks eager to cover it at first lost interest as time went on.

By 2:30 p.m., at the opening of the session’s second half, Fox News Channel had shifted to its studio show (occasionally showing a mute picture of the summit on a portion of its screen) and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was reporting on poll results. Both covered it fitfully in the afternoon. MSNBC moved on to the Finland-Sweden ice hockey game from the Olympics. PBS aired “Between the Lions.”

Online streaming was the best option for people who wanted to watch the session uninterrupted.

As the program’s host, Obama set an agenda and said he wanted to make clear where Democrats and Republicans agree and isolate the issues where there are differences. Democrats seemed intent on showing that in actual policy proposals, “we may be closer here than we really think,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Obama struggled to get the politicians away from finger-pointing and toward any serious negotiations.

Like any opinionated cable host, Obama sometimes sharply dealt with those who angered him. One eye-opening exchange came when his 2008 election opponent, John McCain, criticized dealmaking that bloated the current health care bill.

“We’re not campaigning anymore,” Obama told McCain. “The election is over.”

It became the most-remembered sound bite of the day, as it was featured prominently on ABC and NBC’s evening newscasts. On television screens, it harkened back to the presidential debates with cable news showing split screens of the two men. The exchange lit up the blogs.

“Genius!” wrote one Facebook member, Bruce Stevenson.

Tim McKay had a different view on Facebook: “I’m not John McCain fan, but the way President Obama just treated him at the health care summit was in my opinion, about as classless and unprofessional as they come.”

McCain later appeared on Fox News with Sean Hannity to say he thought Obama looked “very, very uncomfortable” in responding to his criticism.

“The president was uncomfortable because he knows it was wrong,” said McCain. “It’s not the way that he promised.”

The president also criticized Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House’s No. 2 Republican, for piling a copy of the Senate bill on his desk as a prop to make the point that changes should be simplified.

“Those are the kind of political things we do that prevent us from actually having a conversation,” he said.

He cut off Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell after the Kentucky senator checked his watch to note Democrats had more speaking time.

“There’s an imbalance in the opening statements because I’m the president,” Obama said.

Diane Sawyer called the summit “a landmark event _ a televised political duel” on ABC’s “World News.” The network’s top political correspondent, George Stephanopoulos, said both sides can claim victories: Obama because he showed genuine interest in bipartisanship, and the Republicans because they showed they have some concrete ideas on the topic.

On NBC’s “Nightly News,” Savannah Guthrie said that neither side expected the summit to change everything.

“The question is, did it change anything?” she asked.

Writing with an outsider’s view, the Times of London wrote that “watching American politicians argue about health care can be seriously damaging to your health. Symptoms include migraines, extreme fatigue and sudden violent urges.”

Cable TV producers have only a limited attention span, and the summit was barely an hour old before MSNBC was muting the sound and interviewing political strategists and talk show hosts about what they were seeing. In other words, they silenced the unusual sight of the nation’s leaders in the same room publicly talking about a huge issue so they could present what their pundits were saying about them.

Fox spent the most time presenting uninterrupted coverage before the lunch break. Afterward, the network cut back sharply following it after reporting that its online poll found 90 percent of respondents saying the event was just “political theater.”

“I don’t think a single mind was changed by watching this,” said Fox Sunday host Chris Wallace.

How quickly did Obama’s summit become simply grist for the cable talk mill? During one break, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Roland Martin that if the summit were part of the Olympics, how would he score it?

“I wouldn’t score it,” Martin replied. “That’s part of the problem. The important thing is that they’re talking.”

Former Alaskan governor and current Fox News contributor Sarah Palin told Hannity on Fox News that it was a “victory” for Republicans in expressing their health care ideas to a wide audience.

“It was painful to sit there and watch this, but very productive and helpful … for Americans to see what had been discussed all along, now out in the open,” said Palin, speaking live via satellite from a snowy Alaska.

Bill O’Reilly said he thought the summit was “fair and balanced” and that Obama was a good moderator. But O’Reilly said the long broadcast was “boring as sand” and that it likely didn’t change anyone’s mind, viewers and politicians alike.

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said it “bugged me a little” that Obama, who was addressed as “Mr. President,” called lawmakers by their first name. But he theorized that Obama’s “lack of protocol” may have showed Congress “who’s boss.”

The day’s host had his own review, asked how things were going while he walked from the Blair House to the White House during his lunch break.

“I don’t know if it’s interesting to watch on TV,” Obama said, “but it’s interesting being a part of it.”