so here we are: one day remaining. doesn't seem too long ago that i kept catching glimpses of this obama fellow in 2007 and thought how wonderful would it be... never expecting him to come this far up against edwards and clinton. as i have said before, from a marketing perspective, gaining a significant share of the market (in this case: eligible voters) is complicated in today's environment. any start-up firm would be hard pressed to snatch away a significant portion of p&g or coca cola customers. that same start-up firm would exemplify modern brilliance should it manage to overtake the market and gain control for any period of time. that is, in essence, what obama did in 2008. i recognized his potential. i praised his marketing campaign. yet, until super tuesday, i remained unconvinced that obama would succeed at becoming the nominee and beat the two well-established brands of edwards and clinton. once we knew obama was our nominee, i often joked that the only way mccain stood a chance against obama was by selecting a female running mate. i certainly did not mean "that one." when mccain announced palin in dayton, i first cringed. then i googled her investigation to confirm that she had been exhonerated. to my surprise, his popular governor from alaska was still under investigation for abuse of power and likely guilty as hell. was the crime all that bad? not really. yet, just as getting a blow job or sticking a cigar in your chubby aide's kootch is not that bad... when you lie repeatedly and attempt to disguise your blunder... that is often far worse than the original crime. what people i have met and people like palin do not seem to understand, many of us are forgiving of a mistake or two... just not the pattern of lies or unfaithfulness that accompanies deception. its the compulsiveness, the ease, and the noticeable pattern that deteriorates and ultimately destroys trust.needless to say, prior to the veep picks, i began imagining an electoral map in 2008 that mimics the map ross perot carved out for bill clinton in 1992. while initially i was nervous to see what became of clinton's stalwart supporters of which,in exit polls, many had proudly proclaimed gender as major factor in their support. however, with time, palin did backfire in the sense that she was ineffective at luring independents and former clinton voters. arguably, i assert that palin has been effective in igniting the base to match the sweat behind obama. only tomorrow will we know whether the fire palin lit in the far right-wing nuts of our country is burning strong or whether it turns out to be like a rash between your legs after a good date gone bad.to refresh your memory, review the electoral map in 1992 where clinton pulled out a huge upset against the incumbent thanks to ross perot who remains the only successful third party candidate in modern elections.
first states i would point our are louisiana, kentucky, and tennessee. i knew this summer that those states were outside the realm of possibility. in fact, tennessee turned against gore in 2000 largely due to his environmental convictions. given that bobby jindal is about as far too the right as sarah palin, i assumed louisiana was also outside the realm of possibility despite the outcome in the primary in obama's favor. and kentucky... well that ole kentucky home is a thorn in my side, but i will defend her natural beauty until my dying day... just not the folks' politics. ross perot's impressive 18% popular vote splintered the would-be republican votes and carved out a victory for bill clinton in additional states that stay with mccain: arkansas, montana, and west virgnina. while its true that mccain's lead in arkansas is presently only in single digits, i was always hopeful that with help from bill and hillary, obama would remain more competitive as far south as arkansas. like kentucky, west virginia seems to be very confused as to who has their best interest at heart. and, i might as well say it within this blog since i had to slam a door on my fingers a few weeks ago when i thought about writing a blog strictly targeting the separation of church and state. for those of you who forgot, we are suppose to acknowledge a separation of church and state! separation of church and state is among the founding principles of the united states of america. heads up people! when we fail to pratice our civil duties and vote for the best qualified leader to restore economic and foriegn matters because we want a candidate that agrees with the majority of our religious doctrine... hello... that is how you end up with george w. bush twice and the deteriorated condition of our country today. vote for the best candidate. don't vote based on religious convictions. if we transfer our country's power and wealth to china, russia. or the middle east... you may not have always have the freedom to practice that religion you love so much and wanted to shove down my throat. obama appears to be strongly competing to win with an electoral map much like bill clinton's first win. the difference, and what makes this especially remarkable, obama will accomplish this without a strong third party candidate which means he is winning with a more united country and a greater percentage or the popular vote. a percentage not seen since the eighties. obama's net reduction would be 39 electoral votes after losing these five states which is still enough to make him the victor tomorrow. however, obama will likely and hopefully pick up states that even bill clinton could not win in 1992. according to new sources such as real clear politics, abc and msnbc news, toss up states include: montana, indiana, missouri, north carolina, ohio, georgia, virginia, and florida. the other three that are sometimes considered a toss-up are: nevada, north dakota, and arizona. however, i am relatively confident that nevada will break for obama and north dakota and arizona will break for mccain... albiet narrow victories no matter what the outcome. with that said, my electoral predicions for tomorrow night:
given the nature of a predicion, i have to make a few tough calls and my map is admitedly optimistic in the sense that i really want obama to win in north carolina and georgia and prevent mccain from narrowly squeaking by him. since the beginning of the summer, i have envisioned a 1992 map where obama gave up four or five states and replaced them florida, virginia, and georgia which is a net 51 electoral votes. the end result would be a few less states, but a greater electoral and popular vote win on election day for barack. based on a series of recent polls and early voting results, i feel good about viginia and florida. i may still be overly optimistic about georgia, but it now looks like obama has an equally optimistic chance in north carolina so i moved both to obama's column. if you read my earlier blog during the primaries, i liked to mention obama's performance in north and south carolina. he alone, had more votes cast for him than mccain and his republican counterparts combined. early voting and polls show the margin in the general election tight in south carolina while virtually tied and potentially leaning to obama in north carolina. amazing! as for georgia, a relatively strong third party candidate in georgia, bob barr, could "help" tip that state to obama like ross perot did in 1992. barr polled around 8% this spring, but third party candidates generally poll better early than the final outcome because more and more voters fold into the two major parties. presently, "other" in georgia is at 4% and bob barr, a georgian, is believed to compose the majority of that 4% or better... as he has been gaining in the polls this last few weeks by picking up undecided georgia independents.last week's cnn/time poll revealed that among "likely" georgia voters — presumably those who are both registered and have a proven track record of participating in elections, the race breaks down as follows: mccain: 50%, obama: 46%, barr: 3%
however, if the pool of voters is widened to include simply registered voters — which would include first-time voters or those who rarely participate in general elections — then the georgia vote shifts in obama's favor: mccain: 46%, obama: 49%, barr: 4%
so there you have it, i was dissappointed when the obama for america campaign shifted resourced from georgia last month, but happy to hear that more than half of registered voters have voted early thought to benefit obama. i was also happy when obama shifted resources back to georgia last week and may help see my wish to fruition.
what of my other swing state calls? montana is close. originally, that state looked good for obama, but slipped back to mccain after the palin pick. perhaps montana is the one state that palin helps mccain win. yet, we are squabbling over three electoral votes and i my calculations are that obama will succeed with or without montana. i call montana for mccain because the last month's series of polls generally have mccain leading in spite of that gap closing and now close. the same is true of arizona. i was in arizona in may. i kept asking people i met, and i gathered that if mccain was not from arizona, the state would go blue. yet, i see arizona staying narrowly red. meanwhile, long before the pundits and major shift in the polls, i have felt confident that obama would perform better in florida than ohio which was not the case for bill clinton in 1992. however, like nevada, florida's economy is hurting and unlike mccain who hosted a convention centered around terrorism... i have long thought the economy is the greatest security risk facing our country. i trust that florida agrees and i will take back every sand bar comment i've made since 2000.
ultimately, i call ohio for obama... but i predict ohio to be too close to call until after the west coast polls are closed. additionally, for the same reason i foresee ohio ending close, i also see indiana close. however, i see indiana narrowly red for mccain. unlike missiouri, indiana's popular senator is somewhat a bore and moderate. indiana reminds me of northern kentucky democrats. in order to win, you have to market yourself as a virtual republican. with that said and given that indiana did not break for clinton with perot's help, i call indiana for mccain and i call missiouri for obama... home of the likable, well-known, and early obama activist, senator claire mccaskill. if she ran for governor first, she could be president in 2016, eh?
end game: obama with 379 electoral votes. the greatest victory since the eighties. and incidentally, i alway hinted he would prove to be our next great american president. finally, i win a contest... by virtue of association or vicariously or something like that.
i have not written a new blog in a while in efforts to not feed the meaningless distractions that launched the media into frenzies, chasing their tales much to the delight of team clinton. i will agree, senator clinton was a "formidable" candidate. depending on your personal position, you will infer in what ways she displayed the ability to inspire awe or discourage approach or attack. i still assert that among her countless kitchen sink strategies, senator hillary clinton devised an unclear path to the nomination by sabotaging her opponent rather than winning on her own merits.with all the odds against him, barack obama has prevailed. clinton's miscalculated political calculations in the past left a clear, wide opening for obama to emerge as the "change" candidate and as the hard-fought victor. in fact, as i asserted previously, hillary clinton has not had the math on her side or a clear path to the presidency since the ohio and texas primaries. even with a forecasted victory in a huge state like pennsylania, senator clinton could not match the delegate or popular vote lead securely held by senator obama... that is without his campaign imploding. however, what we know now is that that obama is not perfect. big surprise. he's no jesus. but, this imperfect messenger known as barack obama has devised make-sense, long-term-solution policy plans on the critical issues america faces. his blueprint for america is posted and organized to be assessible to anyone who is compelled to understand the nuts and bolts behind what clinton and her surrogates discounted as rhetoric. and, what's more important, obama inspired millions of people to believe in their power to effect real change in washington. what's more interesting, obama weathered a tumultuous storm and was vetted right before our eyes thanks to his democratic opponent who, many times, behaved like a brass-tacks republican tornado than a democratic.what happened last night was that obama won by a 14 point margin in huge north carolina, a swing state that voted for george w. bush in past presidential elections. similar to what we saw in south carolina, obama won with more than double the total number of republican votes cast for mccain and huckabee combined. (yes, people still vote for huckabee) these are states that the democratics are now poised to win in a general election via the new, energized support behind the people's president, barack obama.what also happened last night is that clinton won by less than 2%, which equates a little more than 18,000 voters in indiana. while a technical victory, it is was not enough to change the math or change the tides of superdelegates who are either defecting to obama or declaring support for the first time. furthermore, this is a tainted victory. spoilers who have knowingly been present and casting votes for senator clinton in many of the late open primaries generally only swing the vote by a couple percentage points. historically, spoilers registered with the opposing party yield a statistically insignificant impact on results. yet, in an election as close as indiana last night, spoilers make a difference. spoilers were estimated to compose more than 2% which is more than the margin clinton beat obama in indiana. needless to say, rush limbaugh has been gloating since last night: "i think they are just jealous that i out-organized them," limbaugh commented. "i am extremely proud of operation chaos volunteers. i never doubted they would triumph and it is a delight to see."so after many blogs defending against attacks on the most electable candidate and hoping to explain why an educated person like myself was captivated by obama in december and loyal to this day, i am happy to declare, "that's all folks."there is no clear path for a clinton presidency. the delegate count is against her, the popular vote is against her, and her campaign finances are against her. today. it was discovered that clinton secretly loaned her campaign an additional $6.4 million dollars last month. her campaign is now $11.4 million dollars in debt to her. legally, she can not donate that much money to her campaign, so she is now in the position of raising money to pay off that debt. in fact, it was reported that the obama campaign may need to pay that debt for her when she drops out of the race at month end. that's right!!! senator clinton is expected to drop out by month end. she will likely win kentucky and west virginia due to both states' rural voter allegiance. however, once that is done, she will want to end on a high note. clinton would face political ruins and cripple the clinton legacy should she push all the way to the convention when she has no chance in hell to change reality. now's the time for her to consider running for governor of new york and contemplate a second stab at the presidency in 2016 (if ever). to protect her future as a leader in the democratic party, she will need to exit gradually and gracefully in the coming weeks followed by an ongoing display of aggressive support and meaningful campaigning for obama and his running mate beginning as early as first week in june. it now remains in her best interest to drop out at month end. and, as i have asserted before, senator clinton always attempts to act in her best interest.what about florida and michigan? that will soon be agreed upon between obama, clinton, and the democratic national convention. all three agreed to the rules before the game was played, so they must all agree if those rules change to seat either state. but, seating those states can't help clinton reverse the course. even should obama and the dnc be overly generous and grant clinton marginal victories similar to what she captured in other large states she gloats about, i.e. california, new york, and ohio... senator clinton does not win... no matter what math she might invent. the reality is setting in... finally. a generous offer would be to grant clinton victory in florida and split the margin based on the "statistical mean" she earned in the 16 contests she won versus obama's 32 contests he won. furthermore, given obama and edwards did not appear as a choice on the michigan ballot, the best offer would be to split the delegates. in all honestly, you simply can't justify granting her a generous "statistical mean" when obama wasn't even on the ballot. but, what many people forget is that obama has won many of his 32 contests with decisive margins in double digits. clinton victories in states she had a competitive advantage and strong roots have yielded single digit results such as her 9% in pennsylvania or her 9% in california. in fact, she lost to obama in texas thanks to the caucuses that gave him more delegates overall for the state. in fact, she won by 10% in ohio thanks to her last minute dupe involving the canada NAFTAgate where she shifted blame for her camp's actions onto obama. ultimately, her "statistcal mean" will offer her a margin of victory in florida similar to what she gained in these similar states.
certainly clinton must deliver speeches with a smile and talk positively about her "hope" to win the nomination. she may pledge to stay put until barack is named the true nominee, which seating partial delegates in his favor from michigan or florida would accomplish at month end. so why deliver those speeches with a smile when reality has set in for the rest of us? we know that she needs to end on a high note with two inevitable, nonconsequential victories left this month. we know she has $11.4 million to raise before her campaign is out of the red... quite the lousy investment for voters still holding out hope for a clinton presidency versus providing financial relief for a multi-millionaire. ultimately, the race may continue, but the contest is finally over.~ j
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lklfIPBK4Zg
REGARDING MY PREVIOUS BLOG, "race and religion: pattern of clinton accidents or campaign ploys?"
MY PREVIOUS BLOG LINK
allow me to elaborate that i am fully aware of the honorary role wright was reported to having served with a spiritual african-american committee associated with the campaign. i've known of this since the last debates. but, allow me to reiterate my distinction between a supporter who serves on a committee associated with a campaign versus: the candidate, hillary clinton, who apologized for her comments following losses on super tuesday (clinton blamed proud black communities that voted for barack. she entirely dismissed the educated voters and youth support obama also turned out in record numbers) former president bill clinton, husband and advisor, for whom hillary has also apologized geraldine ferraro, lead advisor-fundraiser-member of finance committee, for whom hillary has also apologized... but did not repudiate the remarks until after ferraro resigned days later and after having appeared on virtually every major network defending her commentary perhaps that distinction is better defined since i "glazed" over the known fact that wright served an honorary role on a committee associated with the campaign. what i said clearly distinguishes that he was neither a staff member or lead advisor such as ferraro or samantha power. let us remain cognizant that a stark difference exists when compared to the candidate, lead advisor, or staff member. TONIGHT'S NEWS: from msnbc: "Obama’s campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee after videotapes of his sermons again ignited fierce debate in news accounts and political blogs." "African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the campaign" OBAMA SAID IN HIS INTERVIEW: “I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country. “That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.” But Obama acknowledged that “there’s no doubt this is going to be used as political fodder, as it has been in the past.” “What I hope is [that] what the American people will trust is what I believe,” he said, that “my values, my ideas, what I’ve spoke about in terms of bringing the country together will override a guilt by association.” ~ j
what does retired minister wright from obama's church have to do with obama's qualifications? could this be another pathetic attempt by clinton surrogates to tarnish obama's superior record of leadership? was today's release of another sermon simply to deflect from an undeniable pattern of remarks made directly by hillary clinton, directly by bill clinton, and directly by campaign speakers/staff such as geraldine ferraro?obama has publicly rejected any decisive sentiments that might be spoken from his former minister or any other person speaking decisively against clinton or any group in a roundabout way of supporting obama. obama's true message is about inviting, welcoming, and uniting diverse backgrounds... among his most famous quotes is the one he ends: "this is the united states of america."obama has publicly described his former minister as “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that i don't agree with.” i can see no logic in faulting obama for his retired minister's words. because obama's position is consistent and because obama previously addressed his former minister as noted above, the equivalent would be someone holding the words of my republican, baptist father against me. my father's words no more reflect my progressive, inclusive paradigm as wright's words reflect senator barack obama's paradigm.
the commentary by geraldine ferraro is relevant, not because race should be, but because the event is in no way isolated and ferraro played an official lead advisory role with "team clinton." incidentally, ferraro resigned wednesday. before her resignation, however, geraldine ferraro invoked racial division against senator barack obama multiple times in the past week. she also made similar comments regarding reverend jesse jackson. in an april 15, 1988 article, the washington post quoted ferraro saying "if jesse jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."
in addition to a pattern deriving from ferraro, there is a growing, no-longer-undeniable pattern deriving from key players in "team clinton." top supporters aiding in campaign efforts, former president bill clinton, and senator clinton, herself, misspoke along racial/religious lines leading to national divide. one might speculate whether this pattern of racial/religious divide is a repeated clinton accident or campaign ploy? after all, had obama not rallied record turnouts in the black community, consolidating the white vote under one candidate would have lead to more victories for clinton.
let's not forget this is more than just racial divide. i have not forgotten former nebraska senator bob kerrey, a major clinton backer, who asserted that an obama presidency may improve the world's image of our country because of obama's "muslim roots." similarly, i do not dismiss senator clinton's noncommital denouncement of muslim rumors as recently as two nights before the ohio and texas primaries. in her appearance on 60 minutes, when asked about obama being muslim, senator clinton responded, "there's nothing to base that on... at least not that i know." the exit polls in ohio showed that obama lost protestant and catholic votes which, as we all know, encompasses the majority of religious denominations in ohio.
ironically, the retired minister who the press and clinton supporters continually use against obama formerly worked at a church of christ, a christian denomination where obama and his family have attended for more than two decades. the implied "muslim roots" are relatives on obama's deceased father's side which obama never met until a visit to his father's grave before harvard law school. barack obama is christian and he has never been muslim or attended a muslim school.
from cnn:
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," Senator Obama told the Allentown Morning Call.
"I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And, I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign, they shouldn't have a place in Senator Clinton's, either," he added.
Earlier, Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, called for Clinton to sever ties with the former New York congresswoman, who serves on her campaign's finance committee.
"When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said.
from msnbc:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY
keith olbermann is spot on with his assessment of hillary clinton's insensitive, questionable management or lack there of. you must watch this honest, well-articulated perspective on the past week's activities by senator clinton and her tepid response. clinton failed to publicly denounce or reject geraldine ferraro until after she received a resignation on wednesday. yet, when samantha power dubbed clinton a "monster" off the record and apologized, senator clinton gave one of her typical hollywood attack speeches calling for samantha power to resign because her "monster" characterization was inconsistent with OBAMA FOR AMERICA messaging. samanatha power did, in fact, apologize and, within hours, resign. instead of apologizing, ferraro defended herself on virtually every major newtork and waited more than 48 hours to resign.anyone believing that comparing obama’s former minister who is NOT WORKING ON obama’s campaign staff or as a lead advisor AND something said directly by hillary, bill, geraldine, or any other campaign speaker/staff/advisor... well, that anyone is not only making illogical, misleading comparisons... but such a person should look in the mirror. such a person should delve inward and question the ethics or true motivations behind such comparisons/rebuttals.while it is your choice to be a "stubbornly uneducated" american, as bill maher so wisely coined, in this age of information and resources to verify information, you should be ashamed and embarrassed to spew:factually inaccurate...blatantly false...speculative and debunked...as well as unresearched propaganda aimed at misleading impressionable minds, perhaps like your own, for benefit to a candidate or to an issue indefensible on merit or on consistently proven, documented records. such vile behavior is not only reckless, but it is the lowest form of manipulation and i, for one, deem it unacceptable.
pattern of clinton accidents or campaign ploys? frankly, my dear, i don’t give a damn. anyway you look at it, "team clinton" is wrong.~ j
i couldn't have said it better. no new blog needed. a must watch for an honest, well-articulated perspective on the last week's activities by team clinton.
there is not doubt that obama offers the honest, CONSISTENT, more progressive record of leadership as well as policy toward LGBT issues. in fact, i have three blogs saying so! what i doubt is no targeted activity or reinforcement of prior messaging to capture LGBT votes in ohio, considering the dense population in franklin county. clinton, technically weaker on the issues, acted quickly in a targeted message which is one of the stark differences in support of obama. (point #2 of my last blog) late january, clinton distributed an open letter and it was quickly disseminated among individual voters via social networks and email distribution lists. lead like sheep into the slaughter house. in turn, i published my rebuttal in blog form on february 6, and then scripted an abridged version which i sent to my personal contacts and OHIO HQ. however, i did not see an open letter from OBAMA FOR AMERICA until just before the ohio/texas primaries. yes, obama has given many speeches and made better proposals... but this time, somehow, clinton was beating obama via peer contact and new media. how can this be... or more importantly, why are lesbians and homos quick to fall in line under clinton? it's a misitake by gays, and i am only human to speculate that a significant percentage of lesbians are also feminists and that a significant percentage of homos are associate with a mother-figure.
holy freudian slip-up batman! but, before anyone sends me hate mail, let it be known i've heard many rebuttals in favor of clinton resorting to her gender and the idea of wanting a woman in office... all logic be damned. fortunately, obama won franklin county... home of columbus (dense LGBT population). yet, i am not convinced he won the gay vote. obama faired well in each metropolitan area, winning three of ohio's largest counties such as franklin. furthermore, i'm pretty disappointed in the official obama LGBT myspace. there's been no activity since before super tuesday. no one has approved comments or circulated the open letter among the thousands of people listed with the site. tragic oversight. that's how clinton set off a domino effect among gay-friendly ears. i get it. bigger fish to fry? but alas, perhaps this advocate article signifies better targeting in the future. ~ j
i sent this summary of my earlier blog to OHIO HQ and my contacts in february: CLINTON = political calculation to meet the popular opinionOBAMA = moral calculation to meet the consistent greater good _ _ _ _ _ _ _
presumably, you sympathize with equal rights, punishable hate crimes, and no discrimination.barack obama is your candidate! 1 . . . Defense of Marriage Act was signed by bill clinton and supported by the first lady. today, obama and clinton oppose federally sanctioned "gay marriage" but both support federally sanctioned "civil unions" providing identical rights. in fact, only obama attends a christian denomination that recognizes gay marriages!DOMA stands as the most significant legislative obstacle to achieving marriage equality. hillary still defends most of DOMA with a "states' rights" argument, allowing state discrimination.hillary clinton is on record for only supporting repeal of section 3 of DOMA. however, barack obama has been a leader in civil rights and fully supports a complete repeal of the DOMA.2 . . . obama speaks about civil rights and equality for the LGBT community in many highly visible speeches. these include obama's first presidential speech as well as the eloquent speech to thousands at ebenezer church on Martin Luther King Jr. Day.hillary has not brought LGBT issues to the forefront, waiting for gay-friendly ears.3 . . . it's true clinton co-sponsored bills like Early Treatment of HIV Act and increased funding for Ryan White Care Act. but, it's also true that obama lead on these and many others hillary could list.4 . . . hillary counts 8yrs as first lady towards "experience." she cherry-picks/disassociates with compromises or positions not popular today. they leveraged LGBT compromises to build christian support.5 . . . obama wants to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." while clinton now agrees with obama, she supported it when her husband signed the law. hillary still asserts it was progress. bill clinton sanctioned as long as we are in the closet, we can serve. thus, bill and hillary's promises proved empty during the 90s.like barack says, it's important to be right on day one.6 . . . when hillary speaks of marching in gay pride parades, let's remember that obama has marched in his fair share also. after all, his state is home of "boys town." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ barack obama is clearly honest, CONSISTENT, and more progressive with the change he proposes for us. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ trust the below list of LGBT organizations and leaders who endorsed barack obama even before super tuesday! * Eric Stern, former political adviser to the John Edwards for President campaign, former National Stonewall Democrats executive director, former director of LGBT outreach for the Democratic National Committee (California) * David Mixner, writer, Democratic Party activist (New York) * Gloria Nieto, Former Vice Chair of DNC LGBT Caucus * Linda Elliott, member of the board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign (Arizona) * Evan Low, council member for the city of Campbell, Calif. * David Garrity, vice chair of the Maine Democratic Party; former DNC Member * Andy Szekeres, former Colorado Stonewall Democrats cochair, former Wisconsin LGBT field director, Kerry-Edwards (Colorado) * Kyle Bailey, former board member, National Stonewall Democrats, LGBT Caucus vice chair of Young Democrats of America, Chair of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (Georgia) * Pam Cooke, National Stonewall Democrats board member; past president, Stonewall Democratic Club of Los Angeles (California) * Bill Hedrick, president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats * David Mariner, former Out for Howard Dean cochair (Maryland) * Jason Lansdale, past president of Central Ohio Stonewall Democrats * Daniel Hinkley, Nevada Stonewall Democratic Caucus president * Misty York, communications director for the Kentucky Fairness Alliance * Christopher Prevatt, chair of Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic Club (Orange County, Calif. ) * Jim Maynard, president of Memphis Stonewall Democrats (Tennessee) * Daniel Graney, past president of Stonewall Democrats of San Antonio (Texas) * Arthur Nunn, former Missouri for Edwards volunteer organizer and founder of LGBT for Edwards MySpace Group * Brad Reichard, public pelations executive (Massachusetts) * Michael Shannon, national security expert (D. C. ) * Les Krambeal, board member for the National Stonewall Democrats, cochair, Southern Arizona Stonewall Democrats * Robert D. Horvath Jr. , member of the board of directors for the Mautner Project (D. C. ) * Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT community activist (D. C. ) * Jeff Prang,West Hollywood City Council * Tom Ammiano, San Fran board of Supervisors * Rich Tafel, Formerly of National Log Cabin Republicans * Jeff Soukup, Board Member of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, former President and COO, PlanetOut Inc. , and former Co-Chair National Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund * Jeff Anderson, former Co-Chair of John Kerry for President National LGBT Finance Committee * Bill Rosendahl, LA City Council * Susan Belinda Christian, Co-Chair of Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club * Patrick Shepherd, former President of Cleveland Stonewall Democrats; Board Member for the National Stonewall Democrats * Joseph LaMonica, former board member of the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats. * Brian Polejes,Vice President For Organizing Pride At Work
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Urgent, Clear Choice For Gay Voters: ObamaAndrew Sullivanhttp://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"An interesting moment came when he was asked a question about LGBTrights and delivered an answer that seemed to suit the questioner,listing the various attributes -- race, gender, etc. -- that shouldn'ttrigger discrimination, to successive cheers. When he came to sayingthat gays and lesbians deserve equality, though, the crowd fellsilent."So he took a different tack: "Now I'm a Christian, and I praise Jesusevery Sunday," he said, to a sudden wave of noisy applause and cheers."I hear people saying things that I don't think are very Christianwith respect to people who are gay and lesbian," he said, and thecrowd seemed to come along with him this time.To hear someone defend gay and lesbian dignity and equality from aChristian perspective and to do so in the context of a largelyAfrican-American crowd, is much, much more than any candidate for thepresidency has ever done. It's a break through. If it were just words,it would be one thing. But he has now done this repeatedly in front ofblack crowds, when he didn't have to. And he has put his specificcommitments in writing in an open letter.It's time to be candid about this - because gay voters, in myjudgment, could make the difference in Ohio and Texas and Vermont andRhode Island. There are very large gay communities in Texas' cities,and Ohio has the sixth largest gay community in the country. A plea:Do not sleep-walk into that voting booth with vague good feelingsabout the Clintons. Walk into that booth with eyes open and see whatgay people have in front of them.Now you may have many reasons not to vote for Obama, and no gay votershould vote on one issue. But solely with respect to gay matters,there is simply no choice here. Obama's positions, candor, courage,generation and religious embrace of us are dispositive.What Obama is doing on the gay issue has the potential transform itand help us as a society to move past it. No, he's not a savior. No,we shouldn't expect miracles. No, we should never delegate the work ofour equality to anyone else. We, after all, are the ones we've beenwaiting for. But within the Democratic contest, the case for backingObama at this point in time is, to my mind, urgent, vital, historic.Gay Americans must not throw this chance away.
"Too many have been invisible for too long. Well, you are not invisible to me."
"I intend to be that president, to be a president who puts you first"
"There will be no more invisible Americans."
"I invite you to come join us at Hillaryclinton.com."
so i did... i went to hillaryclinton.com, as i have done before when educating myself on her positions and false rhetoric. my first impression has always been that given the emphasis on technology and job creation... savings that are generated by technology to fund new programs...
the two remaining democrats' web sites present stark differences between obama and clinton. if this is the example of technology she offers, then no thanks. obama's web site runs circles around clinton's web site.
however, i was able to lift the above quotes from her newsroom tab. absurd. she promised only a couple months ago that people would not be "invisible." yet, clinton has dismissed the majority of states... claiming the big states are what matters. and you know, typically, the big states are all that a primary candidate can target due to shoestring budgets and hard resources such as people.
typically, the united states allows the large states to decide the presidential nominee for each political party. this is just one in many ways obama is turning the page on old politics and changing washington to represent the people. obama considers every state important and, incidentally, has won the majority of states by significant margins... often double digits. he has won the popular vote nationally as well as the most pledged delegates.
in spite of her previous position on this matter of "there will be no more invisible americans", senator clinton now asserts that the vast majority of states... the same states that voted against her or awarded her less delegates like texas... well... these states should be invisible and dismissed. although she won them largely by smaller margins of victory and the states clinton won yield second place in popular vote and pledged delegates nationally, the big states are the ones that count. typical.
along these lines, i received this fund raising email today from OBAMA FOR AMERICA:
" It's tough to think of two states more different than Wyoming and Mississippi.
But we won Wyoming on Saturday, and we just learned that we won Mississippi by a large margin tonight.
Between those two states, we picked up enough delegates to erase the gains by Senator Clinton last Tuesday and add to our substantial lead in earned delegates. And in doing so we showed the strength and breadth of this movement.
But just turn on the news and you'll see that Senator Clinton continues to run an expensive, negative campaign against us. Each day her campaign launches a new set of desperate attacks.
They're not just attacking me; they're attacking you.
Over the weekend, an aide to Senator Clinton attempted to diminish the overwhelming number of contests we've won by referring to places we've prevailed as "boutique" states and our supporters as the "latte-sipping crowd."
I'm not sure how those terms apply to Mississippi and Wyoming -- or Virginia, Iowa, Louisiana, or Idaho for that matter.
I know that our victories in all of these states demonstrate a rejection of this kind of petty, divisive campaigning.
But the fact remains that Senator Clinton's campaign will continue to attack us using the same old Washington play book. And now that John McCain is the Republican nominee, we are forced to campaign on two fronts.
It's up to you to fight back.
https://donate.barackobama.com/themath
Thank you,
Barack "
~ j
we should be concerned. bill and hillary’s recent assertions of an unstoppable clinton-obama ticket is one of clinton’s best strategies yet, which is to say her least debaucherous attempt. i’m willing to offer her credit where credit is finally due: a non-negative approach at building her base that is not entirely a lie. obama might always say no, but perhaps clinton honestly intends to lobby for her dream team. so why should we be concerned folks? duh. ohio and texas have shown how easily a state can be duped or scared! no matter how many times "her dream team" is debunked as "impossible" (words of speaker nancy pelosi), some voters might be distracted by the shiny metal object dangling over to the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GCsAGA40LA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l580JxOzp8c
when the texas and ohio smear campaigns first kicked up, even obama admits that he was surprised how much the press embraced things he had shrugged off... having given the american people the benefit of the doubt. ironically, the press wrote far more about the NAFTAgate lies alleged days before the elections in ohio and texas than the NAFTAgate truth that we know today. and this time, it is a case of the press saving face than bias.
in marketing, the truth is far less important than the public perception of what is believed to be true. in marketing, messaging parity and repitition are smart ways to get your message remembered. in marketing, the main goals are controlling perception and message recall.
therefore, for each time bill or hillary assert a vote for clinton is a vote for obama to be vice president, obama must attack that logic twice as much and deliver it exactly how he did today:
~ the second place candidate offering the first place candidate a consoluation prize?
~ reminding that bill and hillary stated on record that they would select a VPcapable of serving as president on day one... criticizing obama for not being vetted... asserting obama is the perfect VP
clinton's new strategy is to lure undecided voters as well as weak obama supporters to her gingerbread house. as usual, she banks on the american people's gullibility which aided her well on march 4. hillary and bill are suggesting that a vote for clinton is a vote for the hillary-obama ticket.
yet, she is admitting her major weakness: clinton can't win on her own merits, and her odds against mccain are not as good as obama's odds. while she has reason to ask obama to be her running mate on the sad chance she wins the nomination, analysts and i agree that obama does not need clinton to win a general election. the vast majority of clinton supporters will vote for barack obama when he wins the nomination.
unlike clinton, barack obama is poised to beat the republican nominee. obama supporters, some of whom have never been inspired enough to participate in the voting process or whom are independent, may not support hillary clinton. these inspired supporters of obama may choose to sit out again or vote mccain... should hillary clinton win the nomination. for years, the youth promised they would "rock the vote" and yet, until this year, they never showed up.all in all, this may be her best strategy yet. clinton should have launched it in place of her sinister smear campaigns to dupe ohio and scare texas. educated voters would have still seen through her plan, but at least i could have admired her for placing obama "in check" via cunning strategy rather than by cheating and spinning blame obama’s way for underhanded double-talk the canadian investigation revealed had surfaced from team clinton instead!obama needs to be as vocal as possible about how untrue and absurd any such deduction is whereby a vote for clinton is still supporting obama and his promise for change. i also applaud speaker nancy pelosi for also speaking out against such absurdities.
for those of you that did not hear, prior to this new strategy, speaker nancy pelosi met with team clinton campaign management to voice disapproval for comments that had been made that pracitically endorsed john mccain for president. reportedly, team clinton has also been scolded as the true source of NAFTAgate for which team clinton blamed on obama to discredit his long, consistent stance on NAFTA in the state of ohio. reportedly, the reponse from clinton campaign management was that they will continue whatever works in their favor.refer to my "sabotaging america's most electable candidate: how you can fight back" blog for more of my analysis on clinton's reckless, misleading attempts to win or destroy. meanwhile, we should all avoid hillary clinton's gingerbread house.
i have voiced frustration by what i deem ignorance or gullibility of people who succumb to fear tactics or are skeptical of positive change... those that not only cast doubt... but spread these fraudulent claims against OBAMA simply because they are unable to logically beat him on the issues or his natural ability to lead... his ability to get results by uniting people of diverse backgrounds... a skill OBAMA proved as far back as the first black president of the harvard law review... negotiating between colleague's liberal and conservative views...harvard is a intellectual pool filled with opposing points of views and to succeed he learned to balance those interests... something OBAMA proved successful in his remarkable record in state senate for 8 years, his current role in the US Senate, and record management of his presidential campaign...the lies against his character and religion have been debunked, but still repeated to this day...some may believe these terrible mischaracterizations and others should be ashamed for knowingly using such lies to scare and mislead...i'm sad for those people, and yet, i'm angry at them too.... afterall, we are living in the 21st century... and the deductions they make are so ridiculous and uneducated that bill maher's mockery is very much an accurate simulation of how such people approach their rationale...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NJpoLj4RK04
• Based on popular vote: Clinton, 65; Obama, 61
• Projected from caucuses: Clinton 30; Obama 37
• Superdelegates: Clinton 12; Obama 10; uncommitted 13
• Unofficial total: Clinton 107; Obama 108
*Projections were printed in the Houston Chronicle, a leading Texan paper
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
in an earlier blog, "the most delegates wins," i noted that this has been a delegate race since super tuesday. as it stands, obama has won the popular vote and delegate race nationally. even by winning a state, the delegate distribution is only helpful to clinton when the victories are marked by large margins as we have seen with OBAMA time and time again. tuesday was a wash for senator clinton thanks to vermont and texas who wisely gave obama the delegate lead, solidifying his advantage over clinton.
it is now mathematically improbable for clinton to beat obama on popular vote and pledged delegates. remember poor huckabee? she would have to average more than a 20 point lead in every state henceforth.
"let's get real." as she says. even in new york she only beat obama by 17 points... and she obviously had the advantage in new york.
the substantial margin of victory for OBAMA in wyoming has already shown clinton has little chances of catching up. however, it doesn't mean she won't throw punches with her eyes wide shut.
moreover, i believe that with the last two weeks of tactics on the part of clinton, she is in the pocket of big business and the establishment for a reason. undoubtedly, hillary clinton is more like joe lieberman than barack obama is like kenneth star. hillary has essentially, endorsed john mccain this past week speaking highly of his experience (which, by the way, trumps her own). senator clinton raped senator obama's record of leadership and left nothing but one great anti-war speech.
in fact, she has reached an all-new low. she is going down with a fight and she's willing to implode the party to ensure she has the opportunity to rerun in 2012. in 2004, the media began reporting that some within the party believed that the kerry/edwards campaign was being sabotaged in order to pave the way to the 08 clinton campaign. at that time, i believed it. and i am confident of it now.
i choose to believe that the democratic party is incapable of the utter incompetence inherent in pushing forth the poorly devised, inconsistent messaging and lack of structure that crippled kerry/edwards. let's "get real" as hillary clinton would advise. kerry was defeated by an otherwise easy candidate to beat at that time. many of you might not understand my marketing perspective. the best and most entertaining way for me to explain is to highly recommend that you watch the 2006 documentary, "so goes the nation." this documentary brought to life many of my complaints about the kerry compaign and points i made late last year when i forecasted OBAMA FOR AMERICA making a strong showing. http://imdb.com/title/tt0432337/
clinton is counting on americans being niave, uneducated, or simply complacent. unfortunately, some of us have looked past the fact that most of the clinton/obama policy proposals are 95% highly similar. unfortunately, some of us have delve into the details of both resumes and see a record of admirable, effective, consistent leadership from obama. unfortunately, some of us consider character.
if there was any doubt, as i have always tried to leave her the benefit of my doubt... she demolished all doubt. in one of my blogs, i wrote if she failed to gain significant pledged delegates and even the playing field on march 4, then clinton should step aside to express her love for america is greater than her own self-ambition... she should recognize that a transformative voice we have been waiting for has surfaced and finally millions of americans finally agree that our nation must move forward into the 21st century and the time for change is now.
the only thing clinton accomplished on march 4 and by her continued attacks has been splitting the democratic party and allowing mccain to get a head start with the resources that have become available to him as the official party nominee. clinton must pull something pretty underhanded to make america's most electable candidate begin loosing by more than 20 points. but, if anyone can manage debauchery, i trust that candidate would be senator clinton.
therefore, while superdelegates will likely vote with the popular vote and the candidate with the most pledged delagates won... let's not assume that clinton is incapable of something so shocking as allowing the florida supreme court to decide the president of the united states in spite of who really won the most votes that year.
unless revotes are allowed in florida and michigan, superdelegates will be needed to nominate obama. as i said, it is mathematically improbable for clinton to win fairly from pledged delegates because she couldn't win by 20+ points even in new york and she lost in wyoming already. this is one reason clinton is gearing up to seat michigan and florida without revotes.
clinton understands revote results would inevitably diminish margins within both states in OBAMA's favor and weaken her ability to prolong the contest. after all, obama was not even listed on the michigan ballot. by not agreeing to revotes, she prevents OBAMA from meeting the minimum requirement (assuming she wins or splits pennsylvania) to win the nomination before the convention... when the superdelegates could then award him the nomination. why does it matter to her? mccain has gained a head start with the resources that have become available to him as the official party nominee. OBAMA can not gain the resources of the democratic party until he meets that minimum delegate requirement, and therefore, is named the offical party nominee.
based on her current plan of attack and positions on the issues at hand, what truly frightens me has been that clinton would rather sabotage america's most electable candidate and retain the open door to rerun in 2012 than to see her life's ambition slip by... to be the first female president.
she took her gloves off last friday. she is now throwing punches with her eyes wide shut.
god save the democratic party.
let's take no chances; let's not underestimate our opponent.
contact your state's superdelegates immediately. i found the resource for identifying the known superdelegates from the democratic party's web site (http://dnc.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/).
CLICK HERE:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/03932e1b8eb6b12c62_cdm6bnnf7.pdf
godspeed.
this doesn't really function as a real blog, but i have a question i was hoping someone could answer. in january and early february, i wrote a few letters to the editor through this site. i submitted my letters in a form and this site sent to the appropriate email addresses for me.
now, i want to write more letters. i've clicked on about every link in the menu, but can't find that page again. please direct me to that page on here again! there most be a kind sole that knows where to find it.
did you hear?
ohio is the new florida, and obama aide resigns.
i wrote this to a teamster who was proud to switch his vote from obama to clinton the day before the election because of the false allegations that clinton's campaign began feeding to question obama's integrity on NAFTA.
"SHAME ON YOU FOR NOT DOING YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE CHANGING YOUR VOTE, JUST LIKE HILLARY CLINTON FAILED DO HER HOMEWORK WHEN ENGAGING IN WAR WITHOUT READING THE NIE. YOU WERE DUPED.
THE UNDENIABLE/DOCUMENTED TRUTH REMAINS:1) as first lady, clinton supported NAFTA 2) as US senator, she commended the impact/benefit3) as author of her autobiographical book , she coined NAFTA as a legislative successes of the clinton administration, of which she counts 8 years towards her "experience"
while i concede that CLINTON has shifted her position to agree with OBAMA, her previous poor judgment should be acknowledged and not blindly trusted.
first of all, the original AP article recognizes that the individual did not retract any belief OBAMA has expressed consistently for years towards NAFTA. furthermore, the article recognizes that the individual (who incidentally is an advisor to OBAMA) attended a previously scheduled meeting as a representative of the university of chicago separate from his work with the campaign. furthermore, it was alleged that a clinton representative also made retractions to the canadian government... for some reason this was less publicized, but the canadians, clinton, and OBAMA each deny this story as it relates to their involvement. however, clinton's camp is obviously feeding a smear campaign against OBAMA.
MUST WATCH:canadian parliament feels so strongly that canadian officials fed false allegations to undermine obama's campaign that resignations are being demanded!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLJJ88HTiX8
TODAY, AN OBAMA AID RESIGNS FOR CALLING HILLARY CLINTON A MONSTER!!! again, obama is keeping on target with his messaging... but do you know why clinton was dubbed a monster???
BECAUSE OHIO WAS DUPED... CANADA IMPACTS UNITED STATES ELECTIONS... AFTER A CALL FOR RESIGNATIONS AND AN INVESTIGATION:
CANADIAN PRESS REPORTS THAT A TOP CLINTON AIDE WAS THE SOURCE OF NAFTAgate.
not only did she spin a smear campaign against OBAMA days before OHIO and TEXAS voted, she covered up her own involvement to avoid losing significantly.
clinton seized the popular vote by a small margin, largely resulting from erroneous scare tactics and the smear campaigns she fed during the days leading up to march 4. when you review the exit polls, her last efforts especially crippled obama in ohio. clinton gained majority of union and religious support. this is in spite of obama winning the key union endorsements impacting ohio and leading union endorsements nationwide. this is in spite continued reassurance that obama is a devout christian and an appearance of both candidates on 60 minutes. yet, even in her appearance on 60 minutes, when asked about obama being muslim, senator clinton responded, "there's nothing to base that on... at least not that i know."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYspjJCjgX8
Keith Olbermann reported last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOLEK2lr3CM
NOTE: clearly, american media does not want to own up to also being duped. when i responded to a teamster, i pointed out that the press was only focused on OBAMA by referencing the original AP story that named clinton also. of course, canadian media focused on obama. canada benefits from NAFTA. given the two candidates' histories and the clinton advisor call... if you or your country benefited from NAFTA, who would you support? i see how a compromised soul might be tempted to impact UNITED STATES ELECTIONS.
that is not to say i implicate a country, but a person or persons affiliated with interest in NAFTA as it relates to canada in combination with a opportunistic, timely smear campaign reportedly orchestrated by the clinton campaign.
if you had not heard, then now you know.
the most delegates wins. on monday, msnbc discussed the difficulty of reporting the "winner" in texas should what happened on tuesday happen.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYspjJCjgX8
however, this has been a delegate race since super tuesday. as it stands, obama has won the popular vote and delegate race nationally. tuesday was a wash for senator clinton thanks to vermont and texas who wisely gave obama the delegate lead.
it is now mathematically improbable for her to beat obama on popular vote and pledged delegates. remember poor huckabee? she would have to average more than a 20 point lead in every state henceforth.
thanks to the caucus and the delegate map of the districts in texas, it currently appears that obama has won the most delegates in texas. with more than 50% of the results calculated, the networks have not yet declared a winner in the caucus. however, cnn.com breaks out the detail nicely if you visit their politics' page. obama's lead is significant... enough to counter the delegates she gained in popular vote from the more rural areas of texas.
a couple days ago, i wrote a blog entitled "which senator has executive experience?"
i received an email to day from OBAMA FOR AMERICA... can you believe we raised $55 million dollars in february?!! even with lobbyist and special interest contributions, republicans and clinton have never touched on OBAMA's new record. $55 million from united, average americans is what i deem true, never-before-seen executive management and leadership. running a successful multi-million dollar enterprise is something the other two senators left in the race can't claim or deny.the chicago tribune reported, "the total came from contributions from nearly three-quarters of a million donors, including about 385,000 who were donating for the first time. vrtually all of the money - $45 million – was raised online."
a couple days i had already begun asserting this argument:
none of the senators running (McCain, Clinton, OBAMA) have outright executive experience. so, by what do we judge one's ability to lead or manage? the logical choice is by the candidates' campaigns which represent multi-million dollar enterprises... larger than a small business. analysts have drawn this conclusion also. OBAMA is clearly the best qualified leader by many respects including his ability to run cultivate a multi-million dollar enterprise and accomplish what he has done in just more than a year. OBAMA may very well be recorded as having built and managed the greatest presidential campaign in history. OBAMA achieved, in a short period of time, what most politicians fail to do in a lifetime.
again, $55 million from united, average americans is what i deem true, never-before-seen executive management and leadership. running a successful multi-million dollar enterprise is something the other two senators left in the race can't claim or deny.
if only a country could be run so well.
here is the email i received:
Jonathan --
I want to add some more news to David's note about the state of the race.
As you know, we've won 27 of 41 contests and have maintained our commanding lead among pledged delegates.
But today I want to share another staggering number: supporters like you donated more than $55 million to this campaign in the month of February.
That's a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support.
No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it -- more than 90% of donations were $100 or less, and more than 385,000 new donors in February pushed us past our goal of more than 1,000,000 people owning a piece of this campaign.
From the beginning, this campaign has always been funded by a movement of grassroots supporters giving whatever they can afford. And unlike Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, we have never taken money from lobbyists or PACs.
Senator Clinton has decided to use her resources to wage a negative, throw-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink campaign. John McCain has clinched the Republican nomination and is attacking us daily. But I will continue to vigorously defend my record and make the case for change that will improve the lives of all Americans.
Despite your generosity in February, I need your help to continue this battle on two separate fronts.
Please make a donation of $100 today:
Thank you for your support,
Barack
THE TRUTH ABOUT OBAMA AND HIS SENATE RECORDS:
Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote. These bills include: 1. A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois. 2. A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations. 3. A bill that provided the earned income tax credit to thousands of Illinois families. 4. A bill that reformed the death penalty that had sent innocent people to death row 5. A bill that banned gifts and meals from lobbyists.
I will also point out this link to a PDF published based on the NEW YORK TIMES that illustrates OBAMA's Illinois record clearly. http://manchester.ucsd.edu/misc/obama-state-senate.pdf
Finally, I will point out that Barack OBAMA was so well accomplished and productive as a state senator that OBAMA won his US Senate seat by the largest margin of victory in congressional history... now what was his about nil?
While Hillary Clinton has spent more time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has gotten more substantive legislation that affects the American people passed while he's been there. 1. A bill with Senator Richard Lugar which bans the development of nuclear weapons. 2. A bill that created a public database where average Americans can see how the government is spending their money. 3. A bill that provided important assistance to address the situation in the Congo. 4. A bill that Nancy Pelosi calls "one of the toughest ethics reform" bills in this history of the Congress.
Anyway you cut it... as the US Senator, Obama authored/co-sponsored more bills in his first two years than Clinton achieved in her first two years or in her last two years of her first term... either way... what was this about nil?
On a final note, keep in mind that when it comes to EXPERIENCE:
Barack Obama will have held elected office for 12 years before becoming President. Hillary Clinton will only have held office for 8 years.
While Clinton claims experience from her husband's presidency, she will not release her White House papers to let us know specifically what that experience is. Meanwhile, policies she once championed, she now disagrees with, i.e. "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and NAFTA
Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were before they took the presidency. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, while Barack Obama opposed the war from the start.
Hillary Clinton was the last Democrat to support the torture pledge.
Obama voted to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. Hillary Clinton voted against the ban. Cluster bombs have a high failure rate and are often mistaken by children for toys. They are indiscriminate and result in thousands of civilian deaths.
Barack Obama has gotten more anti-poverty legislation signed into law in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton has. He passed numerous bills during his work in Illinois.
Barack Obama passed the toughest ethics reform legislation in the U.S. Senate since Watergate.
The League of Conservation Voters gave Barack Obama a higher score on his environmental voting record than all the other Democratic nominees.
The Washington Post gave Barack Obama an A- for his economic stimulus plan and gave Hillary Clinton a C+.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG0PfADEbDs
thehill.com original report in june 07
a friend sent me a link to this blog
This is simple. Not much experience is required to read the National Intelligence Estimate(NIE)report before voting to authorize a war. Again, I assert that the best qualified leader should be based on: consistency honesty moral calculation as opposed to political calculation proven track record at being productive and making relevant changes
... and uniting parties and diverse backgrounds for the common good instead of failing and blaming republican control of the senate or white house
one more basic qualification please: judgment. and yes, please read a vital report before engaging in war.
