Hi folks: I am running on the ballot as a candidate for Assembly District Delegate in the 47th Assembly District Election this coming Sunday, January 11th - and, if you live in Culver City, Rancho Park, Baldwin Hills, Fox Hills, Ladera Hgts, Crenshaw area - you should come by and see how the process works. (To see if you are in the 47th District, look at the map here: http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/speaker/District/Map/default.aspx. To see if you have other friends who are running for Delegate, check the list here: http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.4840275/k.804C/ADEM_Candidates.htm.) The location of the Election Meeting is the Vets Memorial Building located at the corner of Overland Avenue and Culver Blvd. (catty-corner from Sony Studios.) Registration starts at 3 pm and the election starts at 5 pm. You can vote early and leave if ya want to. Veterans Memorial Complex 4117 Overland Ave. Culver City Please come by and visit! Maybe even vote. Here is a list of Assembly District candidates approved by California CAN:
Micah Scheindlin Margaret-Mary "Hope" Aguilar Panney Wei-ChenDeana IgelsrudSteven BottKian KaeniGwendolyn AustinMichael RagognaMichael Spitzer-Rubinstein
Micah Scheindlin
Margaret-Mary "Hope" Aguilar
Panney Wei-Chen
Deana Igelsrud
Steven Bott
Kian Kaeni
Gwendolyn Austin
Michael Ragogna
Michael Spitzer-Rubinstein
Read on: From: Chairman Art Torres, California Democratic Party <cdpeditor@cadem.org>
In 2008, we were resolute in our fight for change in Washington — change in our state — change in our own communities. But the fight is not over. Now, more than ever, President-Elect Barack Obama needs a strong Democratic Party behind him. That’s why my 2009 resolution is to make sure the California Democratic Party is ready to help our President whenever he needs.
However, I need your help. On January 10 and 11, 2009, California Democrats will gather to elect almost one-third of the delegates to the California Democratic Party. These delegates will decide the direction of the Party and most importantly do whatever it takes to support the Obama-Biden Administration in the coming years.
Can you join me in reorganizing the Party by coming out to vote for your Assembly District delegate representatives on January 10 or 11, 2009? www.cadem.org/ademrsvp
On January 10 and 11, 2009, twelve delegates will be elected from every Assembly District. These delegates will represent you for a two-year term in the California Democratic Party, decide what candidates and ballot initiatives get the official endorsement of the Party, elect Party officers, and write the Party platform.
Will you make sure you are being well represented in the California Democratic Party by coming out to vote on January 10 or 11, 2009?
If you were a registered Democrat as of October 20, 2008 and are still registered democratic in that same Assembly District, you are eligible to participate. Simply pre-register here and come out to your Assembly District Delegate Election on January 10 or 11, 2009 to vote. You can find your specific voting location and time, as well as candidate information on our web site at www.cadem.org/ademlocations. Remember pre-registration is not mandatory, but will save you time.
I hope you can join me in continuing to make this Party strong. It’s the one New Year’s resolution that we can all make—and keep! Pre-register now to vote in the Assembly District Meetings.
Sincerely,
Sen. Art Torres (Ret.) Chairman, California Democratic Party
WHY WE MUST CONTINUE TO WORK HARD IN THE CAMPAIGN:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27098739#27098739
PLEASE PHONE BANK WHENEVER YOU CAN!
Wow! According to the BBC, Obama is loved across the world!
All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama to be US president, ahead of his Republican rival John McCain.
Mr Obama was favoured by a four-to-one margin across the 22,500 people polled.
In 17 of the 22 countries surveyed the most common view was that America's relations with the rest of the world would improve under a President Obama.
If Mr McCain were elected, the most common view in 19 countries was that relations would remain about the same.
The poll was conducted before the Democratic and Republican parties held their conventions and before the headline-grabbing nomination of Sarah Palin as Mr McCain's running mate.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the results could therefore be a reflection of the greater media focus on Mr Obama as he competed for the presidential candidacy against Hillary Clinton.
International ties
The margin of those in favour of Mr Obama winning November's US election ranged from 9% in India to 82% in Kenya, which is the birthplace of the Illinois senator's father.
On average 49% preferred Mr Obama to 12% in favour of Mr McCain. Nearly four in 10 of those polled did not take a view.
On average 46% thought US relations with the world would improve with Mr Obama in the White House, 22% that ties would stay the same, while seven per cent expected relations to worsen.
Only 20% thought ties would get better if Mr McCain were in the Oval Office.
The expectation that a McCain presidency would improve US relations with the world was the most common view, by a modest margin, only in China, India and Nigeria.
But across the board, the largest number - 37% - thought relations under a president McCain would stay the same, while 16% expected them to deteriorate.
In no country did most people think that a McCain presidency would worsen relations.
US poll
Oddly, in Turkey more people thought US relations would worsen with an Obama presidency than under Mr McCain, even though most Turks polled preferred Mr Obama to win.
In Egypt, Lebanon, Russia and Singapore, the predominant expectation was that relations would remain the same if Mr Obama won the election.
The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve ties were US Nato allies - Canada (69%), Italy (64%), France (62%), Germany (61%), and the UK (54%) - as well as Australia (62%), along with Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).
When asked whether the election as president of the African-American Mr Obama would "fundamentally change" their perception of the US, 46% said it would while 27% said it would not.
The US public was polled separately and Americans also believed an Obama presidency would improve US ties with the world more than a McCain presidency.
Forty-six per cent of Americans expected relations to get better if Mr Obama were elected and 30% if Mr McCain won the White House.
A similar poll conducted for BBC World Service ahead of the 2004 US presidential election found most countries would have preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry beat the incumbent George W Bush.
At the time, the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland were among the few countries to favour Mr Bush's re-election. All three now favour Mr Obama over Mr McCain.
In total 22,531 citizens were polled in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the UAE and the UK. A parallel survey was conducted with 1,000 US adults.
Polling firm GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes carried out the survey between July and August.
Time: Saturday, August 9 at 12:00 PM Duration: 4 hours Host: Bregeet Kennedy and Raul Moreno Location: SIBI Center 2600 W. 54TH ST. (Corner of 4th Ave.) Los Angeles, CA 90043 See this Google Map.
We're just 2 blocks north of Slauson, between Crenshaw and Arlington. ***$5.00 Donation suggested for the BBQ, and bring your favorite dish to share. RSVP at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/44bw3 **When you rsvp, please leave a comment about what you would like to contribute to the potluck.
***By the way, check out the video of Temo Figueroa, the Latino Vote Director for the Obama campaign: http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/thelatinovote
We hope you can join us at this BBQ - it will be a wonderful day of community!
The information in the following email is very important:
From: Teresa Hommel [mailto:tahommel@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:04 PM To: Everyone who cares about the upcoming election Subject: What I told the Obama campaign
Below is a statement that I and a colleague made to the Obama campaign here in NYC when they were seeking input on "what should be at the heart of the Democratic Party" this year. They wanted folks to talk about platform issues, but I took the opportunity to talk about election integrity and the responsibility of the Dem party to protect the vote. We handed out 250 copies of this to people in the audience as well as about 30 delegates to the Dem convention, along with a few copies of the BlackBoxVoting "Toolkit." Everyone is welcome to use the material with your local parties. Teresa Hommel Resources to Protect against Election Fraud I urge the Obama Campaign and the Democratic Party to deal effectively and early this year with the problems of lost voter registrations and tampering in vote-handling/counting/tabulation. Election integrity activists, computer experts, and statistical experts have blamed the so-called Democratic "loss" of the presidency in 2000 and 2004 on wrongdoing in these areas. 1. Centralized, computerized voter registration enables last-minute deletion of registrations. For example in 2000, the dishonest deletion of more than 90,000 primarily Democratic registrations in Florida helped defeat Al Gore. Yesterday Greg Palast, investigative journalist, reported that Colorado has recently dumped one fifth of their voter registrations. In New Mexico, half the Democrats in one county found their registrations had disappeared. In Ohio and Nevada, tens of thousands of voter registrations are being cancelled as owners lose their homes to foreclosure.[9] The Democratic National Committee and Obama Campaign need to educate and support the Democratic organization in each state so that they can aggressively monitor and safeguard voter registrations. 2. When votes are recorded, cast, stored, handled, counted, and tabulated by computers, that is another area in which Democrats are not protecting their voters. Voters can't observe whether their votes are accurately recorded when the votes are inside computer memory. Observers can't observe whether vote storage, handling, counting and tabulating is being done honestly. Independent academic experts have hacked into these machines to expose their vulnerability to untraceable tampering. Computers should not be used for voting because they prevent average citizens from watching and understanding what's going on with the votes, but 31 states still use them. Of those, only 18 require mandatory manual audits of paper records vs machine records, but do not allow the public to observe the chain of custody of these records. There are ways to deal with these computers and prevent the dirty tricks that the GOP is now gearing up to commit. 1. The DNC needs to hire cyber security teams at least as good as the competition, as soon as possible, to investigate what they have done and prevent another stolen election. You can't wait till election day to figure this all out. 2. In states that count paper ballots with optical scanners, Democrats must provide observers to witness all handling of voted ballots, including the entire chain of custody, and observe audits that compare machine counts to hand counts. 3. Learn what's going on from election integrity activists: BlackBoxVoting.org's "Toolkit 2008" lists 13 common ways to suppress the vote. A link to the Toolkit is on the back of my statement, as well as links to other information. * Info on Election Fraud You'll find lots of information about this right after the fold.
To RSVP for a phone bank, click here (bolded locations are at the site of the pancake breakfast):
As pollsters gather data on who prefers Obama to McCain, they will not ask registered voters like me.
I am not a homeless person. I am not "living off the grid." It is not because I live in Canada (I live in Los Angeles.)
Nope.
Why won't a pollster count my preference for Obama? It is because I do not have a typical landline phone. Instead of a landline, I have VOIP through a Skype phone at home - and I use a cell phone when I am away from my home and too far from an Internet-connected computer.
According to Salon.com, 4.7 million people will be excluded from the pollsters' polls because they use cell phones only. (See: CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OBAMA'S MISSING 2 PERCENT - By failing to survey cellphone-only voters, pollsters could be undercounting Barack Obama's support by millions of voters.)
"Well, the under 40 crowd does not vote that much anyway;" you say? Wrong again. With the number of young people working on the Obama campaign, the under-40 crowd will be a significant voting block this coming November. This, I promise! But I digress . . .
Cell phone only voters are not the only people missing from the pollsters' tallies! The pollsters are missing the millions of registered voters who have switched from landline phones to VOIP ("Voice over Internet Protocol") phones!
VOIP is not just for young kids. Lots of multi-national, Fortune 500 - to mid-size companies use VOIP because it is cheaper - and it is great for companies with lots of offices because they can share extensions rather than additional phone numbers if they want to. But, increasingly, individual consumers are subscribing to VOIP phone services as well. And VOIP users range in age from 20-somethings to people in their late 60s. Are the pollsters missing these people as well? Yes. Most pollsters are not asking voters who use VOIP phone exclusively who they plan to vote for.
As a lawyer who represents computer geeks and digital artists, I have numerous clients who only have cell phones. Most of them are under 40 years old, but some are older. I thought that this phenomenon was unique to my rather sophisticated, high-tech clients. But no: I have met numerous college students, graduate students, and recent graduates through the Obama campaign who have not had a landline phone FOR YEARS. And I have met a few other volunteers my age - and older - who got rid of their landlines when they found that they could use their cell phones inside their homes.
Recent grads, are surely under 40 years old, but the two people who convinced me to switch from my landlines were well over 40 years old. One of my friends, Lyle, has been using Vonage for over five years - without any problems. And I would never have known this if he had not mentioned it one day. When Lyle told me how little he paid per month, I was surprised. I had to ask myself why I was paying AT&T a minimum of $48 per month for basic home services, plus a few perks like call forwarding, caller ID, and conference calling; while Lyle got all the neat services from Vonage, plus voicemail and unlimited calling in the US and Canada for a flat $24.99 per month.
My friend, Nathan (an over-40 Internet computer geek who worked for progressive technology and media companies from Oracle to Oprah) has a Skype account. I got one a few years ago so that I could chat with him (without being gouged by AT&T) while he worked on Oprah's web site in Chicago. When he moves to Washington State later this year, I will not have to change his Skype number in my phone books - because he will keep the same Skype phone number.
I dumped my long distance landline phone service four years ago, when I decided to use my cell phone for long distance calls. I found Skype so easy to use, and the connection so clear, that I started calling my brother in San Francisco, my Sister in Denver, and my sister in New York City with Skype (rather than my cell phone.) Eventually, I started using it for calling my clients as well; even the local clients.
When I realized that I was calling everyone in Los Angeles through my computer with my bluetooth Skype headset, I asked myself why I wasted money with a landline. I realized that keeping a landline phone was just insecurity. And with the government able to spy on my landline calls anyway (thanks, Congress, for FISA!), what was I afraid of?
So, when I moved from Culver City to Los Angeles early this month, I did not get a new landline phone. I kept my Skype number, installed a stand-alone Linksys wireless router loaded with Skype in my new digs, got a wireless Cisco iPhone and - even when my computer is off, I use my wireless Skype phone to call family, friends and clients. It works flawlessly.
With over 1,700,000 donors already funding this movement for change, now is the perfect time to show your support.
Host or participate in a Listening to America: the Democratic Platform for Change event today.
Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a “platform” that outlines the party’s position on a variety of issues. Traditionally, the platform is written by paid professionals and then presented to the American people.
This year, that’s going to change.
From July 19 to July 27, everyday people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their own communities. From Atlanta, Georgia to Muncie, Indiana, from Bangor, Maine to Eugene, Oregon, Americans will meet to talk about what issues are most important to them and what should be at the heart of the Democratic platform for change.
The results of these Platform Meetings will be incorporated into the formal process that culminates in the adoption of the platform at the Democratic Convention in August. A few participants may even be invited to appear and testify at the National Hearing and at the Convention!
You can write the next chapter in the history of the Democratic Party. Host an event in your own community. We’ve prepared all the materials that you need to host. Or, if you’d prefer, click HERE to find an event near you.
A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States. Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America. This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action. That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today: https://donate.barackobama.com/gore Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action. With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems. If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now. If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today: https://donate.barackobama.com/gore On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation. We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today. Thank you for joining me, Al Gore LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m. EDT: Watch streaming video of Al Gore and Barack Obama at a rally in Detroit, Michigan:
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has a profound appreciation of the media's great possibilities. That's at least part of what earned him the presumptive Democratic nomination for president.
The great battle to get the nomination -- a bruising 13-month struggle against valiant New York Sen. Hillary Clinton -- has ended. The war, against Republican nominee and Arizona Sen. John McCain, has only begun.
And if Obama's "Yes We Can" mantra leads to "Yes We Did" in a November election victory, he will be setting the tone for communications policy from the bulliest of all media pulpits. And he likely would have a solidly Democratic Congress behind him.
With that in mind, we asked the senator to weigh in on media's great challenges, issues and limits and go on the record with B&C about his communications agenda.
In e-mailed responses last week to questions submitted to his Capitol Hill office, Obama told us he is committed to working toward a digital-TV transition that is without significant disruption (the switchover would come less than four weeks after his inauguration); said the Federal Communications Commission needs to take merger reviews more seriously; asserted that FCC chairman Kevin Martin, like his predecessor, has tried to "dismantle" rules that protect the public; and gave his thoughts on whether cable content should be regulated or its channels unbundled.
Obama believes the consequence of consolidation has been less diversity, less local news and the parroting of stories across multiple outlets. That, he said, needs to change.
In other words, the media is on notice: The potential new sheriff is in town, and he believes there's plenty of cleaning up to do.
Q: You signaled that you would put the teeth back into antitrust enforcement. What would that mean for media companies that want to merge?
A: There is a clear need in this country for the reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement. Our competition agencies, the Department of Justice and the FTC [Federal Trade Commission], need to step up review of merger activity and take effective action to stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not. Specifically, for media mergers, the Department of Justice and the FTC should closely scrutinize all mergers for their implications for competition and consumer choice. The FCC should more seriously evaluate the impact of proposed mergers on the ability of divergent communities to participate in the national media environment.
Q: Where do you stand on the merger of XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio, the only two satellite-radio companies?
A: I am waiting for final resolution by the regulatory agencies and would want to ensure that the merger does not give the new firm excessive market power or unduly limit the choices consumers have for satellite-radio content.
Q: You have said network neutrality would be a priority in your administration. Why and how would you go about ensuring a neutral Internet while still allowing networks to manage traffic?
A: The Internet is a powerful, democratizing tool. There are very low entry barriers for the delivery of services over the Internet, and public debate is unfettered by either the network owner or any single dominant voice. The neutral nature of the Internet makes that possible, and it is something we should defend. Up to now, legislation has focused on protecting against the discrimination against or in favor of any single voice or legal service. All have made allowances for objective, nondiscriminatory network-management practices.
Q: What prompted you to weigh in on media ownership and diversity at an FCC field hearing in Chicago (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6480419.html) last year?
A: I strongly favor diversity of ownership of outlets and protection against the excessive concentration of power in the hands of any one corporation, interest or small group. I strongly believe that all citizens should be able to receive information from the broadest range of sources. I feel that media consolidation during the Bush administration has had the effect of eliminating a lot of the diversity of information sources available to persons who have to rely on more traditional information sources, such as radio and television broadcasts and newspapers.
Q: What ill effects has the country suffered from media consolidation, if any?
A: This country's media ownership rules that both chairman [Michael] Powell and chairman Martin have wanted to dismantle protect us from excessive media concentration. However, even under current rules, the media market is dominated by a handful of firms. The ill effects of consolidation today and continued consolidation are well-documented -- less diversity of opinion, less local news coverage, replication of the same stories across multiple outlets, and others. We can do better.
Q: You co-sponsored the Dorgan bill to block the FCC's media-ownership change, which Martin has argued was a moderate compromise that took into account the input of opponents to consolidation. Why block it?
A: Chairmen Martin and Powell both argued that their previous effort to deregulate the media market was moderate, as well. Both the courts and a majority of the Senate disagreed the first time. And a few weeks back, the Senate disagreed with chairman Martin again. While he argues that the rule is no longer in the public interest, the public response has heavily weighed in against him. And common sense tells us that the consolidation of outlets in local markets will lead to fewer opportunities for diverse expression of opinions.
Q: What concerns, if any, do you have over violent or sexual content on TV? Should cable be regulated for content?
A: We have established a precedent that government should act to protect kids in a nonintrusive way on broadcast radio and TV. That does not mean that we need the same rules for other media, but it does require us to respect and remain true to the principle that our kids cannot protect themselves -- parents are their first line of defense, and regulation can make it easier for parents to exercise that responsibility. I am focused on ensuring that parents have the tools to protect their kids from offensive material. I prefer technological solutions to this challenge rather than extending content regulation to cable and satellite. Given modern technology and increasingly sophisticated cable and satellite boxes and services, the market should be able to rise to meet the market demand to protect kids from indecent content. If the market fails to meet that demand, legislative and regulatory action may be necessary -- but it must be crafted carefully and focus not on content censorship, but rather on tools for parents.
Q: Do you support requiring cable operators to sell their channels a la carte? Why or why not?
A: I think the jury is still out on a la carte. Several years ago, chairman Powell had the FCC study the effect on consumers of an a la carte system. That study concluded that on average, rates would go up for consumers because each channel would cost much more even if the consumer took fewer channels than they currently receive. Then during his term, chairman Martin had the FCC conduct a review of that study and reversed the findings. FCC staff said the previous report was wrong to conclude that the average cable household -- which watches about 17 channels -- would likely face a monthly rate increase of up to 30% under a la carte. That 2004 report reasoned that a la carte would drive up cable companies' costs for equipment, customer service and marketing, and that would almost certainly be passed on to subscribers. But the new report says consumers could receive as many as 20 channels without seeing an increase in bills and blamed the earlier finding on faulty data it obtained from the cable industry. I do not want to discourage diversity of programming on cable systems and fear that a la carte regulation may do that. But given the conflicting FCC reports, I remain open to review and discussion of the concept.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VfZ4h0uZ4
WOW!
TEARS IN MY EYES!
Primary Results Watching Party! (East Hollywood - Hillhurst Av, South of Los Feliz Bl) RSVP: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/meeting/4svm Results Watching Party (W. Hollywood - Robertson Bl @ Santa Monica Bl) RSVP: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/meeting/4s2v Results Watching Party (LA- Private home Near Olympic Bl./Arlington Av) RSVP: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/meeting/4sf5Primary Results Watching Party (Studio City - Sportsman Lodge - Ventura Bl @ Coldwater Cyn) RSVP: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/meeting/4bhw
I have been saying it for months now, Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. And now that he has clinched a victory in pledged delegates the remaining contests in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana are nothing more than a formality.
Of those three contests none appear to have a chance to play a roll in the General Election this fall; at least at first glance. Puerto Rico can’t even vote in the General, although Hillary will probably claim it can if she wins the primary there, and South Dakota hasn’t gone Blue since 1964 when Lyndon Johnson destroyed Barry Goldwater.
On the surface Montana seems like an impossible pick-up for the Democrats as well, but it may be the one remaining contest to watch for signs of a potential General Election upset in Barack Obama’s favor come November.
A poll done by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. out of Washington D.C. taken May 19th through the 21st shows John McCain with a solid 8-point lead in Big Sky Country, 47-39.
A closer look at the Mason-Dixon poll however reveals trouble for McCain. For starters 14% of the Montana electorate is undecided, plus there’s a 4% margin of error, that makes the now famous “Keith Number” 18%.
14% undecided is a huge number in one of the reddest of the red states.
In 2000 and 2004 Bush won by 25% and 20% respectively.
As a side note Bill Clinton was able to win The Treasure State in 1992...with the help of a whopping 26% of the vote going to Ross Perot, undoubtedly costing Bush Montana’s three Electoral Votes.
But back to the topic at hand, there should be no question as to whether or not John McCain should win in Montana on November 4th, but the Mountain West seems to be buying what Barack is selling; change. And in order to solidify a victory in Montana, John McCain is going to have to make sure that those 14% of undecided voters don’t break towards Obama. That is a pretty tall order considering that everywhere Obama spends time his numbers improve.
As people get to know Barack Obama they like him more and more. Montana is no different. So if Obama and his campaign decide to make Big Sky Country a battleground it will be.
What should be of even further concern to John McCain is that the Mason-Dixon poll left out one of Obama’s core constituencies, first time voters.
While former presidential candidate John Edwards is not a superdelegate, his endorsement has tremendous value to Obama's campaign. First, it releases the 16-18 superdelegates who were earlier committed to Edwards, most of whom will likely endorse Obama (though they do not have to.) Second, former Edwards Democrats in the five remaining states to hold primaries will likely consider voting for Obama, as well as the white and working class voters thatEdwards appealed to. And third, the endorsement may only be symbolic, but it may free uncommitted superdelegates to back Obama.
Obama has received four more endorsements today. From Democratic Convention Watch:
Washington Representative Jim McDermott endorsed Obama
Rep. Jim McDermott on Thursday became the fourth U.S. House member from Washington to endorse Barack Obama for president.The Seattle Congressman told the P-I's Joel Connelly that Obama is his pick because "I am confident as president he will end the war in Iraq and bring our sons and daughters home."
“Senator Obama’s vision for change has inspired tens of millions of Americans,” Chairman Waxman said. “And he’s also proved that he has the experience, judgment, integrity, and toughness to bring real reform to Washington. Our nation faces big challenges. We need to bring our troops safely home from Iraq. We need to solve global warming and finally enact universal health care legislation. And we need to create new jobs and strengthen our middle class. Senator Obama is the leader we need both here and around the world. He will be an extraordinary President, and I look forward to working with him to make his vision for change the new reality in Washington.”
“Barack Obama has laid out a foreign policy vision driven by principle and conviction, and he understands that our moral authority and our safety as a nation go hand in hand,” Chairman Berman said. “I spoke with him about a number of foreign policy issues that most concern me. He assured me that he shares my views. The moment President Obama takes office, we’ll send a powerful message to the world that America is back and ready to lead again—that we haven’t abandoned the values that made us the light of the world, and neither should anyone else.”
“I’m convinced that Senator Obama’s message of hope and ‘change we can believe in’ has resonated across our country. He is building a broad base of support, inspiring new voters to join in the political process and demonstrating great appeal to all those who are looking for positive leadership to move us beyond politics-as-usual in Washington."
OH MY GOSH! The day after Obama suffered the highest percentage loss in a (luckily very small state) contest, Obama received a major coup! John Edwards joined Obama on the campaign trail in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and he gave Obama his endorsement. This news is likely to pre-empt Hillary's personal interviews discussing her success in last evening's contest in West Virginia on many major news networks.
.
Next week, we expect Obama to lose Kentucky and win Oregon. Thus, the timing of Edwards' endorsement simply could not be better!
Last night, College Democrats of America's Lauren Wolfe (MI) and Awais Khaleel (WI) endorsed Barack Obama. Wolfe's vote only counts if Michigan is permitted a seat at the convention table. Also, at 6:30 this morning, Democrats Abroad Chair Christine Marques' endorsed Barack Obama. Further, Indiana Representative Pete Visclosky submitted his endorsement. Additionally, Oklahoma State Senate President Pro Tem Mike Morgan announced that he is backing Barack Obama for president. (Morgan becomes the fifth Oklahoma Democratic superdelegate to endorse Obama. The others include Oklahoma's Gov. Brad Henry.) Wisconsin State Sen. Lena Taylor from Milwaukee announced her support for Obama on earlier this afternoon.
Hillary Clinton just got one endorsement today, from Tennessee add-on Vicki Harwell, the President of the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women.
Interesting note:
Clinton superdelegate Brad Ellsworth said today that he cast his vote in the May 6 Indiana Democratic presidential primary for Barack Obama.
“In the booth, I voted for Obama,” said Ellsworth, who announced after the Indiana primary that he planned to use his vote as a superdelegate to support Hillary Rodham Clinton unless there was a compelling reason not to back her.
In the last week, Obama has gathered 32 superdelegate endorsements! The following is from Democratic Convention Watch, which shows that Obama has 283 superdelegates and that Hillary has 270.5 (Obama has a 12.5 lead in Super-Ds!):
We began noting all of our additions, changes and deletions on January 11th. In order to reduce the clutter on the Superdelegate list we will only keep a couple of days' worth of notes on the list.You can see all of the superdelegates that have endorsed a candidate hereAll remaining uncommitted superdelegates can be viewed here.Dates shown are when we added the endorsment which doesn't necessarily mean the endorsement was made on that day.5-13-08 - Added Rep. Joe Donnelly (IN) for Obama- Added LA add-on Ray Nagin (LA)# for Obama- Added DPL Roy Romer (CO) for Obama. Romer removed from Pelosi Club- Added DNC Anita Bonds (DC) for Obama5-12-08 - Added Rep. Tom Allen (ME) for Obama- Added DNC Dolly Strazar (HI) for Obama- Added Sen. Daniel Akaka (HI) for Obama- Added Idaho Democratic Party Chair DNC R. Keith Roark (ID) for Obama5-11-08 - Added DNC Crystal Strait (CA) for Obama5-10-08 - - Added new Utah addon Kristi Cumming(UT)# for Obama- Added DNC Carol Burke (VI) for Obama- Switched DNC Kevin Rodriguez (VI) from Clinton to Obama.- Added Ohio add-on Dave Regan (OH)# for Obama- Added Massachusetts add-on Arthur Powell (MA)# for Clinton- Added Rep. Harry Mitchell (AZ) for Obama5-9-08 - Switched Rep. Donald Payne (NJ) from Clinton to Obama- Added Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR) for Obama- Added Rep. Chris Carney for Clinton- Added DNC John Gage (MD) for Obama- Added DNC Edward Espinoza (CA) (aka Mr. Super) for Obama- Added DNC Vernon Watkins (CA) for Obama- Added DNC Wilbur Lee Jeffcoat (SC) for Obama- Added New Mexico add-on Laurie Weahkee (NM)# for Obama- Added Rep. Mazie Hirono (HI) for Obama- Added DNC Joe Johnson (VA) for Obama. Obama campaign confirmed his endorsement.- Added Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (TX) for Clinton.5-8-08 - Added Rep. Brad Miller (NC) for Obama- Added Rep. Rick Larsen (WA) for Obama5-7-08 - Added Rep. Heath Shuler (NC) for Clinton.- Added DNC Jerry Meek (NC) and DNC Inola Henry (CA) for Obama- Added add-on Dan Gelber (FL)# for Obama- Switched DNC Jennifer McClellan (VA) from Clinton to Obama after getting confirmation from the Obama campaign. We are awaiting confirmation from the Clinton campaign on Rep. Brad Ellsworth (IN) who reportedly endorsed her today. 5-6-08 - Added IL add-ons Barbara Flynn Currie (IL)# and Todd Stroger (IL)# for Obama.- Added DNC Jeanette Council (NC) for Obama
While Hillary is still out there, stumping for votes in the State of Denial, the rest of the world is starting to move on and is looking to the epic battle between Obama and McCain for the presidency in the general election.
Obama leads in the Popular Vote, the Delegate Count, and contests won. Obama got even more endorsements from superdelegates on Saturday, and he now leads in superdelegates! Now, even though she will enjoy Pyrric victories in West Virginia and Kentucky, she has lost the war for the nomination.
Hillary has become irrelevant in most part. Despite her protests, she has simply failed the math test and will not be able to recover - even with the massive win she is expecting in West Virginia. The experts will start saying; "Let's concentrate on Obama's battle with McCain." And the first of the experts has now just done this.
Rasmussen Reports has been polling the Democratic Race from the very beginning. Last Friday evening, Rasmussen Reports announced that they will cease tracking the Obama-Hillary race for the Democratic nomination - and concentrate instead on the Obama-McCain race for the Whitehouse. Here's their announcement:
Rasmussen Reports to Stop Tracking Democratic Race May 9, 2008--Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months… since November 2006. For the last few months, the most remarkable feature of the race has been its consistency and stability. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both running historic campaigns and both have captured the votes and hearts of distinct and important constituencies within the Democratic Party. Obama has won Primaries in states where the demographics favor his campaign and Clinton has won in the states that favor her campaign. However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee. At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination. With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.
Rasmussen Reports to Stop Tracking Democratic Race
May 9, 2008--Rasmussen Reports has been tracking the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination daily for nineteen months… since November 2006. For the last few months, the most remarkable feature of the race has been its consistency and stability. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both running historic campaigns and both have captured the votes and hearts of distinct and important constituencies within the Democratic Party. Obama has won Primaries in states where the demographics favor his campaign and Clinton has won in the states that favor her campaign.
However, while Senator Clinton has remained close and competitive in every meaningful measure, she is a close second and the race is over. It has become clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee.
At the moment, Senator Clinton’s team is busily trying to convince Superdelegates and pundits that she is more electable than Barack Obama. For reasons discussed in a separate article, it doesn’t matter. Even if every single Superdelegate was convinced that the former First Lady is somewhat more electable than Obama, that is not enough of a reason to deny him the nomination.
WOW! When will Hillary concede? DemConWatch lists the following Obama endorsements as of 4:30 p.m. ET today alone:- Switched Rep. Donald Payne (NJ) from Clinton to Obama- Added Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR) for Obama- Added DNC John Gage (MD) for Obama- Added DNC Edward Espinoza (CA) (aka Mr. Super) for ObamaNEW - Added DNC Vernon Watkins (CA) for ObamaNEW - Added DNC Wilbur Lee Jeffcoat (SC) for ObamaNEW - Added New Mexico add-on Laurie Weahkee (NM)# for ObamaNEW - Added Rep. Mazie Hirono (HI) for Obama
An AP article reported that Obama received NINE (9) endorsements today. I did not find the name of the 9th super-D, so I am sticking with DemConWatch's tally. DemConWatch's tally of superdelegates is now: Hillary - 269.5 Obama - 268 Lead - 1.5 Hillary If Hillary had not added Rep. Chris Carney today, she'd be ahead by only 1/2 a delegate!
Things are looking good for Barack Obama in the race for superdelegates. Before noon, Obama picked up two superdelegate congressmen, one of whom defected from Hillary's list of super-Ds; two DNC members; and the endorsement of the President of American Federation of Government Employees union (AFGE.) He also picked up the endorsement of the AFGE union itself. AFGE is the largest union of federal employees, representing 600,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia. Not a bad morning, in my humble opinion!
Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ) had previously endorsed Hillary for the nomination. Today, he switched his support to Obama.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) endorsed Obama and is campaigning with him today at events in Eugene and Albany, Oregon.
Two members of the Democratic National Committee announced their endorsements of Obama as well. DNC member John Gage (MD) and DNC member Edward Espinoza (CA) (aka Mr. Super) endorsed Obama today.
Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) released a statement today that said he would back Hillary, because his district supported her by a more than 2-1 margin in the state's April 22 primary.
THE SUPERDELEGATE COUNT AS OF THIS MORNING:
DemConWatch reports that Hillary has the endorsements of 269.5 superdelegates and that Obama has the support of 264 superdelegates; a difference of 5.5 superdelegates. Associated Press, meanwhile, says the superdelegate count is Clinton, 271.5 and Obama, 268 - for a lead of only 3.5 superdelegates.
Thus, Hillary's lead has dwindled from over 100 superdelegates to between 5.5 and 3.5 superdelegates. By the way, CNN and NBC report that Hillary's superdelegate count is 10 and 14 ahead of Obama respectively. But the experts say that Demconwatch and Associated Press are more accurate and verifiable. CNN and NBC collect a lot of their superdelegate information from the candidates themselves, and they often fall behind in their tabulations, so this might explain the disparity.
HILLARY WANTS TO DEBATE OBAMA AGAIN!
Hillary wants to debate Obama again (article below "the fold"); this time in Oregon. The only reason she is still considered a "presidential candidate" is because she refuses to quit! It is a mathematical impossibility that Hillary can overtake Obama. It would be better for Obama to debate his Republican opponent for the general election. Besides, it is not possible to discuss issues with Hillary. She prefers to attack him and impugn his character. Obama diplomatically stated that he and she have had ample opportunity to discuss issues in repeated televised confrontations. (I would have added a nasty response. This is why I could never run for public office!) Read the AP article below the fold.
