See link:
Link
Pass this link on.
I tried to post the link to the NY Post Ewards article, but it didn't work. So, here is the article.
April 5, 2007 -- Democratic White House hopeful John Edwards' team has been collecting e-mail addresses from supporters who've sent his cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, notes - and using them for fund-raising requests, aides acknowledged yesterday.
The link on Edwards' campaign Web site invites people to "send a note to Elizabeth and John" and features a sad letter from the former senator penned just after the couple found out her breast cancer had spread and is now incurable.
But people who've been sending such well wishes have been hit with e-mail solicitations from Team Edwards, asking for donations just as all candidates are looking to post big online fund-raising numbers.
In the letter, Edwards says the pair is staying optimistic and fighting hard for Elizabeth. Below the letter is a space for writing the couple a message - which can't be sent without all sections completed, including one asking for the sender's e-mail address.
That, in turn, is added to the campaign's online database for boosting Internet donations.
In response, message-senders get a "thank you" for their kind words, but no other indication that their e-mail addresses are being stored.
Late yesterday, after being confronted by questions from reporters, the campaign said it will add an option to allow well-wishers to decline getting future e-mails.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards said she feels she let down both her family and the country by failing to get mammograms.
Appearing with her husband in Davenport, Iowa, she said by the time she felt a lump in her breast in 2004 and was able to have it removed, it had grown to nine centimeters and the cancer had spread elsewhere.
"I do not have to be in this situation," Mrs. Edwards told a gathering of 500 people. "I am responsible for putting myself, this man, my family and, frankly, putting you all at risk, too, because I think you deserve the chance to vote for this man."
Later, John Edwards said he knows his wife didn't get mammograms because she isn't in the habit of putting herself first.
"It's not surprising to me that she would say that," Edwards said. With Post Wire Services
I also received a call from the Senator, but I missed it. I called back. Someone answered, "Senator Obama's phone." I identified myself, and they placed Senator Obama on the phone. Unfortunately, there was some kind of bad connection and we go cut off. Can you believe that!
Lewis
Fellow Hoyas:
This Saturday I am hosting a Community Kickoff event. It will be modest. If you would like to come, shoot me an e-mail at lbrown20008 or a message through the website, and I will give you the details.
Lewis Brown
Link could all use something less serious.
The Clinton Machine. The Clinton Machine. The Clinton Machine. According to the pundits, the Clinton Machine, from the outset, was going to torpedo Barack Obama's different kind of campaign, his completely clean campaign. So far conventional wisdom has been turned on its head. It has been Obama's clean campaign that has blunted the Clinton Machine's aggressive tactics.
Obama's campaign naturally exploits a perceived Clinton weakness. If you listen to the "talking heads" and the "blogosphere," the main criticisms of Hillary Clinton are that she is too politically calculating and politically aggressive (recall the deckng you opponents statement). The problem with her aggressive strategy is that it works best when someone else is reciprocating. When aggressive political play is used against someone who hasn't attacked you, you appear overbearing, knee-jerk, and unreasonable. Obama's campaign, having refrained from criticizing Clinton, has not helped to create the type of political climate in which Hillary's campaign style can take root. Of course, there would be no problem if appearing aggressive and unreasonable were not a negative. But it is for most candidates, especially Clinton. Clinton does not want to reinforce stereotypes of her as overly aggressive and calculating. Consequently, she has to be careful not to be too heavy-handed with Obama.
She has already been burned with her aggressive style. Though some folks thought Hillary's camp won more that it lost during the Clinton-Obama Geffen exchange, the majority then and now feel that Clinton likely overreached. Perhaps it is no coincedince that Obama appeared to gain ground after that incident. Even the Clinton camp, as today's Washington Post reports, regrets its aggressive stance. She also risks being burned because of her latest confrontation with Obama. Two days ago, one of her top advisers, after having been asked a question solely about Hillary's initial Iraq war position, pivoted to criticize Obama's past positions. As Anne Kornblut and Dan Balz report in today's Washington Post, "in drawing attention to Obama's early views on the war, the Clinton campaign risked appearing overly defensive on a subject that has long bedeviled the New York senator." The likelihood that she will appear defensive increases when news websites run headlines like this one on ABCnews.com: " ABC News Obtains Videos Showing Obama's Consistent Opposition to the War Despite Clinton Camp's Claims."
Over time, Hillary's camp may be able to successfully establish its political stategy vis-a-vis Obama. But as long as Obama stays way up on the high road the Clinton Camp will have a hard time being aggressive.
Like everyone, I enjoyed watching Obama on Larry King last night. I must admit, however, I was somewhat disappointed with what he had to say about Iraq. Over the last week or so, I have realized that Obama's Iraq speeches never say anything about the consequences of leaving Iraq. He rarely directly counters the arguments that Iraq will become worse and that as a result terrorists may takeover the country while the region is destabilized.
His plan also does not seem to offer any answers. As I understand it, the plan will remove all combat troops by next year and will leave counterterrorism troops. I suppose the counterterrorism troops will attempt to remove any terrorist elements, but what about the stability of Iraq and the region. If there is destabilization, we have a much larger problem. The problem will include the threat that more terrorists will exploit destabilization. It will also include the possibility that our standing in the region will decrease even further, assuming that is possible. Until now, I have been assuming that leaving Iraq will boost our standing in the region. And it will, temporarily. But if we leave, after having invaded the country and tossed everything up in the air, and Iraq just becomes horrible, I can't help but think that the people in the region will hate us more. Why wouldn't they say not only did the Americans invade this country, they left Iraqis in chaos without any help?
The Senator’s answer to this criticism may be that we will help the Iraqis so long as they meet the benchmarks that he has set. Obama did state last night that we will be involved as long as the Iraqi’s cooperate. I believe this may be his answer. If that is that case, the Senator must flesh this out at some point. How will we be involved economically and diplomatically? It seems that the military option is off the table so he must explain how his diplomatic and economic efforts will achieve more success than the previous ones. And even if these efforts enjoy success he must demonstrate that the success of these efforts will stabilize Iraq and the region and keep terrorists out.
Obama’s answer to this question last night said very little about how he envisions U.S. cooperation. Larry King directly asked Obama what is your response to Bush’s assertion that Iraq and the region will be destabilized if we leave. Obama responded by critiquing Bush’s surge plan as more of the same plan. With all due respect to the Senator, that is not an answer. Further the Senator’s answer was somewhat intellectually dishonest. While the surge is not a radical departure from the past, it is different. For years, Democrats and John McCain have been saying that we do not have enough troops in Iraq. Now the president is increasing troop levels to keep neighborhoods clear. It seems to me that that is a critical difference. In one circumstance, you have sufficient troops; in another circumstance, you have insufficient troops.
I suppose Senator Obama’s argument may be that even securing and holding the towns will not change the fundamental political inertia in the country, the nub of the problem. This is a fair argument. But in order for this argument to be sound, the Senator must state why increasing the security situation will not make it easier to advance on the political front. One would think that it is hard for people to believe in the political process when it fails to produce security, stability, and basic needs. It is not hard to see overall improvement if the surge reduces violence somewhat. Because the security situation is so horrible, it is difficult to get the basic services running properly. As many journalists, including the author of Assassins Gate: American in Iraq, a well-written piece on American blunders in Iraq, many Iraqis have turned against us because of our failure to provide basic services. So, why wouldn’t improving these issues help the overall effort and reduce violence long-term?
Obama could also argue that the surge will not work because Iraq is in a civil war and that no outside pressure can cause two or three or however many sides to get along. Even still, Obama must articulate why improved temporary security and the resulting improved circumstances for political engagement will not help stem the civil war. This civil war did not pop up immediately. It followed years of failure to provide services and, especially, order. Killings and revenge killings have led to this violence. So, why wouldn’t the stopping of the killings and improved order not improve the situation? Are we too far along now? Do the Sunnis and Shia really dislike each other that much now? This may be, but the Senator needs to explain this.
Any candidate who plans to pull troops out completely has to explain how the U.S. will react to the problems that might follow a pullout. Maybe we do not care. Maybe there are other options, like Biden’s plan to repartition the country. But to be intellectually honest and practical the candidates must articulate their views on this.
I post here all the time. I have given more money than I should to Obama’s campaign, given my lack of funds. His bumper sticker is featured prominently on the back of my car. His button is on my backpack, and I wear his shirt at least once a week. I really want him to win. I believe that Obama is smart enough to make the right decisions in Iraq. But as a voter I need to know what his views are on the issues I have discussed. Does anyone else know? Can anyone explain to me something I may have missed in the Senator’s positions? I am really trying to get answers here, so I prefer that people don't post just to criticize the fact that I have questions. I would really appreciate it if someone could defend Obama's plan in light of the the issues I have raised.
Thanks.
Rasmussen released a poll today showing Obama within 5 of Hillary. Just last week this same poll showed Hillary up by 12. This poll is important because it is the third poll in a week that shows Obama within single digits. Also this poll includes only those candidates that are currently in the race.
One note: I post this poll stuff only to suggest how we are currently doing. I undertand that these numbers may be very different by the time the election rolls around.
www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Democratic%20Primaries/DemocraticPresidentialPrimary20070312.htm
Several days ago, I posted a comment that said it appear as if Hillary gained strength in Alabama after the Selma speeches. But as it turns ou the poll was conducted mostly between Feb. 26-28. One day was added, March 6. The Clinton camp, according to the article below, put out the poll, making it seem as if Hillary received a substanial bounce from her speech. As this campaign continues, I am reminded more and more of why I have decided not to support Hillary even though I agree with her on many issues. Here's the article and the link and the Chicago Tribune. Make sure you float this around to show people the differences in the Clinton and Obama campaigns.
**********
Link invents ‘Bama bump
Posted by Glenn Thrush of Newsday at 2:49 p.m. CST
Hillary’s folks are miscasting a February Alabama poll to make it seem like she got a bump from her March 4th side-by-side appearance in Selma with Barack Obama.
Yesterday, Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff E-mailed reporters an AP story showing her with a 35-to-19 lead over Obama, according to the Capital Survey Research Center. The campaign titled the E-Mail: "MUST-READ: AFTER SELMA APPEARANCE, CLINTON WIDENS LEAD IN ALABAMA."
That characterization is false. Two days before the Clinton-Obama extravaganza, Newsday was leaked the same poll, the vast majority of which was taken between Feb. 21-28, with the caveat that we not release the name of the polling firm or the organization that sponsored it.
On March 4 I wrote, "Despite Obama's gains, the former first lady is entering friendly territory in Alabama. She holds a 34 percent to 19 percent lead over Obama among Alabama Democrats, according to a Feb. 28 poll making the rounds among party leaders…"
The pollsters, it turned out, added a post-Selma day – March 6 – to the survey, but it didn’t have any impact on the pre-Selma results. (The one-point discrepancy between Newsday’s 34-percent Clinton tally and the AP’s 35 resulted from my failure to round up, a math problem that’s haunted me since junior high.)
We E-mailed the Clinton camp the above passage, hoping they’d come clean.
Nope.
A strange, non-corrective E-mail followed. It added a previously omitted graph from the AP story, indicating that the wire had bought the Clinton ‘Bama Bump angle: "The poll, which was completed after that appearance, indicated Sen. Clinton benefited more from it than Obama."
The second E-Mail also contained "AFTER SELMA APPEARANCE, CLINTON WIDENS LEAD IN ALABAMA."
We e-mailed Hillaryland again, saying that characterization was "misleading."
Again, nothing.
I with all of you who thought that after Obama and Hillary's Selma speeches there was no way that Hillary could extend her lead. Well, we would appear to be wrong. In Alabama, Hillary appears to have extended her lead by everal percentage points and she leads among African-Americans over 34. This is being reported by NY Daily News.
Here is the POSITIVE" This was the first poll taken since January. So, it very well could be that her numbers rose precipitously during this month and the new numbers actually represent a decrease. Also, Obama does lead among younger folks. And we have time. I don't think Hillary has anywhere to go but down.
I learned from someone's post on the HQ blog that an American Research Group Poll of 600 likely voters has Obama down by 3%. I don't know that this means anything, because I don't know how reputable ARG is. Also, its a fairly small sample, even though they are likely voters.
Here's the link:
