It pains me to see the stock market look so horrible. George W. Bush has not only been bad for the housing market, he's been bad for the stock market. I feel like I've lost 8 years of my life.
George W Bush's inauguration Date January 18, 2001
Nasdaq= 2,768.49
S&P 500 = 1,347.97
TODAY Feb 29th, 2008
Nasdaq = 2,271.48
S&P 500 = 1,330.63
It is important to keep reaching out for potential supporters. I just got off the phone with an 87 year old lady who is going to Caucus for Barack on Super Tuesday!!! We are the underdog and need to leave no stones unturned!! I have seen a poll that more people are interested in Super Tuesday than they are the Super Bowl. Thank you!! Shane Haase
Yes We Can!!
Obama '08
All-
We are going to have over 40 precincts caucusing at Alameda High School on Tuesday. If ALL Precinct Captains can bring a few extra signs, stickers, food, refreshments etc. we can help make the Alameda Caucus site a visible Barack Obama precinct location. We should ALL arrive as early as possible at this location, so that we can be as organized as possible for the record turn-out. In addition, if you have any Independent or Republican friends who support Barack and would like to help us out at this location (getting individuals to their appropriate precinct helping with decorations etc.) PLEASE bring them with you! Thank you!! Shane Haase 720-278-5140.
YES WE CAN!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102663.html
By Peter Wehner
Sunday, February 3, 2008; Page B07
Barack Obama is not only popular among Democrats, he's also an appealing figure to many Republicans. Former GOP House member Joe Scarborough, now a host on MSNBC, reports that after every important Obama speech, he is inundated with e-mails praising the speech -- with most of them coming from Republicans. William Bennett, an influential conservative intellectual, has said favorable things about Obama. So have Rich Lowry of National Review and Peggy Noonan. And so have I.
A number of prominent Republicans I know, who would wage a pitched battle against Hillary Clinton, like Obama and would find it hard to generate much enthusiasm in opposing him.
What is at the core of Obama's appeal?
Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. He seems to be a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. "You know what charm is," Albert Camus wrote in "The Fall," "a way of getting the answer yes without having asked any clear question." Obama has such charm, and its appeal is not restricted to Democrats.
A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt. Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine. Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power -- whether they are political opponents, women from Bill Clinton's past or independent counsels.
When the Clintons were doing this in the 1990s, it was viewed by many Democrats as perfectly acceptable. Some even applauded them for their brass-knuckle tactics. But now that the Clintons are roughing up an inspiring young man who appears to represent the hope and future of the Democratic Party, the liberal establishment is reacting with outrage. "I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons," writes Jonathan Chait of the New Republic. Many conservatives respond: It's about time.
A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one." And to his credit, Barack Obama is running a color-blind campaign. "I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina," Obama said in his victory speech last weekend. "I saw South Carolina." That evening, his crowd of supporters chanted as one, "Race doesn't matter." This was an electric moment. Obama's words are in the great tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. Obama, more than any figure in America, can help bind up the racial wounds of America. In addition, for the past eight years, one of the most prominent qualities of the American left has been anger, which has served it and the country very poorly. An Obama primary win would be a move away from the politics of rage.
The one thing that will keep Obama's appeal from translating into widespread support among Republicans is that he is, on almost every issue, a conventional liberal. And while rhetoric and character matter a lot, politics is finally and fundamentally about ideas and philosophy. Whether we're talking about the Iraq war, monitoring terrorist communications, health care, taxes, education, abortion and the courts, the size of government, or almost anything else, Obama embodies the views of the special-interest groups on the left. In this respect, he should borrow from the Clinton strategy in 1992, when Bill Clinton ran as a "New Democrat," championed free trade, promised to "end welfare as we know it" and criticized, on hawkish grounds, the "butchers of Beijing."
Bill Clinton ran an intellectually creative race whose ideas appealed to non-Democrats. Barack Obama has shown no such inclination so far (his speeches, while inspiring, mostly avoid a serious discussion of policies). If he wanted to demonstrate his independence from liberal orthodoxy, for example, he could come out in favor of school choice for low-income families, which would both help poor families and demonstrate support for some of the best faith-based institutions in America: urban parochial schools.
If Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and fails to take steps such as this, his liberal views will be his greatest vulnerability. Obama will try to reject the liberal label -- but based on his stands on the issues, at least so far, the label will fit, and it will stick.
Barack Obama is among the most impressive political talents of our lifetime. If he defeats Hillary Clinton, the question for the general election is not whether he can transcend his race but whether he can reach beyond his ideology.
Obama's Health Care plan has a better chance to get passed, plus this is why Obama continues to Bring people TOGETHER. Hillary will try to force her plan down everyone's throat and as you can see not ALL Americans agree with Hillary. We have seen what happens when a President tries to impose their own thinking on ALL Americans (ala GW the past 8 years). This is the United States of America. Another reason Obama is the best choice to represent the Democratic Party in November! The following is a poll done last Fall.
"As you may know, the Democrats want to allow a family of four earning about $62,000 to qualify for the program. President Bush wants most of the increases to go to families earning less than $41,000. Whose side do you favor?" Options rotated. N=502 adults, MoE ± 5 (Form B).
.
10/12-14/07
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/8161.html
And Kennedy was almost certainly talking about the Clintons when he said: “With Barack Obama, we will turn the page on the old politics of misrepresentation and distortion.” He added: “He is a fighter who cares passionately about the causes he believes in, without demonizing those who hold a different view.”
Hillary “Compromised” by Financial Dealings
Saturday, January 19th, 2008
by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann
As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which their subprime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of our leading banks.
The presidential candidates discussed this issue in their Nevada debate and Hillary was asked about it in an interview with Neil Cavuto on the FOX Business Network yesterday. She replied that she would not “stand in the way” of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called for more disclosure and “transparency.”
The fact is that Hillary Clinton is totally unable to be objective on this key question of our national financial sovereignty because she and her husband have been so compromised by their financial dealings with the very countries at issue in the decision.
Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation?
Should the UAE be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the UAE?
The Dubai Ports deal compromised our national security by putting key points of entry in that nation’s control. But the infusion of capital and the acquisition of equity in our key banks has the potential to make that encroachment on our sovereignty seem piddling by comparison.
Neither Dubai nor Saudi Arabia would be permitted to contribute to Hillary’s campaign. Foreigners are not allowed to do so, precisely to avoid having potential office holders compromised by gratitude for their financial support. But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family to acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to her campaign, but to her personal bank account — either through Bill or through the Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control. The extent of the influence their millions must buy with a family only recently, according to Hillary, in the “middle class” must be huge.
And it is for exactly this kind of situation that the Clintons should be required to divulge the extent of their involvement with foreign interests and exactly how much money their personal bank accounts and their Library/Foundation have received. (The Saudi donation to the Library and Foundation was only discovered by the New York Times when the information was inadvertently posted on the Library’s Web site. Soon after the story appeared, it was taken down. The Clintons refuse to reveal the donors to the Library or the related Foundation.) Hillary and Bill have also refused to release their income tax returns, despite the fact that Bill willingly released his when he was running for president.
Why hasn’t Barack Obama or John Edwards even mentioned this issue? Their attacks on Hillary’s links to lobbyists and other special interests are usually painted with a broad brush. But the journey of America’s banks abroad in search of a bailout makes this specific conflict a key question of policy and highly relevant to their campaigns. What better illustration could one have of Hillary’s conflicts of interest than this one?
The following is our information to Caucus for Obama on Feb 5th. If you are in my precinct please print this information and plan to arrive at our caucus site 15-30 minutes ahead of time.
precinct 7212630016Party Affiliation is DEM >> PLEASE PRINT THIS INFORMATION AND BRING IT, OR YOUR VOTER CARD, WITH YOU TO CAUCUS
This voter is eligible to praticipate in the Democratic Caucus being heldFebruary 5, 2008, at 7:00 P.M. at: Alameda High School1255 S Wadsworth Blvd, LakewoodFor more information contact:
House District 26 >> Chairperson: Doyle G Forrestal >> Phone 303-885-4097 > d.forrestal@comcast.netCaptain 26C: Rich Urbanowski >> Phone 303-986-0964 > mrurban2@comcast.netCommittee Person: Mary H Miller >> Phone 303-985-0507 >
