William Davis's Blog

party unity

frstan — Sun, 18 May 2008 23:19:21 EDT

HILLARY SUPPORTERS AT THEIR BEST | Report to Admin ReplyBy ♥ Joyce from Canada ♥ Barack can call me sweetie anytime ♥ 34 minutes agoPlease don't believe the MSM. they are the ones trying to divide the Democratic Party with the help of the GOP.

This has been posted by Odessa from Colorado Springs, CO.earlier today. I thought you might want to read it

"HILLARY SUPPORTERS AT THEIR BEST
Yesterday I had the honor of attending the 2008 State Assembly Convention in Colorado Springs, CO where I reside. I was there to sell the book Peace Admist Conflict, by Author Rene Reid. Needless to say I had a venue table. I shared this table with a woman from Denver, CO that had nothing but OBAMA everthing, tshirts, buttons, pictures, mouse pads, just to name a few..The posters also were all OBAMA. This is too funny.
Although everyone was very respectful to one another (Hillary/Obama Fans) it struck me kind of odd that all the Hillary people were grabbing the free Obama stuff. There was a gentleman selling posters and to boost his sales he started handing out free ones to everyone on the floor. He came back and told me that he could not figure out why Hillary people were the ones snatching them up. He gave out approximately 150 free posters and he said over 80% of the people taking them had vote for Hillary gear on. So to see for myself I went in the Arena and he was so right...lol..I personally asked this lady with respect did she intend to burn it or keep it or what. Her exact words were and I quote. Well honey, I am going to the end no matter what, but I think you and I know both who our nominee will be when it's all over..she was very nice and she said that as long as we are democrats what does it matter. So you see...All the women that are saying they won't vote for OBAMA, are speaking for a small few..She also said she wanted to have some OBAMA signs when the time comes..I met quite a few Hillary supporters yesterday that were not at all bitter. Between setting up on Friday and being there alll day yesterday, I met a lot of them..and I can honestly say they were very polite and so was our supporters. Whew! I am truly tired but it was well worth it."

links on Trinity UCC

frstan — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 13:54:01 EDT

Fact Check: Barack Obama's Church

Link

UCC President Rev. John Thomas
Link

Pastor Gaye of Trinity UCC, St. Pete., FL - Re: Rev. Wright
Link

WE ARE TRINITY
Link

Fact Check: Reverend Otis Moss on Obama's Faith
Link

World Wide AIDS Day at TUCC
Link

Jeremiah Wright's Remarks about Hillary ...
Link

Heart of the speech

frstan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:09:57 EDT

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.”

Protest to the NYT

frstan — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:12:17 EDT

Submitted comment to NYT political Blog for today. The New York Times is accorded the title "The Newspaper of Record for the United States" -- an accolade which is well deserved. And yet you permit a Republican operative -- Todd Harris-- to misquote Michelle Obama in a serious matter and in a very serious way. She did NOT say she was "proud of her country for the first time in her lifetime." She said she was "really [=very, intensely] proud" of her country "for the first time in her adult lifetime." And that, I submit, differs strongly in both denotation and connotation. I realize full well that HRC seems willing to destroy the Democratic Party with the help of "Russ Limbaugh" Republicans in her desperate effort to win at any cost. My question is: Is the New York Times willing to destroy its own editorial record of achievement to pursue the same goal?

Wright Sermon -- nothing like the ones you saw

frstan — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:00:50 EDT

THIS SOUNDS MORE LIKE A SERMON OBAMA MIGHT BE INSPIRED BY!:

From Politico.com (03/13/08), A Wright Sermon [Link ]
A very different side of Jeremiah Wright: A reader sends over a link to the recording of his now-famous sermon titled "The Audacity to Hope." [Link ]

If we want to talk about what INFLUENCED Obama to be who he is today? If we want to talk about WHERE he comes from? Don't look at the most radical of sermons in the last couple years! Look at the one sermon that Obama cites as influential. THIS ONE. And it is completely a 180 degree turn from what the media has been playing.

Past v Future

frstan — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 01:02:43 EDT

If you had grown up poor & black on the South Side of Chicago in the 1930s you might have some quirks that manifested in "weird" ways from time to time also. A lot of Wright's message had been based on "We cant wait for the white mans justice, we cant wait on the white mans charity to solve our problems. we have to help ourselves, we have to help each other." Considering the fact that a good deal of the "Wellfare" establishment was not intended to help the poor out of poverty but to provide well paying jobs for the children of the white upper middle class, this message had some point. But the point I wanted to make is: Dr Wright, now retired === The Past Rev Otis Moss now in charge === The Future Rev Moss was chosen by that congregation itself. If you want some measure of the change that has taken place look at this difference. If you want to "weigh" that congregation, go by its actions, and its intentions as shown by its choice of Rev Moss.

data on "Limbaugh Republicans"

frstan — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:33:59 EDT

By Richard "Hussein" from Illinois Today at 9:08 pm EDTAccording to National Public Radio an estimated 500,000 Republicans voted in the Texas primary, many at the urging of Rush Limbaugh, in order to give Clinton a boost. Her margin of victory in the Texas primary was 99,629 votes. Link
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/ 2008/03/06/the-limbaugh-effect -on-clintons-texas-win/?mod=go oglenews_wsj
Link

24% of Clinton's vote in Mississippi came from republicans. The vast majority of which answered in exit polls that they do not like her.
Link

In Cayahoga County Ohio alone 16,000 Republicans switched over to vote for Clinton. Some even had the audacity to scribble addendums onto their pledges as new Democrats such as "For one day only".
Link
Many voters switched over at the last minute. One had the the nerve to post this on an Ohio blog:

"Lastly, they had me sign the affirmation about switching parties and supporting the principles of the Democrat party. I said that would be easy, because they don't have any. Everybody got a good chuckle as there isn't a Democrat within 5 miles any direction from where I vote. I then proceeded to cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Dirty as it felt at the time, I have a feeling I'll be rewarded in the long run."
Did Limbaugh's Crossover Voters Break Ohio law?
Link
(the post is about half way down the page)

In Pennsylvania Republicans are re-registering as Democrats and admitting they will switch back to vote for McCain in the general election
Link

Will the superdelegates allow the Republicans to rig the election? You of course, have a very unique roll, not just in defending the viability of the Democratic Party, but in protecting our democracy. If the Republicans are allowed to succeed in this mission, why continue to participate in the process? I know you have the courage to stand up and do what is right. Please remember that a lot of people and the future of our democracy are counting on you.

Obama's FORMER Pastor

frstan — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:51:33 EDT

Many "old-fashion" white Petacostal, Baptist, Assembly of God, etc etc Preachers in the South have a long record of saying God intervenes to punish people, cities, Countries, etc etc......

One recently claimed God sent Katrina because of some scheduled Gay Pride parade in New Orleans.

I find such talk distasteful, and not only wrong, but wrong-headed, but! it has actually been quite common among a certain class of so-called "fiery" white preachers.

Another point: what sort of Preacher did Trinity United Church of Christ choose to replace Dr. Wright? Is he similar to Dr. Wright?--- or very different? If different, different in what ways? What conclusions can you reach from that?

HRC campaign fund violations

frstan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:22:11 EDT

by: KathyCallahanSun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:52:59 AM EDT Oprah Sent Me A Quote and it fits like a glove. 3-12
"To seek the living manifestation of spiritual and ethical values themselves, regardless of the label they come under, is to discover unexpected kinship... In this view, faith is no longer a matter of a allegiance to a specific community or identity, but a ceaseless search for the beautiful ways to realize the human potential in every given age and place." -- Mohja Kahf

(post slightly edited, with changes to ordering)

Update by Juan Melli. Kathy has provided some clarification:

I used a figure of speech that might be confusing for readers and I want to clarify: By December 18 I got all of my donations back.
I happily donated $2,000. They had my VISA card on file. Unauthorized donations were made.
In addition, I was actually double charged for an event that I did attend.
Smoking gun: $5,800 is $1,200 over the legal limit.
I would say this in a court of law. I am an honest person...the following statement is true down to the letter:
Matt McQuenney who works in the compliance department at HRC headquarters told me verbatim -"What happened to you with credit card errors is happening to others,. You are not alone. Kathy, I'm trying hard to find out where and who it's coming from. What's going on!"

I voluntarily left the Hillary Finance Committee after I discovered more than $3,000 in unauthorized charges from HRC campaign on my own VISA card! And that set off a wave of overdrafts and $400 in bank charges that I was stuck with. And the compliance officer Allison Wright at Hillary VA headquarters refused to reimburse me for the charges. And the senior finance reps who I notified about more than $3,000 in unauthorized Visa Charges never once aplogized or empathized with my plight, much less sent me a "sorry for all the trouble" note and a check!

Unbelievably, it took me more than a month of pleading and begging via email to get the money back. I was told verbatim:

"Kathy Callahan, you are going to be with us all the way to the White House...So let's leave the money where it is and we'll save time on inevitable future donations and transactions!"

I went into a state of abject shock, disbelief and later anger! Heartbroken. I didn't want to report this entirely correctable problem to anyone outside the Hillary campaign! One long month later, and at the behest of a bank executive who said to me a few days before Christmas Eve, "You are way way way over the legal donor limit, Kathy! What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?"

So I followed his direction and filed a police report in Ridgefield. I then notified Allison Wright and Cc'ed senior finance reps (who I met many times) via email again about the police report and said, "Enough is Enough, already! Christmas is coming!"

It was then and only then and within a matter of seconds that I got a cell phone call and email from Allison Wright imploring me, "Kathy, please don't do anything, formally! I will send you whatever you want back, immediately!" I told her, "You can send all of my money back!"

Finally, $5,300 large came back to me but not the $400 in overdraft charges. And to think that the legal limit during the primary is $2,300 and I had already generously and enthusiastically donated $2,000 to Hillary legitimately! I don't know why so much chaos and stalling ensued when $5, 800 on their books is a huge red flag...and certainly not my fault!

The Hillary Finance Director knew how much I earned as I was fully VETTED. And I talked to her every other day about the sacrifices that I was making for a year and a once in a lifetime opportunity providing counseling and life saving Psychological-CPR self care strategies to HIV Positive kids, teens, parents and adults at a Catholic Healthcare Institution! My motto is: Yes You Can Access Your Own Hidden Abilities! And they did!

I had no other choice but to walk away from the Hillary campaign! And I am so glad that I did. Every cloud has a green, gold and silver lining. And in my case it's Barack Obama. When one door closes (or slams shut) another door opens!

-Kathy Callahan, MSW, NJ LCSW, MASS LICSW

MS Limbaugh Republicans

frstan — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:17:13 EDT

Also some "Limbaugh" voters not doubt referred to them selves as "Democrats" in the exit poll because they were aware there was something wrong with what they were doing. Im sure of this because I've looked at 3 counties carried strongly by Clinton (60% or more) and the Vote in the Republican Primary is tiny compared with the Bush Vote in 2004, and the ratio of Republicans to Democrats totaled from both Primaries is much smaller than the ratio in the 2004 race. Much more that 13% can account for. Conclusion: That "White Democrat" figure quoted by the MSM based on their exit polling also so includes a large number of "Limbaugh Republicans" masquerading as Democrats. If you take these out Baracks % of the white vote approaches the 40% he got in Georgia.

OUR WEEK -- How was it? new analysis by kos

frstan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 21:25:23 EDT

Update on Obama's "bad week"
by kos
Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM PDT

Earlier I wrote about Obama's delegate victory this past week despite Clinton's wins last Tuesday. My list was incomplete.

A reader passed on a full list of all the super delegates who announced the last six days their endorsements:

Obama

DNC Carol Fowler (SC), 3-4-08
Mary Long (GA), 3-4-08
Roy LaVerne Brooks (TX), 3-4-08
Rhine McLin (OH), 3-5-08
DNC Jane Kidd (GA), 3-5-08
DNC Darlena Williams-Burnett (IL), 3-5-08
DNC Connie Thurman (IN), 3-6-08
Rep. Nick Rahall (WV), 3-6-08
DNC Teresa Benitez-Thompson (NV), 3-6-08
DNC Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker (CA), 3-7-08
Rep. Bill Foster (IL), 3-9-08
DNC Mary Jo Neville (OH), 3-9-08
Clinton

Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), 3-6-08
DNC Mona Mohib (DC), 3-6-08
DNC Aleita Huguenin (CA), 3-7-08
DNC Mary Lou Winters (LA), 3-8-08
So that's an 8-delegate advantage for Obama.

As for the elections:

Obama Clinton
OH 66 75
RI 8 13
VT 9 6
TX 99 94
WY 7 5

Total 189 193

That gives Obama a four-delegate victory since last Tuesday. Add the four delegate gain out of California after that state's vote was certified, and we're up to 8 delegates for Obama. Throw in the four delegates Clinton lost in California, and that's 12 delegates for Obama. Today we had DNC member and super delegate Everett Sanders of Mississippi endorsing Obama, so make that 13 delegates for Obama.

So officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this "week from hell" for him.

As that reader noted in his email to me:

In the bigger picture, HRC lead in super delegates stood at 97 one month ago today. Today her lead is only 32. HRC has gained 18 Super delegates in the past month while Senator Obama has gained 83. a month ago nearly 2 out of 3 declared super delegates were Clinton supporters now it is just over one half.

A few more "bad" weeks like this and he'll have the nomination nicely sewed up.

10 Reasons to support Barack for President

frstan — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 02:49:13 EDT

Ten Reasons to vote for Barack Obama (in no particular order)
1. His demonstrated superior ability to manage his campaign indicates
he is more qualified to be President and manage the government.
2. His demonstrated superior ability to manage his campaign finances
indicates he is more qualified to be President and manage the
governments finances.
3. His demonstrated superior ability to staff his campaign with
competent people -- choosing on the basis of competence not personal
loyalty with competence ignored -- indicates he is more qualified to
be President and
staff the government.
4. His demonstrated superior ability to form a competent strategic
campaign plan indicates he is more qualified to be President and
form competent strategic plans for the government.
5. His demonstrated superior judgement shown for example in opposing
the Iraq War from the very beginning instead of voting for a bill
entitled "A Bill to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces
in Iraq".
6. His demonstrated superior compassion for the poor shown for
example in his (upon Graduating Cum Laude from Harvard Law) turning
down multiple job offers with SIX figure salaries to instead go to
work as a poorly paid Civil Rights
worker among the laid off steel workers on the South Side of Chicago.
7. His demonstrated superior industry and initiative as displayed by
his record of Bills authored in both the Illinois Legislature and the
U.S. Senate. [challenge me -- I'd LOVE an excuse to print each of
their Records here.]
8. Barack Obama is a uniter not a divider.
9. His demonstrated ability to awaken and draw in millions of new
small donors and volunteers to the Democratic Party.
10. His refusal to take money from lobbyists or hold "fund raisers"
for fat-cats.

This list could be longer but maybe you begin to see the point.....

OUR WEEK -- How was it?

frstan — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:10:28 EST

Pat on MSNBC said we had a "bad week". Did we?
Ohio -9
RI -5 for a total change of -14
TX pri -4 for a total change of -18
TX cau +9 for a total change of -9
VT +3 for a total change of -6
WY +3 for a total change of -3

Now add in the final recount and certification for CA
+8 (HRC lost 4 and we gained 4) for a total change of +5

In other words WE GAINED +5 DELEGATES this week.
HRC ends the week in worst shape that she stated with.
AND that does not include the fact that we gained 8 or 9 Super delegates and she only gained 2 or 3.

Does anyone have an email addy for Pat Buccannon on MSNBC?

What do you think folks? Did we have a bad week?

Stay Focused

frstan — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:37:03 EST

[linda wrote about writting in Obamas name if HRC wins nomination]

Linda, I understand your frustration, but! you simply cant do that. I don't mean Im telling you not to. I mean you can't. In the general election though it may appear you are voting for a Candidate, you are in fact voting for a slate of Electors equal in number to the number of Representatives your State has plus 2 (for the two Senators). The Electors assemble in the Electoral College and elect the President. Civics 101 remember now? Please Please stop thinking about "What if..." and put that energy in to raising money, making calls, and canvassing, and telling other people where ever you can WHY you are for Sen Obama for President. That's what brought us this far, and thats what will take us all the way. DONT let HRC's antics get you to loose focus. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT SHE WANTS! It wouldn't surprise me if this crap she has been pulling was intentionally designed to get us angry, off track, and unfunctional - and unable to carry the message of Hope and Reconciliation and Change .

So don't play their game, PLAY OURS -- it has brought us this far and will take us home to the goal!

NAFTAgate --the key

frstan — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:02:46 EST

I accept Goolsbee's statement that he only told them Barack's position on NAFTA -- not to drop it but to seek modifications etc etc. The things is: since we now know that HRC did send someone to the Canadians to say "we'll be talking againest NAFTA but dont worry about it just take it with a grain of salt." that the Canadians would then be curious what the attitude of the OTHER canadate happened to be on this subject. So they initiated contact with Goolsbee to "feel him out" and in the middle of that 40 minute conversation told Goolsbee about hearing protectionist rumblings. To which Goolsbee replied with Barack's moderate position: not drop it but seek changes etc etc. Here is the point: DeMoss (the Canadian) because he was already aware of HRC duplicity "take it with a grain of salt", assumed this nuanced position of Barack as presented was another "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" sort of thing -- LIKE HRC's. So he wrote up his memo that way -- using this assumption. Then the Press bless their pointy heads went after our guy instead of HRC when the story began to surface.

YES David YES!!!!

frstan — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:07:40 EST

You are very correct to attack HRC on her hidden Tax returns. She has shown she will use every issue she has (or can invent) to attack Obama. Id also like to see (at the right time) a long commercial (2 mins) comparing her achievements as a lawmaker with Obamas. Get the record out. When you have the paucity of her record in the publics mind then (maybe the weekend before Penn primary) do a blitz ad campaign based on these points: 1. Running for Senate she promised upstate NY 250000 new jobs. 2. Results today : -30000 jobs 3. She claims: but I was counting on Al Gore 4. Really? But What did she DO in the Senate to get NY ANY jobs. NOTHING! And THAT has doing to do with who was President. that has to do with HRCs ineptness/lack of real interest. 5. So Pennsylvania who is more likely to REALLY DO something for your ECONOMY your JOBS? Based on the RECORD: OBAMA! Wise words of advice from a gifted politician: "ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID" (wink) The worse it gets the more important it will become in peoples minds.

New vs Old Al Brooks in NYT

frstan — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:07:48 EST

The Democratic presidential primary campaign began around Christmas 2006, and it may end Tuesday night. But of all the days between then and now, the most important was Nov. 10, 2007.

David Brooks

Go to Columnist Page »

On that day, the Democratic Party of Iowa held its Jefferson-Jackson dinner and invited the candidates to speak. There were thousands of Democrats sitting around tables on the floor of the Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Des Moines, and rowdy thousands more up in the stands.

Hillary Clinton gave a rousing partisan speech. Standing on a stage in the middle of the arena with her arms spread and her voice rising, she welcomed the next president and declared: “We are here tonight to make sure that next president is a Democrat!”

She described how change was going to come about in this country: through fighting. She used the word “fight” or “fought” 15 times in one passage of the speech, fighting for health care, fighting for education and women’s rights. Then she vowed to “turn up the heat” on Republicans. “They deserve all the heat we can give them!” she roared.

Finally, she described the presidency. It’s a demanding job, she suggested, that requires fortitude, experience and mettle. The next president will bear enormous burdens, she continued. The president’s job is to fight for people who feel invisible and can’t help themselves.

Clinton rode the passion of the crowd and delivered an energetic battle cry. And in many elections that sort of speech, delivered around the country, would clinch the nomination.

But this is a country in the midst of a crisis of authority, a country that has become disillusioned not only with one president, but with a whole system of politics. It’s a country that has lost faith not only with one institution, but with the entire set of leadership institutions. The cultural context, in other words, allowed for a much broader critique, a much more audacious vocabulary.

And Barack Obama leapt right in.

He spoke after 11 p.m. The crowd had been sitting for four hours. In the previous months, Obama had been criticized for being bland on the stump. But this night, he unleashed a zealous part of himself that has propelled his candidacy ever since.

His first big subject was belief itself. Instead of waging a partisan campaign as Clinton had just done, he vowed to address “not just Democrats, but Republicans and independents who’ve lost trust in their government but want to believe again.”

Then he made a broader attack on the political class, and without mentioning her, threw Clinton in with the decrepit old order. “The same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do,” he said, in a now familiar line. He said it was time to “finally tackle problems that George Bush made far worse but that had festered long before George Bush ever took office — the problems that we’ve talked about year after year after year.”

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.

Hillary Clinton has fought on with amazing resilience since then, and Tuesday night may well bring another surprise, but she’s always been the moon to his sun. That night in November, he defined the campaign.

The Canadian Memo about Goolsbee / Goolsbees reply

frstan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:56:37 EST

the memo cnsnews.com

The memo was written by Joseph DeMora, who attended a meeting with Austan Goolsbee at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

DeMora, summarizing the conversation with Goolsbee, wrote: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

Later in the memo, DeMora wrote: "As Obama continues to court the economic populist vote, particularly in upcoming contests like Ohio, we are likely to see a continuation of some of the messaging that hasn't played in Canada's favour, but this should continue to be viewed in the context in which it is delivered."

CTV, the Canadian television network, reported last week that Obama was playing both sides on NAFTA -- saying one thing publicly to please union voters in Ohio (yes, we'll renegotiate NAFTA), and something else privately (it's just campaign rhetoric) to ease Canadian concerns.

In a conversation with the Associated Press on Sunday, Goolsbee disputed DeMora's memo. He said that DeMora was not quoting him and had mischaracterized the conversation. Goolsbee specifically told the A.P. he did not use the phrase "it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

However, Goolsbee admitted he did tell Canadian officials that Obama is not a protectionist. Goolsbee told the Associated Press he was trying to convey that Obama wants to strike a balance between free trade -- and labor and environmental protections.

==============================================

AP asked Goolsbee for clarification:

The memo [written by Canadian DeMora] obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 "introductory meeting."

[It claimed]

Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo's introduction said.

[It characterized]

"On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

[In rebuttal]

Goolsbee said that sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

In a statement, the Canadian Embassy expressed regret on how the discussions have been interpreted.

The statement said "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

Goolsbee said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama's position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.

Goolsbee said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

"That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered," Goolsbee said of the memo's description of "political positioning." "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy."

Canada NAFTA

frstan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 16:26:47 EST

AN APOLOGY

-----------------

News from the Embassy of Canada

Statement by the Canadian Embassy

Washington, D.C., March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

see this video

frstan — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 22:07:24 EST

its the 2ed one down.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/video-hillary-clintons-jack-nicholson-ad/

Obama's Record

frstan — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:32:32 EST

(from Alex in main blog)

Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.

During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored
over 820 bills. He introduced

233 regarding healthcare reform,

125 on poverty and public assistance,

112 crime fighting bills,

97 economic bills,
Re: Comparison of Accopmlishments Obama Vs. Clinton | Report to Admin Reply
By Alex Today at 1:40 pm EST
continued....

60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,

21 ethics reform bills,

15 gun control,

6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and
co-sponsored another 427. These inculded **the Coburn-Obama Government
Transparency Act of 2006 - became law, **The Lugar-Obama Nuclear
Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, -
became law, **The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the
Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law, **The
Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee,
and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890
bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according
to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Pass it on....It's impressive

Hillary's Record

frstan — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:31:06 EST

(from Alex in main blog)

Let's take a closer look at who's really qualified and or who's really
working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term - 6yrs. - and another
year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law - 20 - twenty
pieces of legislation in her first six years.

These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress
www.thomas.loc.gov , but to save you
trouble, I'll post them here for you.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.

3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

6. Name post office after Jon A. O'Shea.

7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition
Day.

9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial
of his death.

10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.

11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on
winning the championship.

12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution
Commemorative Program.

13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express
condolences on her death.

15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who
lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton 's bills are, more
substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11

18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as
protected in the wilderness preservation system.

There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.

Barack's Expeirence

frstan — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:40:46 EST

quote from main blog:

e: Who has experiene? | Report to Admin ReplyBy Yao from Chicago, IL Today at 3:49 am ESTNow, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first - 8 - eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 - became law,
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, - became law,
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, - became law,
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.
An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to several of you.
He's not just a talker.
He's a doer.

Pass it on....It's impressive

Hillary's Experience

frstan — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:26:20 EST

Hillary's "experience"

Experience refers not to passing through some amount of time but rather what you took away with you. Now consider these recent events:

1. Hillary hears Obama say he had denounced Farakant, and tells him "On no, so-and-so, once said they supported me and I rejected them." Obama replied "Ok Hillary, then I 'Denounce AND Reject him."
2. Within a few days one of Hillary's important TX supporters says to her "I can never support Obama because he is black." A Newsie overhears this and asks Hillary "Are you going to 'Denounce and Reject' that supporter? "Oh no" says Hillary, "I disapprove of course but I cant control how my supporters feel."

Even with the Newsie feeding her the 'Denounce and Reject' cue she did not recognize what she had done. Her staff came and straitened her out later but she on her own hook DID NOT HAVE A CLUE.

Now you tell me please: what evidence is there about Hillary's ABILITY to learn from "Experience". It appears to me she has NONE and therefore it matter nothing what if anything she may have done in the past. The evidence is : she didn't profit from it -- at least not in the sense of personal growth.

THAT is the answer to her "Experience" claims.

my first call outs!

frstan — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:12:30 EST

nervious? yes, but just went ahead with it and it went well. The 2 or 3 posible Clinton supporters (I supose) just said they didnt want to talk. There were a good many wrong numbers. The rest were either for Obama or undecided. After we talked a bit ALL the undecided said I had argued well for Obama / were now inclined to vote for Obama.

My main indeed only arguement: see my blog post "What has Obama done".

Hillary: Ill go after (garnish) wages of non participants

frstan — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:56:18 EST

I remember Hillary saying something close to (in reference to non=heath-plan participants "Well we will have to go after their wages then."

can anyone give me the exact wording/date/place/time?

Clintons criticism

frstan — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:51:01 EST

H. Clinton says Barack cant criticise her Health Care Plan, no Democrat is allowed, according to her, to criticise another Democrates Health Care Plan. HUH?

What has she been doing criticising Baracks plan all this time?

What has Barack done?

frstan — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:28:33 EST

Never mind the Senate, hes not running for Senator.

Consider the evidence supplied by the two campaigns:
1. How well have they been organized?
2. Does either shows signs of having made a bad strategy and then refused to change until it failed?
3. Does either show signs that major posts were filled on the basis of loyalty to the candidate with competence ignored?
4. Which campaign has been more able to attract and wisely use (often with long lead times) volunteers?
5. Which campaign shows strong management and administrative skills in its leadership?
6 Which campaign shows strong financial management skills?
7. Which campaign shows signs of having foresight?
8. Has either candidate made a major blunder in the past and still remain unable to say "I was wrong."
9. Has either of the candidates been so unwilling to face reality that when faced with a major loss they have instead of conceding and congratulating their opponent rather gone off to a rally in another state so as to surround them selves with a cheering throng?

Point # 3 is of course already familiar to us: its SOP with Prez bush (e.g.. Gonzalez).

Please carefully consider the questions I have asked. Reach your own conclusions about what your own answers reveal about the prospective abilities of both candidates to manage the government and its finances.

I'd like very much to hear what you think.