EMILIANO FOR OBAMA's Blog

Old friends recall Obama's years in LA, NY

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 15 May 2008 23:44:50 EDT

By ADAM GOLDMAN and ROBERT TANNER, Associated Press WritersThu May 15, 2:53 PM ET

The way Sohale Siddiqi remembers it, he and his old roommate were walking his pug Charlie on Broadway when a large, scary bum approached them, stomping on the ground near the dog's head.

This was in the 1980s, a time when New York was a fearful place beset by drugs and crime, when the street smart knew that the best way to handle the city's derelicts was to avoid them entirely. But Siddiqi was angry and he confronted the bum, who approached him menacingly.

Until his skinny, Ivy League-educated friend — Barack Obama — intervened.

He "stepped right in between. ... He planted his face firmly in the face of the guy. `Hey, hey, hey.' And the guy backpedaled and we kept walking," Siddiqi recalls.

There was a time before Obama wore tailored suits — when his wardrobe consisted of $5 military-surplus khakis and used leather jackets, and he walked the streets of Manhattan for lack of bus fare. It was a time well before the political arena beckoned, when his friends thought he might become a writer or a lawyer, but certainly not the first black man with a real chance to become president of the United States.

Obama spent the six years between 1979 and 1985 at Occidental College in Los Angeles and then in New York at Columbia University and in the workplace. His memoir, "Dreams from My Father," talks about this time, but not in great detail; Siddiqi, for example, is identified only as "Sadik" — "a short, well-built Pakistani" who smoked marijuana, snorted cocaine and liked to party.

Obama's campaign wouldn't identify "Sadik," but The Associated Press located him in Seattle, where he raises money for a community theater.

Together, the recollections of Siddiqi and other friends and acquaintances from Obama's college years paint a portrait of the candidate as a young man.

They remember a good student with a sharp mind and unshakable integrity, a young man who already had a passion for the underprivileged. Some described the young Obama's personality as confident to the point of arrogance, a criticism that would emerge decades later, during the campaign.

Not everyone who knew Obama in those years is eager to talk.

Some explained that they feared inadvertently hurting Obama's campaign. Among his friends were Siddiqi and two other Pakistanis, all of them from Karachi; several of those interviewed said the Pakistanis were reluctant to talk for fear of stoking rumors that Obama is a Muslim.

"Obama in the eyes of some right wingers is basically Muslim until proved innocent," says Margot Mifflin, a friend from Occidental who is now a journalism professor at New York's Lehman College. "It's partly the Muslim factor by association and partly the fear of something being twisted."

The young man Mifflin remembers was "an unpretentious, down to earth, solidly middle-class guy who seemed somewhat more sophisticated than the average college student. He was slightly reserved and deliberate in a way that I sometimes thought betrayed an uncertainty."

But another former Oxy classmate, Robert McCrary, now general manager of a contract sewing company, saw him differently: "He definitely had a cocky, sometimes arrogant way about him. ... He was not open to others."

Of course, he was only 18 when he arrived at the small liberal arts college nicknamed "Oxy." His freshman roommates were Imad Husain, a Pakistani, who's now a Boston banker, and Paul Carpenter, now a Los Angeles lawyer.

Carpenter recalled Obama as "a good bodysurfer" who had "a funky red car, a Fiat," and who also played intramurals — flag football, tennis and water polo. "He was an athletic guy. He was gifted in that regard," said Carpenter. He also remembered Obama being "super bright. He could get through the course work in a fraction of the time it took me."

Obama had an international circle of friends — "a real eclectic sort of group," says Vinai Thummalapally, who himself came from Hyderabad, India.

As a freshman, he quickly became friends with Mohammed Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, two wealthy Pakistanis. There were others, Thummalapally recalls: a French student and both black and white Americans, including Jon K. Mitchell, who later played bass for country-swing band Asleep at the Wheel (Mitchell remembers that Obama wore puka shell necklaces all the time, though they were not in style, and that "we let it slide because he spent a lot of time growing up in Hawaii.")

The friends got together often to watch basketball games — they were Lakers fans — and eat the southern Indian food that Thummalapally cooked with his cousin.

There was serious talk, too. Obama had concerns about U.S. foreign policy — including the failed hostage rescue mission in Iran under Jimmy Carter, and American support of the Contras in Latin America.

Thummalapally lived with Obama the summer of 1980. The two ran together daily, three miles in the early morning, often chatting about their dreams. Thummalapally wanted to start a business back home; Obama talked about helping people.

"I want to get into public service," he recalls Obama saying. "I want to write and help people who are disadvantaged."

___

In 1981, Obama transferred from Occidental to Columbia. In between, he traveled to Pakistan — a trip that enhanced his foreign policy qualifications, he maintained in a private speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last month. Obama spent "about three weeks" in Pakistan, traveling with Hamid and staying in Karachi with Chandoo's family, said Bill Burton, Obama's press secretary.

"He was clearly shocked by the economic disparity he saw in Pakistan. He couldn't get over the sight of rural peasants bowing to the wealthy landowners they worked for as they passed," says Margot Mifflin, who makes a brief appearance in Obama's memoir.

When Obama arrived in New York, he already knew Siddiqi — a friend of Chandoo's and Hamid's from Karachi who had visited Los Angeles. Looking back, Siddiqi acknowledges that he and Obama were an odd couple. Siddiqi would mock Obama's idealism — he just wanted to make a lot of money and buy things, while Obama wanted to help the poor.

"At that age, I thought he was a saint and a square, and he took himself too seriously," Siddiqi said. "I would ask him why he was so serious. He was genuinely concerned with the plight of the poor. He'd give me lectures, which I found very boring. He must have found me very irritating."

Siddiqi offered the most expansive account of Obama as a young man.

"We were both very lost. We were both alienated, although he might not put it that way. He arrived disheveled and without a place to stay," said Siddiqi, who at the time worked as a waiter and as a salesman at a boutique.

The Obama campaign declined to discuss Obama's time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won't, for example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan's Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn — one in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights. His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan's Upper East Side.

In about 1982, Siddiqi and Obama got an apartment at a sixth-floor walkup on East 94th Street. Siddiqi managed to get the apartment thanks to subterfuge.

"We didn't have a chance in hell of getting this apartment unless we fabricated the lease application," Siddiqi said.

Siddiqi fudged his credentials, saying he had a high-paying job at a catering company, but Obama "wanted no part of it. He put down the truth."

The apartment was "a slum of a place" in a drug-ridden neighborhood filled with gunshots, he said. "It wasn't a comfortable existence. We were slumming it." What little furniture they had was found on the street, and guests would have to hold their dinner plates in their laps.

While Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine during high school in Hawaii, he writes in the memoir that he stopped using soon after his arrival in New York. His roommate had no such scruples.

But Siddiqi says that during their time together here, Obama always refused his offers of drugs.

In his memoir and in interviews, Obama has said he got serious and buckled down in New York. "I didn't socialize that much. I was like a monk," he said in a 2005 Columbia alumni magazine interview. He told biographer David Mendell: "For about two years there, I was just painfully alone and really not focused on anything, except maybe thinking a lot."

In his memoir, Obama recalls fasting on Sunday; Siddiqi says Obama was a follower of comedian-activist Dick Gregory's vegetarian diet. "I think self-deprivation was his schtick, denying himself pleasure, good food and all of that."

But it wasn't exactly an ascetic life. There was plenty of time for reading (Gabriel Garcia Marquez, V.S. Naipaul) and listening to music (Van Morrison, the Ohio Players, Bob Dylan). The two, along with others, went out for nights on the town. "He wasn't entirely a hermit," Siddiqi said.

Siddiqi said his female friends thought Obama was "a hunk."

"We were always competing," he said. "You know how it is. You go to a bar and you try hitting on the girls. He had a lot more success. I wouldn't out-compete him in picking up girls, that's for sure."

Obama was a tolerant roommate. Siddiqi's mother, who had never been around a black man, came to visit and she was rude; Obama was nothing but polite. Siddiqi himself could be intemperate — he called Obama an Uncle Tom, but "he was really patient. I'm surprised he suffered me."

Finally, their relationship started to fray. "I was partying all the time. I was disrupting his studies," Siddiqi said. Obama moved out.

In July 1985, after spending two years as a writer for a business newsletter and as a coordinator at City College in Harlem for an environmental and consumer advocacy group, Obama left New York for Chicago — where he found a job, a wife and, eventually, a political career.

___

Andrew Roth knew Obama at Occidental and in New York. He speaks bluntly: "The thought, believe me, never crossed my mind that he would be our first black president."

And yet, here he is, on the brink of the Democratic nomination. And he's gotten there with the help of some of those friends from so long ago.

Neither Hamid nor Chandoo would be interviewed for this story; Hamid is now a top executive at Pepsico in New York, and Chandoo is a self-employed financial consultant in the New York area.

Both have each contributed the maximum $2,300 to Obama's campaign, and records indicate each has joined an Asian-American council that supports his run for president. Both also are listed on Obama's campaign Web site as being among his top fundraisers, each bringing in between $100,000 and $200,000 in contributions from their networks of friends.

Both also attended Obama's wedding in 1992, according to published reports and other friends.

Thummalapally has stayed in contact with Obama, too, visiting him in New York, attending his wedding in 1992 and joining him in Springfield, Ill., for the Feb. 10, 2007, announcement of Obama's run for the White House.

President of a CD and DVD manufacturing company in Colorado Springs, Colo., Thummalapally also is listed as a top fundraiser on the campaign Web site.

Siddiqi has not kept in touch. His has been a difficult road; years after his time with Obama, Siddiqi says, he became addicted to cocaine and lost his business.

But when he needed help during his recovery, Obama — the roommate he drove away with his partying, the man he always suspected of looking down at him — gave him a job reference.

So yes, he's an Obama man, too. Witness the message on his answering machine:

"My name is Hal Siddiqi, and I approve of this message. Vote for peace, vote for hope, vote for change, and vote for Obama."

___

Associated Press writers Deborah Hastings in New York, Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles, Gene Johnson in Seattle, and AP researchers Judith Ausubel and Barbara Sambriski contributed to this story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_el_pr/young_obama_1;_ylt=AkK6VYHfHBhg1GB6EroQmexh24cA%0A

Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sun, 11 May 2008 21:28:34 EDT

May 11, 2008
The Long Run
Pragmatic Politics, Forged on the South Side
By JO BECKER and CHRISTOPHER DREW

In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago’s South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city’s top politicians.

Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community’s black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race — branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.

But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.

The secret of his transformation, which has brought him to the brink of claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, can be described as the politics of maximum unity.

He moved from his leftist Hyde Park base to more centrist circles; he forged early alliances with the good-government reform crowd only to be embraced later by the city’s all-powerful Democratic bosses; he railed against pork-barrel politics but engaged in it when needed; and he empathized with the views of his Palestinian friends before adroitly courting the city’s politically potent Jewish community.

To broaden his appeal to African-Americans, Mr. Obama had to assiduously court older black leaders entrenched in Chicago’s ward politics while selling himself as a young, multicultural bridge to the wider political world.

“There are some people who say he’s not strong enough on this or that, that he’s wishy-washy, that he’s trying to have it both ways,” said Abner J. Mikva, a former congressman and mentor to Mr. Obama. “But he’s not looking for how to exclude the people who don’t agree with him. He’s looking for ways to make the tent as large as possible.”

Mr. Obama’s ability to replicate the eclectic coalition he built in Chicago and expand it to the national stage has allowed the one-term senator to match the Clintons at their signature game: collecting influential friends and supporters.

An untraditional politician who at times uses traditional political tactics, Mr. Obama, 46, was portrayed in dozens of interviews with political leaders and longtime associates in Chicago as the ultimate pragmatist, a deliberate thinker who fashions carefully nuanced positions that manage to win him support from people with divergent views.

“Most Americans are getting a small glimmer into the rough and tumble world of the South Side of Chicago politics, which is very, very difficult to navigate,” said Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., an Illinois Democrat and ally of Mr. Obama’s. But Mr. Obama did it with skill: “It’s very unusual to have various factions agreeing with you and your politics,” Mr. Jackson added.

Others see his deft movements as a politician’s shifting of positions and alliances for strategic advantage, leaving some disappointed and baffled about where he really stands.

“He has a pattern of forming relationships with various communities and as he takes his next step up, kind of distancing himself from them and then positioning himself as the bridge,” said Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian-American author and co-founder of the online publication Electronic Intifada, who became acquainted with Mr. Obama in Chicago.

Even moments that supporters see as his boldest are tempered by his political caution. The forceful speech he delivered in 2002 against the impending Iraq invasion — a speech that has helped define him nationally — was threaded with an unusual mantra for a 1960s-style antiwar rally: “I’m not opposed to all wars.” It was a refrain Mr. Obama had tested on his political advisers, and it was a display of his ability to speak to the audience before him while keeping in mind the broader audience to come.

Perfect for Hyde Park

When Judson H. Miner invited a third-year Harvard Law School student named Barack Obama to lunch at the Thai Star Cafe in Chicago before his 1991 graduation, Mr. Miner thought he was recruiting the 29-year-old to work for his boutique civil rights law firm. Instead, Mr. Obama recruited him.

Mr. Obama made it clear that he was less interested in a job than in learning the political lay of the land from a man who had served at the right hand of the city’s first black mayor, Harold Washington. Mr. Miner, who had helped with the historic 1983 election of Mr. Washington and served as his corporation counsel, proved a willing tutor.

The confident younger man “cross-examined” Mr. Miner about how Mr. Washington had managed to emerge from an election riven by bigotry to form a governing coalition in which he “got along with all these different types of folks,” Mr. Miner recalled.

Mr. Obama, who had spent time in Chicago as a community organizer in the 1980s and already knew he wanted to run for office, openly weighed the pros and cons of working for the law firm. On the one hand it was beloved by many of the city’s liberals and black leaders for its work on issues like voting rights and housing equality. On the other, the firm had clashed with Chicago’s powerful mayor, Richard M. Daley, who presided then and now over the city’s sprawling Democratic organization.

“During the course of our talking, it came out that people who knew he was having lunch with me were trying to convince him that this was the worst place for him to go. He shared this with me — he was amused,” Mr. Miner said, laughing. “This isn’t where you land if you want to curry favor with the Democratic power structure.”

It was, however, exactly where an aspiring politician might land if he happened to want to run for office from Hyde Park, a neighborhood with a long history of electing reform-minded politicians independent of the city’s legendary Democratic machine. Mr. Obama chose to put down roots in the neighborhood after graduating law school and marrying Michelle Robinson, a Chicago native and fellow lawyer.

A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation’s most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.

At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit.

“He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park,” said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. “It’s a place where you don’t have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there’s the homeless person and there’s the professor.”

Mr. Obama quickly grounded himself in the community. He led a successful drive that registered nearly 150,000 black voters for the 1992 campaign. He became a part-time professor at the University of Chicago Law School. And, in 1993, he finally decided to join the law offices of Miner, Barnhill & Galland.

The choice sent a signal that Mr. Obama was “allying himself with the independents, which is what you have to be if you’re going to be elected from the Hyde Park area,” said Don Rose, a longtime Democratic political consultant.

Making Connections

The decision to accept Mr. Miner’s job offer quickly paid off. By the time Mr. Obama announced his candidacy for the Illinois Senate in 1995 — at the very Hyde Park hotel where Mr. Washington had kicked off his mayoral campaign — he had cultivated a network of influential supporters.

Mr. Miner was “enormously helpful” in introducing Mr. Obama to the liberal coalition of blacks and whites that had helped elect Mr. Washington, said Valerie Jarrett, a longtime friend and close adviser. “It brought in a whole new circle of people.”

Mr. Obama cultivated clients like Bishop Arthur M. Brazier, the influential pastor of an 18,000-member black church and founding president of the Woodlawn Organization, which focuses on improving conditions for blacks in a neighborhood adjacent to Hyde Park. The two men began talking politics over tennis games at Chicago’s elite East Bank Club, Mr. Brazier recalled.

Mr. Obama also worked on housing redevelopment projects involving Antoin Rezko, who became one of Mr. Obama’s most generous donors. Mr. Rezko is currently on trial for corruption charges unrelated to Mr. Obama.

It was through the law firm that Mr. Obama met Marilyn Katz, who gave him entry into another activist network: the foot soldiers of the white student and black power movements that helped define Chicago in the 1960s.

As a leader of Students for a Democratic Society then, Ms. Katz organized Vietnam War protests, throwing nails in the street to thwart the police. But like many from that era, Ms. Katz had gone on to become a politically active member of the Chicago establishment, playing in a regular poker game with Mr. Miner while working as a consultant to his nemesis, Mayor Daley.

“For better or worse, this is Chicago,” said Ms. Katz, who has held fund-raisers for Mr. Obama at her home. “Everyone is connected to everyone.”

Mr. Obama was comfortable attending performances of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra with city scions like Newton N. Minow, the father of Martha Minow. Mr. Minow, who had served in the Kennedy administration and managed the white-shoe law firm of Sidley Austin when Mr. Obama worked there after his first year of law school, began introducing him to Chicago’s business titans.

Mr. Obama also fit in at Hyde Park’s fringes, among university faculty members like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, unrepentant members of the radical Weather Underground that bombed the United States Capitol and the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. Mr. Obama was introduced to the couple in 1995 at a meet-and-greet they held for him at their home, aides said.

Now, along with Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Mr. Ayers has become a prime exhibit in the effort by Mr. Obama’s presidential rivals to highlight what could be politically radioactive associations. In 2001, Mr. Ayers said he did not regret the Weatherman bombings. Even so, in Hyde Park, he and his wife were viewed favorably for their work in addressing city problems. Mr. Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” Mr. Obama said recently.

The two men were involved in efforts to reform the city’s education system. They appeared together on academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss the juvenile justice system, an area of mutual concern. Mr. Ayers’s book on the subject won a rave review in The Chicago Tribune by Mr. Obama, who called it “a searing and timely account.”

Running and Winning

Mr. Obama further expanded his list of allies by joining the boards of two well-known charities: the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

These memberships have allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants over the years to groups that championed the environment, campaign finance reform, gun control and other causes supported by the liberal network he was cultivating. Mr. Brazier’s group, the Woodlawn Organization, received money, for instance, as did antipoverty groups with ties to organized labor like Chicago Acorn, whose endorsement Mr. Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama hewed closely to liberal orthodoxy, positions that have become controversial in the presidential race. A candidate questionnaire from one liberal group, for instance, detailed his views on hot-button issues like the death penalty (opposed) and a ban on handguns (in favor).

Today, Mr. Obama espouses more centrist views and says a campaign aide had incorrectly characterized his views on those issues — a shift that does not sit well with some in the group, the Independent Voters of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization.

“We certainly thought those were his positions,” said David Igasaki, the group’s chairman, who noted Mr. Obama had also interviewed with the group. “We understand that people change their views. But it sort of bothers me that he doesn’t acknowledge that. He tries to say that was never his view.”

In any event, the group endorsed Mr. Obama, and he was easily elected to the State Senate in 1996.

In the state Capitol in Springfield, Mr. Obama was guided through the political thicket by powerful mentors. It was not long into Mr. Obama’s first term when Mr. Mikva recalled getting a telephone call from Paul Simon, the recently retired United States senator. Mr. Mikva had become friends with Mr. Obama after returning from a stint as White House counsel for President Bill Clinton to teach law at the university.

Mr. Simon suggested Mr. Mikva play matchmaker between Mr. Obama and Emil Jones Jr., the powerful Democratic leader of the State Senate. For the better part of a quarter century, Mr. Mikva had played in a golfing foursome that included Mr. Jones.

“ ‘Say, our friend Barack Obama has a chance to push this campaign finance bill through,’ ” Mr. Mikva recalled Mr. Simon’s telling him. “ ‘Why don’t you call your friend Emil Jones and tell him how good he is.’ ”

Mr. Mikva obliged, and in 1998, Mr. Obama passed one of his signature achievements in the Illinois Senate: sweeping legislation that banned most gifts from lobbyists and the personal use of campaign money by state lawmakers. His Hyde Park base applauded, but Mr. Obama would soon learn the limits of his appeal.

Learning His Lessons

The next year, Mr. Obama called Mr. Minow, his former boss, asking to see him. Mr. Obama was eyeing the Hyde Park Congressional seat held by Bobby L. Rush, a former Black Panther leader. “Are you nuts?” Mr. Minow recalled telling the younger man. “Barack, I think this is a mistake.”

Mr. Minow flipped through his Rolodex, calling black businesspeople and asking them if they would help finance Mr. Obama’s bid. He said he received a uniform answer: “No — let him wait his turn.” Nevertheless, the impatient Mr. Obama jumped into the race.

Brimming with confidence, he equated Mr. Rush with “a politics that is rooted in the past” and cast himself as someone who could reach beyond the racial divide to get things done. But it quickly became clear that while he had solidified his support among Hyde Park’s denizens, he had not built enough bridges to the surrounding black communities.

That failure was apparent on the summer day in 1999 when he walked through the South Side during the Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic. Other politicians rode on colorful floats, trailed by throngs. But Mr. Obama was on foot as he made his way through the cheering paradegoers who had shown up to celebrate black pride.

“People were asking, who is he?” said Mr. Kindle, who served as one of his emissaries to the black community. “You could see how humbling it was in his face.”

The campaign, as Mr. Mikva put it, was “a disaster from beginning to end.” Yet in ultimately losing, Mr. Obama learned that he needed to expand his base to be able to bounce back onto a larger stage, according to Mr. Mikva and others. “The beauty of Obama,” Mr. Kindle said, “is that he was willing to be taken to the woodshed” and “allow himself to grow.”

Mr. Obama, who had a reputation in Springfield as standoffish (“He socialized, but he did not hang out,” Mr. Kindle said), began making courtesy calls to black politicians and members of the clergy. He assured them that he had nothing against Mr. Rush and that “it was all cool,” said Ron Lester, who was Mr. Obama’s pollster during the race.

Mr. Jones, the State Senate president who by then had become Mr. Obama’s political benefactor, stepped up to help as well. The two were an unlikely pair: the Harvard-educated lawyer and the former sewer inspector who had risen through the ranks of Chicago ward politics. Mr. Jones let Mr. Obama take center stage on legislation important to the black community, like forcing the police to tape interrogations.

His willingness to negotiate — the interrogation law ended up with a host of exceptions — gained him a reputation as a pragmatist who could sell compromise as a victory to all sides, said Peter Baroni, then the legal counsel to the Republican caucus.

“He took what came into the fray as a very leftist bill, a very leftist proposal, a very non-law-enforcement bill,” Mr. Baroni said, “and he appeased law enforcement and brought everyone around to support it.”

Before his loss to Mr. Rush, Mr. Obama’s typical response for requests for state money would be a lecture, recalled Dan Shomon, a former Obama aide. “He would say something like: ‘You know what, you’re not going to get your money, and you know why? Let me explain the state budget,’ ” Mr. Shomon said. “Then he’d give a 20-minute treatise on how the Republicans wouldn’t raise taxes, so there wasn’t any money to do what they wanted to do.”

Now, Mr. Obama more eagerly met the demands for spending earmarks for churches and community groups in his district, said State Senator Donne E. Trotter, then the ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. “I know this firsthand, because the community groups in his district stopped coming to me,” Mr. Trotter said.

Typical of Mr. Obama’s earmarks was a $100,000 grant for a youth center at a Catholic church run by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a controversial priest who was one of the few South Side clergymen to back Mr. Obama against Mr. Rush.

Father Pfleger has long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce crime and improve the community. But he has drawn fire from some quarters for defending the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and inviting him to speak at his church. Father Pfleger, who did not return calls for comment, is one of the religious leaders whose “faith testimonials” Mr. Obama has posted on his presidential campaign Web site.

David Axelrod, the chief strategist for the Obama presidential campaign, said that Father Pfleger was “remaking the face” of Chicago’s South Side and that all of Mr. Obama’s earmarks went to worthy programs like his.

With his black base more secure, Mr. Obama began in 2002 to contemplate a run for the United States Senate.

“I had lunch with him at the Quadrangle Club, and we were discussing the different bases he had to touch. I said, ‘You have to talk to the Jackson boys first,’ ” Mr. Mikva recalled, referring to Representative Jackson and his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson. “Because Jesse Jackson Jr. had his eye on that seat. He said, ‘I know. I’m working on that.’ ”

Mr. Obama soon sat down with the younger Mr. Jackson at the 312 Chicago restaurant. Michelle Obama had attended high school with Mr. Jackson’s sister and been close to the family for years, and the congressman had attended the Obamas’ wedding. “He said, ‘Jesse, if you’re running for the U.S. Senate I’m not going to run,’ ” Mr. Jackson recalled.

But Mr. Jackson had already decided against it, and he gave Mr. Obama his blessing.

A Pivotal Moment

Betty Lu Saltzman, a Democratic doyenne from Chicago’s lakefront liberal crowd, convened a small group of activists, including Ms. Katz, in her living room to organize a rally to protest the United States’ impending invasion of Iraq. It was late September 2002, and Mr. Obama was on the top of Ms. Saltzman’s list of desired speakers.

She first met him when he ran the black voter registration drive in the 1992 election, and was so impressed that she immediately took him under her wing, introducing him to wealthy donors and talking him up to friends like Mr. Axelrod. But with just a few days to go before the rally, Ms. Saltzman was having trouble reaching Mr. Obama. Finally, she said she left word with his wife.

But before Mr. Obama called her back, he dialed up some advice.

With his possible run for the United States Senate, he wanted to speak with Mr. Axelrod and others about the ramifications of broadcasting his reservations about a war the public was fast getting behind. An antiwar speech would play to his Chicago liberal base, and could help him in what was expected to be a hotly contested primary, they told him, but it also could hurt him in the general election.

“This was a call to assess just how risky was this,” said Pete Giangreco, who along with Mr. Axelrod described the conversation. When Mr. Obama tossed out the idea of calling it a “dumb war,” Mr. Giangreco said he cringed. “I remember thinking, ‘this puts us in the weak defense category, doesn’t it?’ ”

The rally was held on Oct. 2, 2002, in Federal Plaza before nearly 2,000 people. On the podium before speaking, Mr. Obama joked about the dated nature of crowd-pleasing protest songs like “Give Peace a Chance.” “ ‘Can’t they play something else?’ ” Ms. Saltzman recalled his saying.

The speech, friends say, was vintage Obama, a bold but nuanced message that has become the touchstone of his presidential campaign: While he said the Iraq war would lead to “an occupation of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences,” he was also careful to emphasize that there were times when military intervention was necessary.

“What’s fascinating about Barack is what he’s trying to do is reframe and change the discourse so you build support for liberal alternatives within the electorate,” said Will Burns, a former aide whom Mr. Obama also consulted on the speech. “He has an ability to frame stuff so it’s not an all or nothing proposition.”

Still, Mr. Obama’s refrain about supporting some wars perplexed some in the crowd.

An event organizer, Carl Davidson, recalled that a friend “nudged me and said, ‘Who does he think this speech is for? It’s not for this crowd.’ I thought, ‘This guy’s got bigger fish to fry.’ At the time, though, I was only thinking about the U.S. Senate.”

Straddling Two Worlds

As Mr. Obama moved closer to running, he paid a visit to James S. Crown and his father, Lester, billionaire investors who presided over a sprawling Chicago business dynasty and prominent leaders in the Jewish community.

As the meeting ended, the younger Mr. Crown said, his father — who is “fairly hawkish” about Israel’s security — was noncommittal about Mr. Obama. But, James Crown said, “I pulled him down to my office, and I said, ‘Hey, look, I think you should run, and I want you to win.’ ”

In courting families like the Crowns, Mr. Obama was gaining entree into the upper echelon of the city’s corporate boardrooms, a ripe source of campaign money. But he was also seeking to broaden his appeal to Jewish voters, and he was wading more deeply into one of the touchiest issues in American politics: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

For years, the Obamas had been regular dinner guests at the Hyde Park home of Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East scholar at the University of Chicago and an adviser to the Palestinian delegation to the 1990s peace talks. Mr. Khalidi said the talk would often turn to the Middle East, and he talked with Mr. Obama about issues like living conditions in the occupied territories. In 2000, the Khalidis held a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama during his Congressional campaign. Both Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Abunimah, of the Electronic Intifada, said Mr. Obama had spoken at the fund-raiser and had called for the United States to adopt a more “evenhanded approach” to the Palestinian-Israel conflict.

Still, Mr. Khalidi said ascertaining Mr. Obama’s precise position was often difficult. “You may come away thinking, ‘Wow, he agrees with me,’ ” he said. “But later, when you get home and think about it, you are not sure.”

A.J. Wolf, a Hyde Park rabbi who is a friend of Mr. Obama’s and has often invited Mr. Khalidi to speak at his synagogue, said Mr. Obama had disappointed him by not being more assertive about the need for both Israel and the Palestinians to move toward peace. “He’s played all those notes right for the Israel lobby,” said Mr. Wolf, who is sometimes critical of Israel.

During the Senate campaign, Mr. Obama joined in a “Walk for Israel” rally along Lake Michigan on Israel Solidarity Day. The Crowns and other Jewish leaders raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for him. Several days before the primary in 2004, some of his Jewish supporters took offense that Mr. Obama had not taken the opportunity on a campaign questionnaire to denounce Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or to strongly support Israel’s building of a security fence.

But in a sign of how far Mr. Obama had come in his coalition-building, friends from the American Israel Political Action Committee, the national pro-Israel lobbying group, helped him rush out a response to smooth over the flap.

In an e-mail message, Mr. Obama blamed a staff member for the oversight, and expressed the hope that “none of this has raised any questions on your part regarding my fundamental commitment to Israel’s security.” Mr. Abunimah has written of running into the candidate around that time and has said that Mr. Obama told him: “I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping that when things calm down I can be more upfront.”

The Obama camp has denied Mr. Abunimah’s account. Mr. Khalidi, who is now the director of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University, said, “I’m unhappy about the positions he’s taken, but I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed.” He added: “People think he’s a saint. He’s not. He’s a politician.”

Mr. Crown, for his part, could not be more pleased. Since Mr. Obama was elected to the Senate Mr. Crown said that even his father had been won over, helping to arrange meetings for Mr. Obama in a visit to Israel. James Crown said he had “never had even the slightest glimmer of concern that Barack wasn’t terrific” on Israel — a view that Mr. Obama jokingly reinforced at a meeting last year in Mr. Crown’s office.

As Mr. Mikva recounted it, after discussing a lukewarm response by more conservative Jews to some of Mr. Obama’s comments, “I turned to Barack and said, ‘Your name could be Chaim Weizmann, the founder of the Jewish state, and some of these Jewish Republicans wouldn’t vote for you.’ ” And, Mr. Mikva said, “He joked, ‘Well, you know my name is “Baruch” Obama.’ ”

But for all of Mr. Obama’s attentiveness to Jewish concerns about Israel, Republican Party officials have made it clear that they think this is an area of vulnerability. Though Mr. Obama has condemned Hamas, a militant Palestinian group, as a terrorist organization, just last week Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, suggested that the group wanted to see Mr. Obama in the White House. Mr. Obama denounced that suggestion as a “smear.”

Embracing the Machine

When Mr. Obama delivered a now-famous speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that catapulted him onto the national stage, sitting in the audience was Mayor Daley of Chicago.

As Mr. Obama spoke, Mr. Daley and other Illinois officials “were just as wide-eyed as the thousands of conventiongoers,” said James A. DeLeo, a Democratic leader in the Illinois Senate.

The mayor and the senator had some ties, but they had never had a close relationship. Mr. Obama’s friend Ms. Jarrett had worked for Mr. Daley, and had hired Michelle Obama into the administration in the early 1990s. Yet Mr. Obama had run multiple times as a candidate without the mayor’s help.

Now, as Mr. Obama ascended to the larger stage, he also took the final step in his evolution from Hyde Park independent to mainstream Chicago politician, establishing an overt alliance with Mr. Daley. “Over the years, Senator Obama and I have been like-minded in most of the issues facing Chicago,” the mayor said in a statement.

His former chief of staff, Gary Chico, said the mayor’s alliance with the senator was “based on mutual interest and what the mayor saw in the man. They’re both pragmatic.”

But Mr. Obama’s closer relationship with the mayor, coupled with some of his endorsements of Democrats who championed the kind of patronage politics Mr. Obama had once denounced, left some supporters feeling as though he was straying from his roots in the reform movement.

Last year, Mr. Mikva said he took Mr. Obama aside to complain about his endorsement of an alderwoman who had supported Mr. Obama in his United States Senate run and was the focus of newspaper reports about questionable spending on a $19.5 million cultural center. Mr. Mikva said Mr. Obama’s response was simple: “Sometimes you pay your debts.” Early last year, Mr. Obama endorsed Mr. Daley in his re-election bid, asserting that Chicago had blossomed during his tenure.

Mr. Miner, the mentor who had brought Mr. Obama into his law firm in the early 1990s, said he remained an enthusiastic Obama supporter. But, when it comes to some of Mr. Obama’s endorsements, “I don’t know who he’s listening to,” Mr. Miner said.

“I’ve thought sometimes that I should have picked up the phone and called him,” Mr. Miner said. “Why did he think he needed to do this?”

Just before Mr. Obama complimented Mr. Daley, the mayor did something unusual, as well. He broke with his tradition of remaining neutral in Democratic primaries and threw his support behind Mr. Obama’s presidential bid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/us/politics/11chicago.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1210522503-RROYK/Fq0ek+ru837XfpRA&oref=slogin

Obama overtakes lead in superdelegates for first time

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 10 May 2008 16:32:04 EDT

Obama overtakes lead in superdelegates for first time

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

Barack Obama erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among superdelegates Saturday when he added more endorsements from the group of Democrats who will decide the party's nomination for president.

Obama added superdelegates from Utah and Ohio, as well as two from the Virgin Islands who had previously backed Clinton. The additions enabled Obama to surpass Clinton's total for the first time in the campaign. He had picked up nine endorsements Friday.

The milestone is important because Clinton would need to win over the superdelegates by a wide margin to claim the nomination. They are a group that Clinton owned before the first caucus, when she was able to cash in on the popularity of the Clinton brand among the party faithful.

Those party insiders, however, have been steadily streaming to Obama since he started posting wins in early voting states.

"I always felt that if anybody establishes himself as the clear leader, the superdelegates would fall in line," said Don Fowler, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

"It is perceived that he is the leader," said Fowler, a superdelegate from South Carolina who supports Clinton. "The trickle is going to become an avalanche."

Superdelegates are the party and elected officials who will automatically attend the Democratic national convention this August in Denver. They can support whomever they choose, regardless of what happens in the primaries.

They are key because neither Obama nor Clinton can win the nomination without them.

Nearly 800 superdelegates will attend the convention. Obama has endorsements from 275, according to the latest tally by The Associated Press. Clinton has 271.5.

Many of the superdelegates who endorsed Obama in the past week said it is time for the party to unite behind him. Obama is coming off a big win in North Carolina's Democratic primary Tuesday. Clinton narrowly won the primary Indiana's primary the same day, but Obama did better than many expected.

Since then, Obama has added 20 superdelegates since and Clinton has had a net increase of one.

Kevin Rodriquez of the Virgin Islands said in a statement that he switched from Clinton to Obama because he thinks Obama has brought energy and excitement to the party.

"He has shown he can connect with Democrats, Republicans and independents across this country, whether we live on the mainland or an island," Rodriquez said.

Obama Pulls Even With Clinton in Superdelegates

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:47:43 EDT

May 10, 2008 Obama Pulls Even With Clinton in Superdelegates By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

Senator Barack Obama has caught up to his opponent, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in the count of superdelegates, one of the few mathematical areas where Mrs. Clinton still maintained an advantage in the race.

Mr. Obama picked up endorsements on Friday from three more superdelegates, the Democratic Party insiders who are granted autonomy to support whomever they wish at the convention in August. One, a New Jersey congressman, switched his allegiance away from Mrs. Clinton, allowing the Illinois senator to pull even with his rival, according to the latest New York Times count.

The Times’s tally shows each candidate with 263 superdelegates, based on telephone polls conducted with CBS News as well as public endorsements. A separate count by The Associated Press shows Mr. Obama still trailing by fewer than four votes. And a measure by ABC News shows the Illinois senator already ahead, 267 to 265.

Mrs. Clinton trails her opponent in the popular vote and the total Democratic delegate count. But this is the first time since the outset of the race that she has lost the lead in one of her few remaining trump cards.

Superdelegates represent up to a fifth of the Democratic convention delegation, and have historically supported the front-runner at the convention. More than 250 superdelegates have yet to publicly announce their decisions.

On Thursday, Mr. Obama picked up the support of Representative Donald Payne of New Jersey, who told The Star-Ledger of Newark that he was switching away from Mrs. Clinton after thinking through “one of the most difficult decisions I have made.” Peter DeFazio, an Oregon congressman, also said he would back Mr. Obama.

Ed Espinoza, a Californian who is a member of the party’s national committee, pledged his support on Friday, according to the Obama campaign.

Mr. Obama’s gains came as other senior members of his party appeared to be closing ranks around him. The Huffington Post reported that Representative Rahm Emanuel, the influential Democrat from Illinois, referred to Mr. Obama as the “presumptive nominee” at a discussion panel held by The New Yorker on Friday morning.

(A spokeswoman for Mr. Emanuel told the Politico that “all Rahm said was that Senator Obama was now the front-runner, which by and large means, because of the calendar, he is the presumptive nominee, at this point.”)

Meanwhile, the fate of another significant endorsement in the race may hang on the interpretation of a pronoun — for now, anyway.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning, John Edwards said he was “very likely” to endorse the candidate he voted for in the North Carolina primary on Tuesday. But, the anchors asked, which candidate was it?

In his demurral, Mr. Edwards may have slipped: “I just voted — I just voted for him on Tuesday,” he said. But given Mr. Edwards’s Southern accent, that pesky pronoun may have been plural, albeit in a shortened form: “I just voted for ’em on Tuesday.”

David Schuster, an MSNBC host, attempted to ferret out the truth. “So it was a him or a her that you voted for?” he asked, interrupting the former senator. Mr. Edwards then backpedaled, saying, “No, no,” and laughing.

Ariel Alexovich and Julie Bosman contributed reporting.

Obama picks up 5 superdelegates, union endorsement

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:19:24 EDT

Obama picks up 5 superdelegates, union endorsement

By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 3 minutes ago

Barack Obama all but erased Hillary Rodham Clinton's once-imposing lead among national convention superdelegates on Friday and won fresh labor backing as elements of the Democratic Party began coalescing around the Illinois senator for the fall campaign.

Obama picked up the backing of five superdelegates, including Rep. Donald Payne of New Jersey, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who had been a Clinton supporter.

In addition, the American Federation of Government Employees announced its support for Obama. The union claims about 600,000 members who work in the federal and Washington, D.C., governments.

Obama, who won a convincing victory in the North Carolina primary and lost Indiana narrowly on Tuesday, has been steadily gaining strength in the days since.

Clinton also gained a superdelegate.

The developments left the former first lady with 271.5 superdelegates, to 268 for Obama. Little more than four months ago, on the eve of the primary season, she held a lead of 169-63.

In addition to Payne, Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon and two members of the Democratic National Committee from California announced they were supporting Obama.

"The election is over, everybody knows that. Obama has won," said Vernon Watkins, one of the two.

So, too, John Gage, president of the AFGE.

"Our people, I think, recognize the enthusiasm and vitality behind Senator Obama's campaign," he said in a statement.

"After careful consideration, I have reached the conclusion that Barack Obama can best bring about the change that our country so desperately wants and needs," said Payne, who in a statement said that Clinton is a good friend and he still holds her in high regard. Clinton's new supporter was Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa. His congressional district voted overwhelmingly for the former first lady in the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Both Obama and Clinton have courted superdelegates in recent days in private meetings at party headquarters not far from the Capitol.

Despite Watkins' assessment, Clinton has shown no signs she is ready to quit the race. She is heavily favored to win Tuesday's primary in West Virginia, and is in the midst of a two-day swing through several other states with upcoming elections.

___

Associated Press Writers Jesse Holland and Matthew Daly in Washington and Solvej Schou in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects Obama total; UPDATES with Payne quote)

AHSA Endorses Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:59:48 EDT

AHSA Endorses Obama Obama: He "gets it"

Today, as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I announced our endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Because the gun issue has recently become a factor in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, I want to share the remarks I made today:

As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands. We reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer our support and approval as was reported by Paul Bedard of US News and World Report. We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most. We know Senator Obama "gets it." To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous. To hunters and shooters everywhere, Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Clinton, on the hand, failed to grasp the importance of this critical issue to hunters and shooters and voted against this Amendment. She turned her back on America's gun owners. In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage. Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

Ray Schoenke
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

Enough is enough

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:34:29 EDT

Subject: Enough is enough

Hi,

If you missed the Democratic presidential debate on ABC Wednesday night, Editor & Publisher called it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years."

Moderators George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channeling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously!

I just signed a petition to ABC and other media that says: "Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions--ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives."

Want to sign it too? We need a bunch of signers for ABC to take this concern seriously.
Click here to sign:

http://pol.moveon.org/enoughdistractions/?r_by=-9098666-hcN_Vf&rc=paste

Thanks!

Senator Obama criticizes ABC debate VIDEO IS A MUST SEE

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 01:31:39 EDT

Senator Obama criticizes ABC debate VIDEO IS A MUST SEE

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/17/sot.obama.criticizes.abc.debate.cnn

An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:04:05 EDT

Thursday, April 17, 2008
An open letter to Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapoulos

Dear Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos,

It's hard to know where to begin with this, less than an hour after you signed off from your Democratic presidential debate here in my hometown of Philadelphia, a televised train wreck that my friend and colleague Greg Mitchell has already called, quite accurately, "a shameful night for the U.S. media." It's hard because -- like many other Americans -- I am still angry at what I just witnesses, so angry that it's hard to even type accurately because my hands are shaking. Look, I know that "media criticism" -- especially when it's one journalist speaking to another -- tends to be a genteel, colleagial thing, but there's no genteel way to say this.

With your performance tonight -- your focus on issues that were at best trivial wastes of valuable airtime and at worst restatements of right-wing falsehoods, punctuated by inane "issue" questions that in no way resembled the real world concerns of American voters -- you disgraced my profession of journalism, and, by association, me and a lot of hard-working colleagues who do still try to ferret out the truth, rather than worry about who can give us the best deal on our capital gains taxes. But it's even worse than that. By so badly botching arguably the most critical debate of such an important election, in a time of both war and economic misery, you disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself. Indeed, if I were a citizen of one of those nations where America is seeking to "export democracy," and I had watched the debate, I probably would have said, "no thank you." Because that was no way to promote democracy.

You implied throughout the broadcast that you wanted to reflect the concerns of voters in Pennsylvania. Well, I'm a Pennsylvanian voter, and so are my neighbors and most of my friends and co-workers. You asked virtually nothing that reflected our everyday issues -- trying to fill our gas tanks and save for college at the same time, our crumbling bridges and inadequate mass transit, or the root causes of crime here in Philadelphia. In fact, there almost isn't enough space -- and this is cyberspace, where room is unlimited -- to list all the things you could have asked about but did not, from health care to climate change to alternative energy to our policy toward China to the deterioration of Afghanistan to veterans' benefits to improving education. You ignored virtually everything that just happened in what most historians agree is one of the worst presidencies in American history, including the condoning of torture and the trashing of the Constitution, although to be fair you also ignored the policy concerns of people on the right, like immigration issues.

You asked about gun control -- phrased to try for a "gotcha" in a state where that's such a divisive issue -- but not about what we really care about, which is how to reduce crime. You pressed and pressed on those capital gains taxes, but Senators Clinton and Obama were forced to bring up the housing crisis on their own initiative.

Instead, you wasted more than half of the debate -- a full hour -- on tabloid trivia that for the most part wasn't even that interesting, because most of it was infertile ground that has already been covered again and again and again. I'm not saying that Rev. Wright and Bosnia sniper fire and "bitter" were never newsworthy -- I myself wrote about all of these for the Philadelphia Daily News or my Attytood blog, back when they were more relevant -- but the questions were stale yet clearly intended to gin up controversy (they didn't, by the way, other than the controversy over you.) The final questions of that section, asking Obama whether he thought Rev. Wright "loved America" and then suggesting that Obama himself is somehow a hater of the American flag, or worse, were flat-out repulsive.

Are you even thinking when simply echo some of the vilest talking points from far-right talk radio? What are actually getting at -- do you honestly believe that someone with a solid track record as a lawmaker in a Heartland state which elected him to the U.S. Senate, who is now seeking to make some positive American history as our first black president, is somehow un-American, or unpatriotic? Does that even make any sense? Question his policies, or question his leadership. because that is your job as a journalist. But don't insult our intelligence by questioning his patriotism.

Here's a question for you, George. Is it true that yesterday you appeared on the radio with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity, and that you said you were "taking notes" when he urged you to ask a question about Obama's supposed ties to a former member of the Weather Underground -- which in fact you did. With all the fabulous resources of ABC News at your disposal, is that an appropriate way for a supposed journalist to come up with debate questions, by pandering to divisive radio shows?

And Charlie...could you be any more out of touch with your viewers? Most people aren't millionaires like you, and if Pennsylvanians are losing sleep over economic matters, it is not over whether the capital gains tax will go back up again. I was a little shocked when you pressed and pressed on that back-burner issue and left almost no time for high gas prices, but then I learned tonight that you did the same thing in the last debate, that you fretted over that middle-class family that made $200,000 a year. Charlie, the nicest way that I can put this is that you need to get out more.

But I'm not ready to make nice. What I just watched was an outrage. As a journalist, you appeared to confirm all of the worst qualities that cause people to hold our profession in such low esteem, especially your obsession with cornering the candidates with lame "trick" questions and your complete lack of interest or concern about substance -- or about the American people, or the state of our nation. You embarassed some good people who work at ABC News -- for example, the journalists who worked hard to break this story just last week -- and you embarassed yourselves. The millions of people who watched the debate were embarassed, too -- at the state of our political discourse, and what it has finally become, at long last.

Quickly, a word to any and all of my fellow journalists who happen to read this open letter. This. Must . Stop. Tonight, if possible. I thought that we had hit rock bottom in March 2003, when we failed to ask the tough questions in the run-up to the Iraq war. But this feels even lower. We need to pick ourselves up, right now, and start doing our job -- to take a deep breath and remind ourselves of what voters really need to know, and how we get there, that's it's not all horserace and "gotcha." Although, to be blunt, I would also urge the major candidates in 2012 to agree only to debates that are organized by the League of Women Voters, with citizen moderators and questioners. Because we have proven without a doubt in 2008 that working journalists don't deserve to be the debate "deciders."

Charlie, I'm going to sign off this letter the way that you always sign off the news, that "I hope you had a great day."

Because America just had a horrible night.
Posted by Will Bunch @ 12:23 AM

Barack and Basketball - REAL Sports with Bryant Gumbel

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:30:21 EDT

Barack and Basketball - REAL Sports with Bryant Gumbel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Lqm5emQl4

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:40:30 EDT

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

By Anne E. Kornblut and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 16, 2008; A06

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

Advisers argue that her positive ratings have dipped as she has been defined by her opponents -- a normal campaign occurrence -- and that her honesty problem reflects the pounding she took from Republicans in the 1990s. But the Bosnia incident and the way the campaign handled it have left advisers divided over what a candidate can do after such a steep drop in trust.

Some of her aides believe that after Clinton told the Bosnia story -- of having run from her military aircraft into a hangar to avoid sniper fire -- when television images of the event showed otherwise, the campaign had no choice but to say she "misspoke." Communications director Howard Wolfson first did so on a conference call with reporters, and Clinton repeated the explanation over the course of several days.

Other Clinton advisers thought that response did not come quickly enough -- and that when it did, without further explanation or talking points for surrogates to use, it only worsened the perception that she had lied. Making the situation more difficult was a split within the campaign over whether Clinton had exaggerated, or simply confused the landing with another trip. One Clinton insider announced in a strategy meeting it was ridiculous to have imagined the first lady ever having been in danger, or for Clinton to have thought she was -- a slap at the senator from New York that other advisers described as disrespectful.

At the same time, die-hard Clinton loyalists thought her communications operation did not defend her heartily enough, which press aides said they thought was impossible. "Continuing to say it did happen when it didn't happen is not a strategy," one adviser said.

The problem was exacerbated when Bill Clinton, in defending her confused memory of the Bosnia event, got key details of the incident wrong, before later saying his wife had told him to stay out of it.

Two staffers from the Clinton White House years, Lissa Muscatine and Melanne Verveer, wrote a New York Times op-ed article recalling the perils of the trip, trying to justify why Clinton had gotten the story wrong. "As has been reported, Mrs. Clinton's trip to Bosnia included a U.S.O. component with the comedian Sinbad and the singer Sheryl Crow. The helicopters that carried them to performances at American base camps zigzagged just above the trees to avoid potential ground fire, according to Carey Cavanaugh, who was then a State Department official traveling with Sinbad, and helicopters flew alongside to deal with the threat of anti-aircraft fire or snipers. These facts explain why many of us, including the first lady, believed that the conditions on the ground were precarious. We were worried about sniper fire and were prepared to rush off the tarmac when we landed," they wrote.

Senior Clinton advisers argued that the Bosnia story would not have developed the way it did if it were not for a story line about Clinton that goes back to the 1990s, when scandals involving the first lady, including the firings in the White House travel office and her financial dealings, resulted in widespread doubts about her trustworthiness. That framework, they argue, made it easier for Clinton to be perceived as dishonest, a problem that first arose in her presidential campaign in a debate last fall when she gave conflicting answers on whether she supports allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

The new poll suggests that much of her problem is with men. Nearly two-thirds of men said Clinton is not honest and trustworthy (an increase of 19 points), compared with 53 percent of women (up 12 points). Democratic men, in particular, have shifted: About four in 10 now do not believe Clinton to be honest and trustworthy, nearly triple the percentage saying so in 2006.

The percentage calling Clinton honest has dropped steeply among whites with higher incomes and levels of education. And while majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents across demographic lines said she is honest and trustworthy, the class divisions remain: The percentage of white Democrats without college degrees calling Clinton honest hardly budged in two years, while those with college degrees have dropped off significantly on the question (from 82 percent to 53 percent).

Among whites, the percentage saying Clinton is honest and trustworthy has declined 10 points, compared with 26 points among nonwhites. That number has declined more sharply among liberals (down 30 points) than among moderates (down 13) or conservatives (down 4 points). Head to head with Obama on honesty among Democrats, Clinton faces a 23-point deficit overall, 17 points among whites and nearly 50 points among African Americans.

Cohen reported from Washington. Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta in Washington contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Obama plays Hardball

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:50:58 EDT

Obama plays Hardball

April 2: Dan Abrams talks to "Hardball's" Chris Matthews about his interview with Barack Obama at Pennsylvania's West Chester University. Dan rates Obama's performance with radio talk show host Michael Smerconish and Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23927582#23927582

Obama answers questions from students

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:50:09 EDT

Obama answers questions from students

April: 2: West Chester University students ask Barack Obama about the Rev. Wright controversy and how that's affected his faith, student aid, testing in schools and stem cell research.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23924619#23924619

Obama gets personal

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:48:37 EDT

Obama gets personal

April: 2: Sen. Barack Obama answers questions about his background, race in the race, how he quit smoking, and what he learned about America through his campaign.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23925015#23925015

Obama on how to get out of Iraq

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:47:43 EDT

Obama on how to get out of Iraq

April 2: Sen. Barack Obama explains the differences between himself and Sen. Clinton on an exit strategy for Iraq. He says he's tough enough and will stick to his guns on changing policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23924547#23924547

Obama on civil unions and education

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:46:44 EDT

Obama on civil unions and education

April 2: Barack Obama answers question about gay marriage and civil unions, improving inner city school systems and the Pennsylvania primary.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23925151#23925151

Pa. Jews for Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:58:59 EDT

Pa. Jews for Obama

Hillary Clinton commands the support of the highest-profile Jewish politicians and fund-raisers in Pennsylvania (more to come on that later in the week). But Barack Obama’s biggest Jewish backers in the state have issued a letter explaining why they like their guy:

March 31, 2008

Dear Friend:

We are writing as American Jews from all across Pennsylvania to ask that you join us in supporting Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Much has been said and many questions have been raised within the Jewish community in recent weeks about Senator Obama’s sensitivity to our community and his record on Israel. Unfortunately, much of the discourse has been based more on politics and positioning and less on facts and fair-minded analysis. We are writing to set the record straight and tell you why we intend to vote for Barack Obama.

Each of us – us members of the Jewish community – takes great pride in our commitment to Judaism. For us, the strategy of assigning guilt by association – as has been to done to Senator Obama – runs counter to our teachings and dishonors Jewish law and ethical traditions. Jewish law neither condemns thoughts nor does it denounce the musing of other’s hearts. By contrast, under Jewish law, we – all of us – are judged by our actions and our actions alone.

Senator Obama has earned our respect and gratitude because of his support for traditional Jewish values and his commitment to a peaceful and prosperous Israel. His support for Tikkun Olam – “repairing the world” – and social justice is evident through his accomplishments in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. Without exception, Senator Obama has voted 100% consistently with the position of AIPAC on foreign aid and all other legislation and resolutions affecting Israel. These are the kind of actions for which we are grateful as a community. And, these are facts. For a more in depth look at the Senator’s strong record on issues that matter to our community, please click here.

Earlier this month, responding to withering criticism of the pastor of his church, Senator Obama delivered a courageous and powerful speech that demonstrated his unique ability to talk frankly about the continuing racial tension in our country. His speech itself will not lead to racial reconciliation or a complete understanding of our different religious and cultural traditions, but it has opened a new door for Americans of all backgrounds to begin speaking openly with one another. It is a speech that will serve as a teaching tool for all our citizens and will surely serve the interests of the Jewish community. In trying to place the speech in historical context, The New York Times editorialized that the “Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion…”

While we are profoundly disturbed by the unpatriotic, bigoted and anti-Semitic comments of the retired pastor of Senator Obama’s church, we are moved that Barack stood up at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia earlier this month, and “condemned in unequivocal terms the statements of Reverend Wright” and expressed his own views on issues near and dear to the heart and soul of the Jewish community.

Specifically, in repudiating the remarks of his former pastor, Senator Obama said Reverend Wright “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country…a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.”

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, a great rabbinic scholar of the 20th century, was known equally for his theological scholarship and as well as for having marched alongside the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights movement.

Heschel once recalled that when marching in Selma, he was confronted by a host of people who were filled with hate and ignorance. They jeered at the Rabbi who afterwards declared to his fellow Jews: “When I marched in Selma, my feet were praying.” Later, Heschel would recount that while he had always found comfort in his Siddur, his prayer book, it was in Selma where he learned to pray with his feet as well.

We have each chosen to pray with our feet and stand with Barack Obama because he is sensitive to the issues of the Jewish community and a stalwart supporter of Israel.

We respectfully ask that you stand with Senator Barack Obama and vote for him on April 22.

The Honorable Josh Shapiro
Deputy Speaker, Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Abington, PA

The Honorable Daylin Leach
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
Ardmore, PA

Rabbi Robyn Frisch
Rydal, PA

Rabbi Seth Frisch
Rydal, PA

Rabbi Nancy Fuchs-Kreimer
Philadelphia, PA

Rabbi Jonathan H. Gerard
Easton, PA

Rabbi David A. Teutsch
Philadelphia, PA

Rabbi Joshua Waxman
Fort Washington, PA

Robert S. Adelson
Merion, PA

David Ainsman
Pittsburgh, PA

Meryl Ainsman
Pittsburgh, PA

Mark Alderman
Bryn Mawr, PA

Marian Allen
Pittsburgh, PA

Tom Allen
Pittsburgh, PA

Irl Barg
Chester County, PA

Henri J. Barkey
International Relations Dept., Lehigh University
Allentown, PA

Dr. Steve Barrer
Abington, PA

Daniel Berger, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA

Todd W. Bernstein
Philadelphia, PA

James D. Bloom
Muhlenberg College
Allentown, PA

Peter Buttenwieser
Philadelphia, PA

Daniel Clearfield
Harrisburg, PA

Carl Cohen
Pittsburgh, PA

Dan Cohen,
Pittsburgh, PA

Hillary Cohen
Pittsburgh, PA

Marcia Cooper
Pittsburgh, PA

Mickie Diamond
Pittsburgh, PA

David Ehrenwerth
Pittsburgh, PA

Judy Ehrenwerth
Pittsburgh, PA

Justin Ehrenwerth
Pittsburgh, PA

Bradley T. Forman
Harrisburg, PA

Sue Friedberg
Pittsburgh, PA

Aaron J. Friewald, Esq.
Wynnewood, PA

Jeffrey Frutkin
Spring House, PA

Serena Fujita
Bucknell University
Lewisburg PA

Bernard Gerber,
Berks County, PA

Susan Golomb
Pittsburgh, PA

Stephen M. Goodman
Philadelphia, PA

Mahnaz Harrison
Pittsburgh, PA

Ross Harrison
Pittsburgh, PA

Rick Horowitz
Wynnewood, PA

Ruth Horowitz
Wynnewood, PA

Eve Klothen, Esq.
Swarthmore, PA

Joseph Kohn, Esq.
Devon, PA

Dean Kross, M.D.
Pittsburgh, PA

David Landau
Wallingford, PA

Clifford Levine, Esq.
Pittsburgh, PA

Rosanne M. Levine
Pittsburgh, PA

Daniel E. Loeb
Publisher, Philadelphia Jewish Voice
Philadelphia, PA

Cathy Lewis Long
Pittsburgh, PA

Andrea M. Lowenstein
Pittsburgh, PA

Michael E. Lowenstein
Pittsburgh, PA

Jules Mermelstein
Township Commissioner
Upper Dublin, PA

Morey Myers, Esq.
Scranton PA

Sondra Myers
Scranton, PA

Jacob Naveh
Pittsburgh, PA

Todd Reidbord
Pittsburgh, PA

Stephan Rosenfeld
Jenkintown, PA

Jeff Shell
Philadelphia, PA

Laura Shell
Penn Valley, PA

Stephanie Shell
Ardmore, PA

Carl Shuman,
Harrisburg, PA

Alan Siger
Pittsburgh, PA

Patricia Siger
Pittsburgh, PA

Prof. Lawrence Silberstein
Director, Berman Center for Jewish Studies, Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA

Larry Silverman
Pittsburgh, PA

Roger Simon
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA

Jill Stein
Villanova, PA

Lem Tarshis
Blue Bell, PA

Jill Zipin
Philadelphia, PA

http://elections.jta.org/2008/04/01/pa-jews-for-obama/

Progressives for Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:38:36 EDT

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/hayden_et_al
Progressives for Obama

by TOM HAYDEN, BILL FLETCHER JR., DANNY GLOVER & BARBARA EHRENREICH

[posted online on March 24, 2008]

All American progressives should unite for Barack Obama. We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country. We believe that the movement today supporting Barack Obama continues this great tradition of grassroots participation, drawing millions of people out of apathy and into participation in the decisions that affect all our lives. We believe that Barack Obama's very biography reflects the positive potential of the globalization process that also contains such grave threats to our democracy when shaped only by the narrow interests of private corporations in an unregulated global marketplace. We should instead be globalizing the values of equality, a living wage and environmental sustainability in the new world order, not hoping our deepest concerns will be protected by trickle-down economics or charitable billionaires. By its very existence, the Obama campaign will stimulate a vision of globalization from below.

As progressives, we believe this sudden and unexpected new movement is just what America needs. The future has arrived. The alternative would mean a return to the dismal status quo party politics that has failed so far to deliver peace, healthcare, full employment and effective answers to crises like global warming.

During past progressive peaks in our political history--the late thirties, the early sixties--social movements have provided the relentless pressure and innovative ideas that allowed centrist leaders to embrace visionary solutions. We find ourselves in just such a situation today.

We intend to join and engage with our brothers and sisters in the vast rainbow of social movements to come together in support of Obama's unprecedented campaign and candidacy. Even though it is candidate-centered, there is no doubt that the campaign is a social movement, one greater than the candidate himself ever imagined.

Progressives can make a difference in close primary races like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Oregon and Puerto Rico and in the November general election. We can contribute our dollars. We have the proven online capacity to reach millions of swing voters in the primary and general election. We can and will defend Obama against negative attacks from any quarter. We will seek Green support against the claim of some that there are no real differences between Obama and McCain. We will criticize any efforts by Democratic superdelegates to suppress the winner of the popular and delegate votes, or to legitimize the flawed elections in Michigan and Florida. We will make our agenda known at the Democratic National Convention and fight for a platform emphasizing progressive priorities as the path to victory.

Obama's March 18 speech on racism was as great a speech as ever given by a presidential candidate, revealing a philosophical depth, personal authenticity, and political intelligence that should convince any but the hardest of ideologues that he carries unmatched leadership potentials for overcoming the divide-and-conquer tactics that have sundered Americans since the first slaves arrived here in chains.

Only words? What words they were.

However, the fact that Barack Obama openly defines himself as a centrist invites the formation of this progressive force within his coalition. Anything less could allow his eventual drift towards the right as the general election approaches. It was the industrial strikes and radical organizers in the 1930s who pushed Roosevelt to support the New Deal. It was the civil rights and student movements that brought about voting rights legislation under Lyndon Johnson and propelled Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy's antiwar campaigns. It was the original Earth Day that led Richard Nixon to sign environmental laws. And it will be the Obama movement that will make it necessary and possible to end the war in Iraq, renew our economy with a populist emphasis, and confront the challenge of global warming.

We should not only keep the pressure on but also connect the issues that Barack Obama has made central to his campaign into an overarching progressive vision.

• The Iraq War must end as rapidly as possible, not in five years.

All our troops must be withdrawn. Diplomacy and trade must replace further military occupation or military escalation into Iran and Pakistan. We should not stop urging Barack Obama to avoid leaving American advisers behind in Iraq in a counterinsurgency quagmire like Afghanistan today or Central America in the 1970s and 1980s. Nor should he simply transfer American combat troops from the quagmire in Iraq to the quagmire in Afghanistan.

• Iraq cannot be separated from our economic crisis.

Iraq is costing trillions of dollars that should be invested in jobs, universal healthcare, education, housing and public works here at home. Our own Gulf Coast requires the attention and funds now spent on Gulf oil.

• Iraq cannot be separated from our energy crisis.

We are spending an unheard-of $100/barrel for oil. We are officially committed to wars over oil supplies far into the future. We instead need a war against global warming and for energy independence from Middle Eastern police states and multinational corporations.

Progressives should support Obama's sixteen-month combat troop withdrawal plan in comparison to Clinton's open-ended one, and demand that both candidates avoid a slide into four more years of low-visibility counterinsurgency.

The Democratic candidates should listen more to the blunt advice of the voters instead of the timid talk of their national security advisers. Two-thirds of American voters, and a much higher percentage of Democrats, oppose this war and favor withdrawal in less than two years, nearly half of them in less than one year. The same percentage believe the war has had a negative effect on life in the United States, while only 15 percent believe the war has been positive. Without this solid peace sentiment, neither Obama nor Clinton would be taking the stands they do today.

Further, the battered and abused people of Iraq favor an American withdrawal by a 70 percent margin.

The American government's arrogant defiance of these strong popular majorities in both America and Iraq should be ended this November by a powerful peace mandate.

The profound transition from the policies of the past will not be easy, and fortunately the Obama campaign is lifted by the fresh wind of change. We seek not only to change the faces in high places, however, but to save our country from slow death by greed, status quo politics and loss of vision. The status quo cannot stand much longer, neither that of politics-as-usual nor that of our security, energy and economic policies. We are stealing from the next generation's future, and living on borrowed time.

The Bush Administration has replaced the cold war with the "war on terrorism," led by the same military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned against. The reality and public fear of terrorism today is no less real than fear of communism and nuclear annihilation a generation ago. But we simply cannot continue multiple military interventions in many Muslim countries without increasing the vast number of violent jihadists against us, bleeding our military and our economy, becoming more dependent on Middle East oil, creating unsavory alliances with police states, shrinking our own civil liberties and putting ourselves at permanent risk of another 9/11 attack.

We need a brave turn towards peace and conflict resolution in the Middle East and the Muslim world. Getting out of Iraq, sponsoring a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians, ending alliances with police states in the Arab world, unilaterally initiating real energy independence and moving the world away from the global warming crises are the steps that must be taken.

Nor can we impose NAFTA-style trade agreements on so many nations that seek only to control their own national resources and economic destinies. We cannot globalize corporate and financial power over democratic values and institutions. Since the Clinton Administration pushed through NAFTA against the Democratic majority in Congress, one Latin American nation after another has elected progressive governments that reject US trade deals and hegemony. We are isolated in Latin America by our cold war and drug war crusades, by the $500 million counterinsurgency in Columbia, support for the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela and the ineffectual blockade of Cuba. We need to return to the Good Neighbor policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, policies that rejected Yankee military intervention and accepted Mexico's right to nationalize its oil in the face of industry opposition. The pursuit of NAFTA-style trade policies inflames our immigration crisis as well, by uprooting countless campesinos who inevitably seek low-wage jobs north of the border in order to survive. We need balanced and democratically approved trade agreements that focus on the needs of workers, consumers and the environment. The Banana Republic is a retail chain, not an American colony protected by the Monroe Doctrine.

We are pleased that Hillary Clinton has been responsive to the tide of voter opinion this year, and we applaud the possibility of at last electing an American woman President. But progressives should be disturbed by her duplicitous positions on Iraq and NAFTA. She still denies that her 2002 vote for legislation that was called the war authorization bill was a vote for war authorization. She now promises to "end the war" but will not set a timeline for combat troop withdrawal, and remains committed to leaving tens of thousands of counter-terrorism troops and trainers in Iraq amidst a sectarian conflict. While Obama needs to clarify his own position on counterinsurgency, Clinton's "end the war" rhetoric conceals an open commitment to keep American troops in Iraq until all our ill-defined enemies are defeated--a treadmill that guarantees only the spawning of more enemies. On NAFTA, she claims to have opposed the trade deal behind closed doors when she was first lady. But the public record, and documents recently disclosed in response to litigation, prove that she was a cheerleader for NAFTA against the strong opposition of rank-and-file Democrats. The Clintons ushered in the Wall Street Democrats whose deregulation ethos has widened inequality while leaving millions of Americans without their rightful protections against market shocks.

Clinton's most bizarre claim is that Obama is unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Clinton herself never served in the military, and has no experience in the armed services apart from the Senate armed services committee. Her husband had no military experience before becoming President. In fact, he was a draft opponent during Vietnam, a stance we respected. She was the first lady, and he the governor, of one of our smallest states. They brought no more experience, and arguably less, to the White House than Obama would in 2009.

We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman President, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleezza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American President. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons' attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment.

We did not foresee the exciting social movement that is the Obama campaign. Many of us supported other candidates, or waited skeptically as weeks and months passed. But the closeness of the race makes it imperative that everyone on the sidelines, everyone in doubt, everyone vascillating, everyone fearing betrayals and the blasting of hope, everyone quarreling over political correctness, must join this fight to the finish. Not since Robert Kennedy's 1968 campaign has there been a passion to imagine the world anew like the passion and unprecedented numbers of people mobilized in this campaign. For more information, go to progressivesforobama.blogspot.com.

--
Rejoignez le forum MONDE-HISTOIRE-CULTURE GENERALE
http://vuesdumonde.forumactif.com/
Défendez une juste cause
http://tirailleursafricains.blogspot.com/
OPERA AGENDA EST.
LA CONNAISSANCE NE VAUT QUE SI ELLE EST PARTAGEE

Story behind the story: The Clinton myth

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:59:33 EDT

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.
Story Behind the Story

Why news gets covered the way it does

Politico’s top editors draw on their experience at the nation's largest news organizations to pull back the curtain on coverage decisions and the media mindset.

    * Obama's pastor: The backstory
    * How the sausage gets made
    * Why reporters get it wrong

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

One reason is fear of embarrassment. In its zeal to avoid predictive reporting of the sort that embarrassed journalists in New Hampshire, the media — including Politico — have tended to avoid zeroing in on the tough math Clinton faces.

Avoiding predictions based on polls even before voters cast their ballots is wise policy. But that's not the same as drawing sober and well-grounded conclusions about the current state of a race after millions of voters have registered their preferences.

The antidote to last winter's flawed predictions is not to promote a misleading narrative based on the desired but unlikely story line of one candidate.

There are other forces also working to preserve the notion of a contest that is still up for grabs.

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

The media are also enamored of the almost mystical ability of the Clintons to work their way out of tight jams, as they have done for 16 years at the national level. That explains why some reporters are inclined to believe the Clinton campaign when it talks about how she’s going to win on the third ballot at the Democratic National Convention in August.

That’s certainly possible — and, to be clear, we’d love to see the race last that long — but it’s folly to write about this as if it is likely.

It’s also hard to overstate the role the talented Clinton camp plays in shaping the campaign narrative, first by subtly lowering the bar for the performance necessary to remain in the race, and then by keeping the focus on Obama’s relationships with a political fixer and a controversial pastor in Illinois.

But even some of Clinton’s own advisers now concede that she cannot win unless Obama is hit by a political meteor. Something that merely undermines him won't be enough. It would have to be some development that essentially disqualifies him.

Simple number-crunching has shown the long odds against Clinton for some time.

In the latest Associated Press delegate count, Obama leads with 1,406 pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,249. Obama’s lead is likely to grow, as it did with county conventions last weekend in Iowa, as later rounds of delegates are apportioned from caucuses he has already won.

The Democratic Party has 794 superdelegates, the party insiders who get to vote on the nomination in addition to the delegates chosen by voters. According to Politico's latest tally, Clinton has 250 and Obama has 212. That means 261 are uncommitted, and 71 have yet to be named.

An analysis by Politico's Avi Zenilman shows that Clinton’s lead in superdelegates has shrunk by about 60 in the past month. And it found Clinton is roughly tied among House members, senators and governors — the party’s most powerful elite.

Clinton had not announced a new superdelegate commitment since the March 4 primaries, until the drought was broken recently by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and West Virginia committeeman Pat Maroney.

Clintonistas continue to talk tough. Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign’s deputy communications director, told reporters on a conference call Friday that the Obama campaign “is in hot water” and is “seeing the ground shift away from them.”

Mark Penn, the campaign’s chief strategist, maintained that it’s still “a hard-fought race between two potential nominees” and that other factors could come into play at the convention besides the latest delegate tally — “the popular vote, who will have won more delegates from primaries [as opposed to caucuses], who will be the stronger candidate against McCain.”

But let’s assume a best-case scenario for Clinton, one where she wins every remaining contest with 60 percent of the vote (an unlikely outcome since she has hit that level in only three states so far — her home state of New York, Rhode Island and Arkansas).

Even then, she would still be behind Obama in delegates.

There are 566 pledged delegates up for grabs in upcoming contests. Those delegates come from Pennsylvania (158), Guam (4) North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), West Virginia (28), Kentucky (51), Oregon (52), Puerto Rico (55), Montana (16) and South Dakota (15).

If Clinton won 60 percent of those delegates, she would get 340 delegates to Obama's 226. Under that scenario — and without revotes in Michigan and Florida — Obama would still lead in delegates by 1,632 to 1,589.

The only remote possibility of a win in delegates would come if revotes were held in Florida and Michigan — which, again, would take a political miracle. If Clinton won 60 percent of the delegates in both states, she would win 188 delegates and Obama would win 125. Clinton would then lead among pledged delegates, 1,777 to 1,757.

The other elephant in the room for Clinton is that Obama is almost certain to win North Carolina, with its high percentage of African-American voters, and also is seen as extremely strong in Oregon.

Harold Ickes, an icon of the Democratic Party who is Clinton’s chief delegate strategist, points out that every previous forecast about this race has been faulty.

Asked about the Obama campaign’s contention that it’s mathematically impossible for Clinton to win, Ickes replied: “They can’t count. At the end of it, even by the Obama campaign’s prediction, neither candidate will have enough delegates to be nominated.”

This is true, as a matter of math. But even the Clinton campaign’s own best-case scenario has her finishing behind Obama when all the nominating contests are over.

“She will be close to him but certainly not equal to him in pledged delegates,” a Clinton adviser said. “When you add the superdelegates on top of it, I’ll think she’ll still be behind him somewhat in total delegates — but very, very close.”

The total gap is likely to be 75 to 110, the adviser said.

That means Clinton would need either some of those pledged delegates to switch their support — which technically they can do, though it would be unlikely — or for the white-dominated group of superdelegates to join forces with her to topple Obama.

To foster doubt about Obama, Clinton supporters are using a whisper and pressure campaign to make an 11th-hour argument to party insiders that he would be a weak candidate in November despite his superior standing at the moment.

“All she has left is the electability argument,” a Democratic official said. "It’s all wrapped around: Is there something that makes him ultimately unelectable?”

But the audience for that argument, the superdelegates, will not easily overturn the will of the party’s voters. And in fact, a number of heavyweight Democrats are looking at the landscape and laying the groundwork to dissuade Clinton from trying to overturn the will of the party rank and file.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has not endorsed either candidate, appears to be among them. She told Bloomberg Television that superdelegates should "respect for what has been said by the people.” And she told ABC’s “This Week” that it would be “harmful to the Democratic Party” if superdelegates overturn the outcome of elections.

A Democratic strategist said that given the unlikelihood of prevailing any other way, Clinton now must “scare” superdelegates “who basically just want to win.”

The strategist said Clinton aides are now relying heavily on the controversy over Obama’s retiring minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, to sow new seeds of doubt.

“This issue is the first thing that’s come along that I think is potentially fatal to his electability argument,” the strategist said.

“They’re looking ahead and saying: Is it possible this thing is just going to drip, drip, drip, drip — more video? Where does that leave us if he’s our presumptive nominee and he’s limping into the convention and the Republicans are just read to go on him, double-barreled?”

The strategist also said Clinton’s agents are making more subtle pitches.

“I’ve heard people start to say: Have you looked at the vote in Ohio really carefully? See how that breaks down for him. What does that portend?” said the strategist. “Then they point to Pennsylvania: In electorally important battleground states, if he is essentially only carrying heavy African-American turnout in high-performing African-American districts and the Starbucks-sipping, Volvo-driving liberal elite, how does he carry a state like Pennsylvania?”

Her advisers say privately that the nominee will be clear by the end of June. At the same time, they recognize that the nominee probably is clear already.

What has to irk Clintons’ aides is that they felt she might finally have him on the ropes, bruised badly by the Wright fight and wobbly in polls. But the bell rang long ago in the minds of too many voters.

Avi Zenilman contributed to this report.

Can Clinton win popular vote, superdelegates?

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:54:45 EDT

Can Clinton win popular vote, superdelegates?
By: Ben Smith
March 21, 2008 10:49 AM EST

The apparent collapse of planned new votes in Florida and Michigan could push victory on a key symbolic measure — the primary season popular vote — beyond Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s grasp.

Clinton’s top supporters, including her husband, have suggested in recent days that amassing more votes than Sen. Barack Obama, while it has no formal meaning, could offer a key rationale for laying claim to the nomination. The theory: Winning the popular vote might give party leaders known as superdelegates a reason to take the nomination away from Obama, who is virtually sure to earn more pledged delegates.

"If Sen. Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can't quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself, 'Which is more important, and who is more likely to win in November?'” former President Bill Clinton told ABC earlier this week.

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a key Clinton ally, painted the same path to victory.
See Also

    * McCain moves toward public financing
    * Reynolds' departure leaves GOP reeling
    * McCain aide suspended for Obama vid

"Let's assume that Sen. Clinton goes ahead in the popular vote count," he said in a March 13 conference call with reporters. He then asked, “Which is more Democratic”: the measure of delegates won or of votes received.

But it’s assuming a lot to give Clinton anything but the slimmest of chances to lead in the popular vote. It’s impossible to project turnout in the 10 states and territories left to vote, but Clinton will have to close a deficit of more than 700,000 votes. That means, even with extremely high turnout estimates, she would have to win by huge, double-digit percentages in the states where she could have an edge — Pennsylvania and West Virginia — while holding Obama to tiny gains in states such as North Carolina and Oregon, where he is heavily favored.

Without those blowouts, many influential Democrats contend, she will find it hard to convince superdelegates of a legitimate victory.

“It would be a particularly poisonous Pyhrric victory if she gets the nomination after losing the delegate count and the popular vote,” said Dan Gerstein, a political consultant who said he supports Obama. “Many Democrats would see the result as illegitimate, particularly in the black community. As such, it could cause a real rupture in the party that would not just threaten Hillary's chances in November but could lead to lasting bitterness and even a full-on rebellion after the campaign is over.”

Obama currently leads by 703,523 votes by the clearest count on the site RealClearPolitics, which excludes the uncontested contests in Florida and Michigan, and also the results of four caucuses that didn’t report participant numbers.

The margins in Florida, where both were on the ballot, and Michigan, where Clinton faced off against “uncommitted,” are a mark of how much Clinton loses by missing out on mutually accepted, contested elections in those states. Her margin in Florida was 294,772; in Michigan, where Obama was not on the ballot, she won by a margin of 90,141 over “uncommitted.”

But with the prospect of new votes in Florida and Michigan now dim, Clinton is stuck trying to squeeze more than 700,000 votes out of just 10 states and territories. And interviews with close watchers of Democratic politics in the largest of those states suggest that Clinton will find it extremely hard to make up that ground.

In Pennsylvania, for instance, more than 1.2 million Democrats turned out for the last contested Democratic primary, the 2002 governor’s race. Given the higher interest, Democratic operatives there — who declined to be quoted speculating — said they could imagine the vote getting as high as 2 million.

Under that, highly optimistic scenario, an unprecedented blowout for Clinton — a margin of 20 percent, for instance — would give her 400,000 more votes in the state, and still leave her with more than 300,000 to make up.

And few Pennsylvania Democrats actually expect such a result, despite Clinton’s lead in many state polls. Clinton’s convincing victory in Ohio, for instance — a whiter, more conservative state — was by a margin of 10 percent.

“It should be a 10-point, eight-point race,” said Saul Shorr, a veteran Democratic consultant based in Philadelphia, who suggested polls could be underestimating the share of African-American voters in the race. Obama is also conducting his own voter registration drive.

The second biggest state, North Carolina, reveals one of the key underlying obstacles for Clinton: Obama’s solid base of African-American voters offers him a base beneath which he’s unlikely to fall.

“You look at areas across the state, and there are pockets of African-American voters in almost every city. It will set up an absolute floor for [Obama],” said Morgan Jackson, a North Carolina Democratic consultant.

Jackson estimated that 700,000 would be extremely high turnout for the state (the last competitive primary included about 550,000 Democrats). That would give Clinton, even if she managed an unexpected win, little hope of chipping away at Obama’s current margin.

And if turnout is higher, that likely means bad news for the former first lady. “Anything more than 700,000 — it may be a huge Obama wave,” said Jackson.

The next big state is Indiana. There, Democratic officials estimate that turnout, on the high end, could touch 1 million.

“Three quarters of a million to a million votes would be very, very high,” said Jennifer Wagner, the communications director for the state Democratic Party.

Highly optimistic estimates for those three big states put fewer than 4 million votes up for grabs. The remaining seven contests will produce far fewer votes and include the small numbers of Democrats expected in Guam, South Dakota and Montana.

Clinton’s strongholds are thought to be Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, where turnout estimates weren’t immediately available. In the largest state, Kentucky, about 713,000 voted for John F. Kerry in 2004 — a number far higher than could be expected to vote in any primary. In West Virginia, 327,000 people voted for Kerry. Obama’s remaining stronghold is Oregon, where Mark Wiener, a veteran Democratic consultant, estimated that some 550,000 might vote in an extremely high-turnout election, a little more than half the number that voted for Kerry.

A high, rough estimate of all the remaining states then would leave between 5 million and 6 million popular votes on the table.

For Clinton to pick up her lead in the popular vote with 6 million ballots cast, she’d need a 12 percent margin across the states — that’s a 56 percent to 44 percent average win. With 5 million ballots, she would need a 14 percent margin — that’s a 57 percent to 43 percent overall victory, including expected defeats in states counting for well over 1 million votes.

Removing North Carolina and Oregon from the list, Clinton’s wins would likely have to tally well over 60 percent of the vote.

So far, however, Clinton has broken 56 percent in just four states, including her home state of New York. Her two best states have been Rhode Island, where she topped 58 percent, and Arkansas, where she won more than 70 percent of the votes.

Now her path to victory seems to depend on all her future wins going the way of Arkansas.

Avi Zenilman contributed to this story.

Richardson endorsement does matter

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 02:51:31 EDT

Richardson endorsement does matter
By: Gebe Martinez
March 21, 2008 05:56 PM EST

It is easy to see why New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation’s only Hispanic governor and recent presidential candidate, endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Richardson, like Obama, knows what it means to be treated differently for looking different.

So when Obama delivered this week's blunt, personal assessment of the state of race relations in the United States — in which he noted, “We may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction” — Richardson decided it was time to go public with his choice for president.

Obama, Richardson said, “is something special that the country needs right now.”

But as Richardson put his arm around Obama at a rally in Oregon, the Clinton campaign dismissed the endorsement as one whose value had passed. After all, 95 percent of the Hispanic electorate already has voted in this year’s primaries, and most of them went for Clinton.

The Clinton campaign ignored the fact that they, too, had eagerly sought the backing of the governor: a former congressman, diplomat and member of President Bill Clinton’s Cabinet.

If Richardson is viewed only as a Hispanic leader, then the Clinton campaign is correct in assessing that the governor’s influence in most of the remaining primary states is limited, because the number of Latino voters in those states is smaller.

But this endorsement requires a much broader view to see why it matters now, as well as for the November election if Obama wins the Democratic nomination.

First, Richardson is a big name among superdelegates, who may have to decide the almost-tied nomination fight. He has given the Obama campaign a morale boost, especially during a time when the Illinois senator has been dogged by controversy over the racially charged sermons of his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

To those Obama supporters who might have become skittish because Wright’s angry words undermined Obama’s optimistic message of “hope,” Richardson tried to offer reassurances about the candidate’s character. Obama could have given a “safe speech” but instead spoke directly to the issue, Richardson noted.

Second, by turning away from his friendship with former President Clinton, and against Sen. Clinton’s close victory in the New Mexico caucuses, Richardson signaled to other “superdelegates” that they can choose whomever they wish.

The Clinton campaign has been pressuring Obama’s “superdelegates” who come from areas won by the New York senator — such as House members from California and Texas — to follow the will of their voters.

Third, Richardson, who focused much of his campaign on national security issues, is telling voters that he is assured in how Obama will handle the presidency. Clinton won the Texas primary earlier this month partly by using a dark television ad that claimed she was the only one qualified to answer the national security “phone call” in the middle of the night.

During his own presidential bid, the governor argued his experience outweighed Clinton’s and that he could be the “change” agent that Obama was claiming. Now, Richardson says there were other overriding considerations.

“As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation,” Richardson said.

The Clinton campaign argues that the Richardson endorsement would have been more valuable earlier in the primary season, before large numbers of Hispanics voted in Super Tuesday states such as New Mexico or in the Texas primary.

“The time when he could have been most effective has long since passed,” said Clinton campaign strategist Mark Penn. “I don’t think it’s a significant endorsement at this point in time.”

Sergio Bendixen, the Florida pollster who has run Clinton’s campaign with Hispanic voters, added that while Puerto Rico has yet to vote — and there are small groups of Hispanic voters in the upcoming Pennsylvania, Oregon, Indiana and North Carolina primaries — Richardson is not well-known in those areas.

“His areas of influence have been in the Southwest,” Bendixen said. “I don’t think [Richardson’s] endorsement will have any impact.”

The Clinton campaign’s outreach to Hispanics has been so deep that in the year before the caucuses and primaries began, even Richardson had trouble winning support among Hispanics who were confused by his ethnicity because of his last name.

Obama, meanwhile, has been trounced by Clinton among Hispanic voters in major states. Obama barely won a majority of the Hispanic vote in his home state of Illinois, and he also won the Hispanic vote in Connecticut and Virginia.

Clearly, if Obama wins the nomination, Richardson’s bilingual and bicultural appeal will be most useful heading into the November election, when Hispanic voters are expected to be the deciding vote in major battleground states, including Richardson’s home territory of New Mexico. Richardson can tell Hispanics that Obama also understands what it is like to look different or come from somewhere else.

In the meantime, Richardson offers proof of one more point. The Hispanic vote matters, as Latinos will make up at least one out of every 10 people casting ballots in November. It could be even higher given the larger-than-expected Hispanic voter performance in the primary season.

Gebe Martinez is a longtime journalist in Washington and a frequent lecturer and commentator on the policy and politics of Capitol Hill.

First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:47:23 EDT

March 22, 2008 First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JEFF ZELENY

PORTLAND, Ore. — “I talked to Senator Clinton last night,” Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on Friday, describing the tense telephone call in which he informed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that, despite two months of personal entreaties by her and her husband, he would be endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations,” Mr. Richardson said.

The decision by Mr. Richardson, who ended his own presidential campaign on Jan. 10, to support Mr. Obama was a belt of bad news for Mrs. Clinton. It was a stinging rejection of her candidacy by a man who had served in two senior positions in President Bill Clinton’s administration, and who is one of the nation’s most prominent elected Hispanics. Mr. Richardson came back from vacation to announce his endorsement at a moment when Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of winning the Democratic nomination seem to be dimming.

But potentially more troublesome for Mrs. Clinton was what Mr. Richardson said in announcing his decision. He criticized the tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. He praised Mr. Obama for the speech he gave in response to the furor over racially incendiary remarks delivered by Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And he came close to doing what Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have increasingly feared some big-name Democrat would do as the battle for the nomination drags on: Urge Mrs. Clinton to step aside in the interest of party unity.

“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”

In many ways, the decision by Mr. Richardson, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, was as much a tale about his relationship with them as it was about the course of Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Mr. Clinton had told his wife’s campaign that he had received several assurances from Mr. Richardson that he would not endorse Mr. Obama. One adviser who spoke to Mr. Clinton on Friday said that the former president was surprised by the Richardson endorsement, but described Mr. Clinton as more philosophical than angry about it.

Mr. Richardson looked anguished when asked in an interview if his relationship with the Clintons would withstand endorsing Mr. Obama. In doing so, Mr. Richardson was not only taking sides in the most bitter of political fights, but rejecting the candidacy of a close friend.

“There’s something special about this guy,” Mr. Richardson said of Mr. Obama. “I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.”

Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.

But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.

“It was cordial, but a little heated,” Mr. Richardson said in an interview.

Mrs. Clinton had no public schedule on Friday, and spent the day at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, played down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.”

Mr. Richardson called Mr. Obama about two weeks ago to tell him that he was “99 percent with him,” Mr. Obama’s aides said. The announcement was delayed because Mr. Richardson had been scheduled to go on vacation in the Caribbean. Even though Mr. Richardson had promised Mr. Obama that his mind was made up, Mr. Obama’s aides said they grew worried that the furor over the racially inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s former pastor might lead Mr. Richardson to reconsider.

But Mr. Richardson, who had sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president, pointed specifically to the speech that Mr. Obama gave in Philadelphia on Tuesday in explaining why he endorsed him.

“Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him,” he said. “He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.”

He added: “Senator Obama could have given a safer speech. He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party’s nomination.”

Mr. Richardson said he was dispirited by the tone of the Democratic nominating fight, reflecting a sentiment that has been increasingly voiced by party leaders. Unlike many others, though, Mr. Richardson placed the blame on Mrs. Clinton.

“I believe the campaign has gotten too negative,” Mr. Richardson said, speaking to reporters in Portland. “I want it to be positive. I think that’s what’s been very good about Senator Obama’s campaign — it’s a positive campaign about hope and opportunity.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson appeared together on stage of the Memorial Coliseum in Portland on Friday morning. Mr. Richardson was still wearing the beard that he grew during what he called a period of decompression after leaving the presidential race.

On their own, endorsements in contests like this — with two such well-known candidates — do not necessarily move votes. Mr. Obama won a boost of publicity after he was endorsed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; Mrs. Clinton, however, then won the state’s primary.

But the audience now is less primary voters than superdelegates — uncommitted elected Democrats and party leaders — whose votes will be critical in helping Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama get the 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination.

Mr. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton’s column since then.

The move by Mr. Richardson could give license to other superdelegates who had been holding back, at the request of the Clintons. His endorsement could prove particularly potent with this group because of the way he chastised Mrs. Clinton for the tone of the campaign, and his call for the party to unify around one candidate.

It also came at a moment of vulnerability for Mr. Obama, in which he was dealing with questions about his former pastor. Mr. Richardson’s decision to step out was a signal to primary voters and superdelegates that he did not believe Mr. Obama had been hurt politically by these events — or at least that he was willing to use whatever influence he has in the party to limit the damage.

At this point, the number of Democrats whose endorsements could shake the race is down to Al Gore, the former vice president and presidential nominee; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who dropped out of the race last month; and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker. Aides to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gore said that they did not expect either man to endorse anyone in the immediate future, if at all. Aides to Ms. Pelosi said she was unlikely to endorse at all.

Adam Nagourney reported from Washington, and Jeff Zeleny from Portland, Ore. Pat Healy contributed reporting from New York.

Richardson’s Endorsement of Obama: the Text

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 01:46:09 EDT

March 21, 2008 Text Richardson’s Endorsement of Obama

The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Governor Bill Richardson's speech endorsing Senator Barack Obama in Oregon.

My friends,

Earlier this week, an extraordinary American gave a historic speech.

Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him.

He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths.

Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.

Senator Obama could have given a safer speech.

He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party's nomination.

He could have just waited for the controversy over the deplorable remarks of Reverend Wright to subside, as it surely would have.

Instead, Senator Obama showed us once again what kind of leader he is.

He spoke to us as adults.

He asked us to ponder the weight of our racially-divided past, to rise above it, and to seize the opportunity to carry forward the work of many patriots of all races, who struggled and died to bring us together.

Senator Obama reminded us that cynicism is not realism, and that hope is not folly.

He called upon us not just to dream about a less racially-divided America, but also to do the hard work needed to build such an America.

He asked every American to see the reality and the pain of other Americans, so that together we can rise above that which has divided us.

He appealed to the best in us.

As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words.

I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country.

Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result and now, in tough economic times, people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences—and place blame on others not like them.

We all know the real culprit -- the disastrous economic policies of the Bush Administration!

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race.

He understands clearly that only by bringing people together, only by bridging our differences can we all succeed together as Americans.

His words are those of a courageous, thoughtful and inspiring leader, who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And, after 8 years of George W. Bush, we will desperately need such a leader.

Our national security and our global standing have been gravely damaged by the divisive partisanship of recent years.

We need a President who can bring us together as a nation so that we can face urgent global challenges and repair the damage done in the last 7 years.

Barack Obama will make the historic and vital investments into renewable energy, to help create clean energy jobs and fight global warming.

Barack knows that the safety and future of every American child requires that we restore our shared sense of national purpose, so that we can then set about the hard work of rebuilding our alliances and rehabilitating our image in a dangerous world.

By uniting our nation, we can reverse America's global decline.

We need a realistic, principled, and bipartisan foreign policy again.

We must restore our international reputation, our influence and our capacity to lead others.

America must become the beacon for the world again.

We need a foreign policy based upon American ideals, and not upon the mere ideology of a President.

A foreign policy of diplomacy and respect for international human rights.

We prospered and prevailed in the Cold War because both our friends and our enemies knew that containment of the Soviet Union and the promotion of democratic values was not a Democratic or a Republican policy – it was an American policy--the very essence of what America was.

Senator Obama understands the importance of realism, principle, and bipartisanship in foreign policy.

He opposed the Iraq war from the beginning because he knew that, despite what the Administration claimed, this war would not be easy.

He also opposed the war because he saw President Bush's rush to employ military force, and to do so without the support of most of our allies, as dangerous and unwarranted.

And he saw the war also for what it so quickly became – a terrible source of partisan political division -- and a catastrophic distraction from the war that had united us against the real threat posed by Al Qaeda.

Now, I trust him to do what is so long overdue—End the Iraq war and bring our troops home!!

I know Senator Obama well.

I first got to know him when I chaired the last Democratic National Convention, where he gave that wonderful keynote address.

And then, last year, as we campaigned against each other for the Presidency, I came to fully appreciate his steadfast patriotism and remarkable talents.

I also felt a kinship with him because we both had one foreign-born parent and we both lived abroad as children.

In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's special responsibilities in the world.

Barack Obama, you are an extraordinary leader who has shown courage, sound judgment and wisdom throughout your career.

You understand the security challenges of the 21st century, and you will be an outstanding Commander in Chief.

Above all, you will be a President who brings this nation together and restores American global leadership.

You will make every American proud to be an American, and I am very proud indeed to endorse your candidacy.

Before concluding my remarks, I would like to say that we are blessed to have two great American leaders and great Democrats running for President.

My great affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver.

It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the Fall.

The 1990's were a decade of peace and prosperity because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward.

Barack Obama will be a historic and a great President, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad.

I know that all Democrats will work tirelessly to get him elected.

It is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce to you the next President of the United States, my friend, Barack Obama.

NM Gov. Bill Richardson endorsing Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 03:32:12 EDT

NM Gov. Bill Richardson endorsing Obama

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.

The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor.

Richardson has been relentlessly wooed by Obama and Clinton for his endorsement. As a Democratic superdelegate, the governor plays a part in the tight race for nominating votes and could bring other superdelegates to Obama's side. He also has been mentioned as a potential running mate for either candidate.

No primaries are scheduled until Pennsylvania's on April 22, a gap in time Obama hopes to use for such announcements to assert that he is the front-runner for the nomination.

"I believe he is the kind of once-in-a-lifetime leader that can bring our nation together and restore America's moral leadership in the world," Richardson said in a statement obtained by the AP. "As a presidential candidate, I know full well Sen. Obama's unique moral ability to inspire the American people to confront our urgent challenges at home and abroad in a spirit of bipartisanship and reconciliation."

Richardson's endorsement also could help Obama pick up support among Hispanics, who are the nation's largest and fastest-growing minority.

Clinton has been the favorite of Hispanics in primaries and caucuses, according to exit polls. She won the New Mexico caucus in early February with a nearly 2-to-1 advantage among Hispanics.

Richardson backed Obama despite his ties to Clinton and her husband, the former president. He served as ambassador to the U.N. and as secretary of the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. Last month, Richardson and former President Clinton watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's residence in Santa Fe.

Richardson praised Hillary Clinton as a "distinguished leader with vast experience." But the governor said Obama "will be a historic and great president, who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad."

Richardson was a roving diplomatic troubleshooter when he was a congressman from New Mexico, negotiating the release of U.S. hostages in several countries and meeting with a rogue's gallery of U.S. adversaries, including Saddam Hussein and Fidel Castro.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama has the judgment and courage we need in a commander in chief when our nation's security is on the line. He showed this judgment by opposing the Iraq war from the start, and he has show it during this campaign by standing up for a new era in American leadership internationally," Richardson said.

Obama said he was "deeply honored" to have Richardson's support.

"Whether it's fighting to end the Iraq war or stop the genocide in Darfur or prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, Gov. Richardson has been a powerful voice on issues of global security, peace and justice, earning five Nobel Peace Prize nominations," Obama said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080321/ap_on_el_pr/obama_richardson_2

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama:"A More Perfect Union"

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:24:37 EDT

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama "A More Perfect Union" Constitution Center Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union."

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America's improbable experiment in democracy.

Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation's original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time. And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas.

I've gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It's a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough." We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity: "People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend's voice up into the rafters....And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame about...memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild."

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven't fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today's black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one's family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician's own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change. The profound mistake of Reverend Wright's sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother's keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister's keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

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." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how we'll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta. There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley." "I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

NY Times makes mistake re Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:32:48 EDT

NY Times makes mistake re Obama

March 17: Bill Keller, the managing editor of the New York Times printed a column from William Kristol which said Sen. Barack Obama was present during a controversial sermon by Rev. Wright. But on July 22, Obama was actually in Miami.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23682026#23682026

John Edwards-MSNBC: "Hillary is the Status Quo Candidate"

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:21:11 EDT

John Edwards-MSNBC: "Hillary is the Status Quo Candidate"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kugkNSa9xxo

What is Clinton hiding?

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:48:04 EDT

chicagotribune.com

What is Clinton hiding?

March 16, 2008

In politics, honesty is not always the easiest policy. Barack Obama got a reminder of that when he released a list of "earmark" expenditures he has proposed -- including a $1 million request for the University of Chicago Medical Center, where his wife, Michelle, is a vice president. In his meeting Friday with the Tribune editorial board, Obama indicated that he should have left that item to fellow Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, but he's willing to disclose it and be held accountable.

Hillary Clinton, by contrast, often seems to operate by the maxim that silence is golden. When asked whether she would release a list of her earmarks, her spokesman dodged the question, while declaring that she is "proud of the investments in New York that she has secured." But for now, at least, not proud enough to let voters know what they are.

This exercise in secrecy is part of a Clinton pattern that grows more worrisome all the time. The former first lady often says that she, unlike Obama, has been thoroughly vetted, rendering her impervious to Republican attacks. In fact, there are some important things unknown about her -- and her conduct suggests she wants to keep it that way. Which raises a question for voters: What is she hiding, and why?

There is, for example, the matter of the Clinton tax returns. Obama has released his, but she has stalled on following suit. (John McCain also has balked.) When asked about them in a February debate, she insisted she would make the returns public. But when asked if she would do so before the March 4 primaries, she replied, unconvincingly, "Well, I can't get it together by then, but I will certainly work to get it together. I'm a little busy right now; I hardly have time to sleep."

Clearly this is a sensitive point with Clinton. When Obama pressed the issue recently, her spokesman accused him of "imitating Ken Starr." Never mind that clean-government groups like Common Cause also have called on her to release her returns.

Why are these documents so important? Partly because such basic information is rightly expected of modern presidential candidates. John Kerry released his in 2003, before the primaries even began. Partly because they would reveal details on what her husband is being paid for consulting, and who has paid for his travel.

Disclosure might shed light on Bill Clinton's dealings with the likes of Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra -- whom the former president accompanied on a 2005 trip to Kazakhstan. Giustra landed a major uranium mining deal on the trip, and not long after made a secret $31 million donation to Clinton's charitable foundation.

Bill Clinton has declined to disclose the donors to either his foundation or his presidential library, which makes it hard to know if wealthy individuals may be trying to curry favor with the woman who may be president -- and if so, who they are.

Maybe all the suspicions are unwarranted. But the best way for Hillary Clinton to put them to rest is to let the sun shine in.

Hillary's Adventures Abroad

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:26:56 EDT

Hillary's Adventures Abroad
March 13, 2008
We find some exaggerations in Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience.
Summary
On March 6 Hillary Clinton claimed that, unlike Barack Obama, she and likely Republican nominee John McCain have "cross[ed] the commander-in-chief threshold." In a CNN interview the day before, Clinton had listed five foreign policy accomplishments. We can't determine how much behind-the-scenes work Clinton did while first lady, and she certainly took an active interest in foreign policy when her husband was president. Moreover, her time as first lady plus her longer Senate career do give Clinton more foreign policy experience than Obama. But the public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton's foreign policy claims are exaggerated.

    * Clinton claims to have "negotiated open borders" in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiating.

    * Clinton's activities "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton's actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.

    * Clinton has repeatedly referenced her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia. She fails to mention, however, that the Bosnian war had officially ended three months before her visit – or that she made the trip with her 16-year-old daughter and two entertainers.

    * Both Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that Hillary privately championed the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That conversation left no public record, however, as U.S. policy was explicitly to stay out of Rwanda, and officials say that the use of U.S. troops was never considered.

    * Clinton's tough speech on human rights delivered to a Beijing audience is as advertised, though Clinton herself has been dismissive of speeches that aren't backed by solutions.

Analysis
Over the past two weeks – beginning with that well-known 3 a.m. ad where she calls herself "tested" – Hillary Clinton has been arguing that she has significantly more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic nomination. On her Web site, Clinton cites five specific examples of her foreign policy experience: her assistance in bringing peace to Northern Ireland; her work to help open Macedonia’s borders to Albanian refugees; her trip to the Bosnian war zone to promote U.S. policy; her speech on women’s rights delivered in Beijing; and her public statements on Rwanda. Obama's camp has fired right back with charges that Clinton is exaggerating her foreign policy experience. And when initially pressed to name a "moment" when Clinton was "tested in crisis" her two chief spokespeople responded with an awkward silence.

Officials from Bill Clinton’s administration are largely divided as to the extent and effectiveness of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy role as first lady. For example, Richard Holbrooke, a former assistant secretary of state and ambassador to the U.N., claims that Clinton’s "intense efforts" in Macedonia "contributed to saving many lives." On the other hand, Susan Rice, also an assistant secretary of state during the Clinton administration, argues that Clinton was never asked to do any "heavy lifting" and says that Clinton’s role was more about "gentle prodding or constructive reinforcement." That Holbrooke and Rice would remember Clinton’s role differently is unsurprising: Holbrooke is a foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign, while Rice has the same role with Obama’s campaign.

Indeed, the New York Times recently reported that, as first lady, Clinton did not hold a security clearance nor did she sit in on meetings with the National Security Council. We examined some of the specific examples of Sen. Clinton’s experience and found that most of them are weaker than advertised.

Border Patrol

Photo of Hillary Clinton
    Jemal Countess/Getty Images
In a March 5 interview on CNN, Clinton said that she "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." Clinton is referring to her May 14, 1999, trip to Macedonia, which shares a border with Kosovo. According to her Web site, Clinton "traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone" before meeting with Macedonia’s president and prime minister.

We note, first, that Clinton’s claim that the refugee camp was "on the edge of a war zone" gives an exaggerated picture of the risk involved. Traveling to the Kosovo border was more dangerous than remaining in Washington, and the trip did involve some risk. But Clinton did not land in the middle of an active combat zone, and the risks that she did take were not exceptional: Prior visitors to the refugee camp included Richard Gere and Bianca Jagger. For that matter, much of the "war" in Kosovo consisted of NATO airstrikes against the Yugoslav troops who had forced thousands of ethnic Albanians to flee Kosovo, and the nearest NATO ground troops were deployed in Albania, more than 100 miles away from Clinton.

More significantly, Clinton did not in fact "negotiate on matters such as opening borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo." Macedonia had reopened its border to Kosovar refugees the day before Clinton’s arrival, as has been widely reported. Clinton now says that she pressed for opening the borders "much wider." In a written statement that the Clinton campaign has circulated widely, Holbrooke, the Clinton administration’s chief negotiator on peace in the Balkans, says that there is "no doubt" that Hillary Clinton's actions saved lives.

So how much "pressing" did Clinton actually do? According to her official travel schedule, Clinton was in Macedonia for less than nine hours, nearly half of which she spent touring refugee camps. Clinton was scheduled for photo ops with the prime minister at the residence of the U.S. ambassador at 2:20 p.m. At 2:50 p.m., she had a photo session with Macedonia’s president at his residence, followed by a 3:20 photo op with the first lady. That would leave a total of 30 minutes for negotiations, minus time for photos. Indeed, at the time, the New York Times reported that Clinton’s trip was so scripted that "Administration officials chose which refugees Mrs. Clinton would speak with." News reports on Clinton's own Web site characterize the first lady's visit as "sweeping through Macedonia" offering "publicity" and "aid."

A Proponent of Peace

hillary_clinton_ireland_speech
   ALAN LEWIS/AFP/Getty Images
Clinton has taken an interest in the Northern Ireland peace process, visiting the area seven times between 1995 and 2004 – making five of those trips as first lady. Clinton has said that she "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." Of course, "helped" is a fairly weak claim, one that could be made by nearly anyone who contributed in a way that didn't actively hinder the process. Clinton was not directly involved in the peace negotiations that eventually led to the Good Friday Agreement. Her work focused on encouraging Irish women to take a more active role in the male-dominated peace talks. There is universal agreement that Clinton "helped." The dispute is about how much she helped.

Figures close to the negotiations are split in their assessments. Clinton's campaign has been busy sharing some responses with the press. For example, former Sen. George Mitchell – the lead U.S. negotiator – told the Chicago Tribune that Clinton’s visits were "very helpful" and that her work with women was a "significant factor" in contributing to the success of the process. And in a written statement, John Hume, who shared a Nobel Peace Prize with David Trimble for their work on the Good Friday Agreement, said that Clinton provided "decisive support" for the process. Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams agreed, telling the Irish Times that "Senator Clinton played an important role in the peace process" and praising her as "extremely well informed on the issues."

But not everyone agrees. Trimble, for instance, remembers things differently, saying that Clinton’s role was mainly that of "cheerleader" and not one of "principal player." One of Hume’s aides – perhaps inadvertently showing why the peace process really did need to have more women involved – opined that Clinton was active "in a classic woman politicky sort of way," although he said that Clinton was "certainly investing some time." And an Irish historian who has written extensively about the peace process told the Tribune that Clinton’s work was "nice" but also "ancillary to the main thing."

Key players agree that Clinton was an active behind-the-scenes supporter of the peace process and that she was an important player in getting women involved in the negotiations. Getting parties to the table is a crucial part of any peace process. But we note that many could claim foreign policy credentials for bringing principal figures together, including U2's Bono – who convinced Hume and Trimble to appear together for the first time during the referendum campaign and whose photo with the two Irish politicians has been called "one of the enduring images of the peace process."

Dodging Bullets with Sinbad

Clinton has also touted her March 1996 visit to war-torn Bosnia as evidence of her foreign policy experience, and her campaign has made references to a Washington Post article that described the visit as "the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone." In a December campaign stop, Clinton recounted a harrowing trip, with her aircraft engaging in a tight corkscrew landing to avoid potential sniper fire. As Clinton explained, the unofficial White House policy was, “If it's too dangerous, too small and too poor, send the first lady.”

We can’t speak to what may or may not have happened on the military transport that delivered Clinton to Bosnia. She is right, though, that she visited a potential combat zone. But what she fails to mention is that the Dayton Peace Accords – which officially ended a year-and-a-half of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina – had been signed in December 1995. So by the time of Clinton’s March 1996 visit, the war itself had been over for three months. Indeed, the accords were so successful that by June 1996 Anthony Lake, a member of President Clinton's national security team, could say with confidence that predictions of "renewed fighting" in Bosnia had turned out to be unfounded. Clinton also correctly quotes the Post. But she leaves out the part of the article that discusses Pat Nixon's visit to a Saigon field hospital in 1969 and Barbara Bush's Thanksgiving celebration with American troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm.

Moreover, Clinton’s visit was part of what the New York Times described as a "good-will tour." Other stops included a meeting at Baumholder Army Base in Germany with the families of military personnel who were deployed to Bosnia and meetings in Turkey and Greece to promote women’s rights. Chelsea Clinton, then 16, accompanied her mother on all the stops; on the Bosnian leg of the tour, they were joined by singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad, who came with a host of donated items, including a big screen TV and candy bars, designed to boost the troops’ morale.

Rwandan Pillow Talk

At a campaign stop in Iowa in December 2007, Bill Clinton told a gathering of potential caucus-goers that Hillary advocated the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. When asked whether it was true, Hillary Clinton replied with an unequivocal, "It is."

We're hardly in a position to dispute a private conversation between Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is worth noting, however, that the conversation doesn't seem to have had any sort of verifiable effect. The conversation is not recorded in the memoirs of either Clinton. And there is no record of the former president raising the possibility of deploying troops with any of his advisers. Prudence Bushnell, the State Department official who held the Rwanda portfolio during the Clinton administration, told the Tribune that the U.S. did not ever consider a military intervention in Rwanda. Bushnell is not affiliated with any campaign. For that matter, the U.S. took an active role in removing the few international peacekeeping forces that had been in place. According to an article in The Atlantic by Samantha Power of Harvard (and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on America's role in combating genocide), "staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective." Power, of course, was an Obama adviser until her celebrated reference to Clinton as a "monster," but Power's article was written in September 2001 – well before Obama ran for the U.S. Senate.

Chinese Rights

Clinton speaking in Beijing
   UN/DPI Photo
On March 5, Clinton told CNN that "I've been standing up against ... the Chinese government over women's rights and standing up for human rights." Clinton is referring to a speech (you can watch it here) that she delivered in 1995 as part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Clinton was critical of China's record on human rights generally and on women's rights in particular, and her forceful remarks drew praise at home from Republicans and Democrats alike. The Chinese were less pleased; her remarks were blacked out, and only 5,000 party members were permitted to hear the speech. Moreover, Clinton's speech achieved a diplomatic end: As incentive for the first lady to come to China, the Chinese government released Harry Wu, a human rights activist whom the government had jailed following his conviction on spurious espionage charges.

Clinton is exactly right as to the details of her China speech. Does a tough speech count as foreign policy experience? Clinton frequently says that Obama "offers speeches" while she "offers solutions," so by her own standards, the China speech doesn't deserve much consideration. We'll leave it up to you to determine how much China's human rights situation improved between 1995 and 2007.

– by Joe Miller
Sources
Baker, Peter. "The Trail: Hold the Crumpets." The Washington Post, 29 December 2007.

BBC News. "Trimble and Hume Centre Stage for Referendum," 19 May 1998.

Benac, Nancy. "Clinton's Foreign Policy Record Examined." AP, 8 March 2008.

Berke, Richard L. "Irish Feel Fierce Crosswinds as Fateful Vote Nears." 20 May 1998. The New York Times. 13 March 2008.

Clinton, Hillary. "George Stephanopoulos' Exclusive Interview with Sen. Hillary Clinton." George Stephanopoulous, 30 Dec. 2007.

Dorning, Mike and Christi Parsons. "Clinton's experience claim under scrutiny." Chicago Tribune, 7 March 2008

Hamby, Peter. "Clinton: Obama 'missing in action'." CNN. 29 Feb. 2008.

Harnden, Toby. "Nobel Winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish Peace Claims." The Telegraph, 8 March 2008.

Healy, Patrick. "The Résumé Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady." The New York Times, 26 Dec. 2007.

Helman, Scott. "Bill Clinton: Hillary was right on Rwanda." Boston Globe, 10 Dec. 2007.

"Hillary Clinton to Visit Troops." Orlando Sentinel, 25 March 1996.

Lake, Anthony. "Bosnia After Dayton." U.S. Department of State Dispatch, 24 June 1996.

Murphy, Dean E. "Mrs. Clinton Suggests That U.S. Engage Aggressively in World Affairs." 18 October 2000. The New York Times. 13 March 2008.

Pomfret, John. "Everyone Say 'Hoo-ah! 'In Bosnia, Mrs. Clinton Gets a Warm Welcome." The Washington Post, 26 March 1996.

Power, Samantha. "Bystanders to Genocide." The Atlantic, Sept. 2001.

Oliver, Joe. "Hume Put Health on the Line in His Pursuit of Peace." 19 October 1998. Irish Examiner. 13 March 2008.

Reuters. "Hillary Clinton's Thanks on Bosnia." The New York Times, 25 March 1996.

Rhode, David. "Crisis in the Balkans: Macedonia." The New York Times, 24 May 1999.

"Schedule for Trip of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton to Macedonia." U.S. Newswire, 13 May 1999.

Staunton, Denis. "Obama campaign accuses Clinton of inflating NI role." The Irish Times, 12 March 2008.

"The Facts: Hillary and Kosovo." The Fact Hub, 8 March 2008.

"The Facts: Hillary and Northern Ireland." The Fact Hub, 8 March 2008.

Vlahou, Toula. "Mrs. Clinton brings hope, pledge to dispirited camp." Boston Globe, 15 May 1999.
Related Articles
Misleading Ads in Texas
Independent pro-Clinton group misrepresents us in one ad and uses a misleading blurb in another.
The Facts About 'NAFTA-Gate'
What the Obama camp said to Canada, and the voters.
Cleveland Clinkers
Clinton and Obama hit sour notes in the Cleveland debate.
Clinton Edits 'The Truth'
A Clinton mailer quotes Obama's praise for free trade, but it omits his criticisms.
Obama Mailings 'False'?
Clinton says Democrats should be "outraged." You be the judge.

Obama picks up 9 more delegates in Iowa

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 23:50:31 EDT

March 16, 2008
Obama picks up 9 more delegates in Iowa
Rick Moran
Iowa Democrats convened their county conventions yesterday and thanks to the withdrawal of John Edwards, Barack Obama picked up 9 of the 14 delegates at stake:

    Iowa Democratic Party officials said that with all of the delegates picked, Obama claimed 52 percent of the delegates elected at county conventions on Saturday, compared with 32 percent for Clinton.

    Some of the delegates picked at Saturday's conventions were sticking with Edwards, even though he's dropped from the race since Iowa held its caucuses in January. Democratic Party projections said the results mean Obama increased by nine the number of delegates he collects from the state, getting a total of 25 compared with 14 for Clinton and six for Edwards.

    Twelve automatic delegates bring the state's total to 57. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Clinton three, with the remainder uncommitted. Also Saturday, California's Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from its Feb. 5 primary. Clinton picked up two more pledged delegates, raising her state total to 204; Obama gained five, raising his figure to 166.

    Counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, an Associated Press delegate tally showed Obama with 1,617 delegates and Clinton with 1,498.

Every little bit helps although it is virtually impossible for Obama to reach the magic number of 2025 in pledged delegates before the convention. That means Super Delegates are going to decide the race. And as this piece in the New York Times points out, it appears that unless Obama collapses in the polls, he is an almost certain winner:

    Interviews with dozens of undecided superdelegates — the elected officials and party leaders who could hold the balance of power for the nomination — found them uncertain about who, if anyone, would step in to fill a leadership vacuum and help guide the contest to a conclusion that would not weaken the Democratic ticket in the general election. While many superdelegates said they intended to keep their options open as the race continued to play out over the next three months, the interviews suggested that the playing field was tilting slightly toward Mr. Obama in one potentially vital respect. Many of them said that in deciding whom to support, they would adopt what Mr. Obama's campaign has advocated as the essential principle: reflecting the will of the voters.

Unless Hillary absolutely blows out Obama in any revote primaries in Michigan and Florida, it is probable that Obama will end up winning both the popular vote and the pledged delegate race. And if the Super Delegates are true to their word, that means that Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/obama_picks_up_9_more_delegate.html

FOX Attacks Obama:PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION AND PASS IT ON

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:51:14 EDT

Adam Green, MoveOn.org Political Action

Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: FOX Attacks Obama

See the new "FOX Attacks Obama" video and sign the petition:

"FOX is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization. Real news organizations must reject FOX's smears of Barack Obama, not parrot them."

Sign the petition
Click here to watch the new video:

Dear MoveOn member,
This week, film director Robert Greenwald released a short YouTube video called "FOX Attacks Obama: Part 2"�€"his second video detailing how FOX continuously smears Barack Obama. But worse, he shows how other networks are repeating FOX's smears word-for-word!
MoveOn and Greenwald's Brave New Films are launching a petition to major media outlets that says: "FOX is a Republican mouthpiece, not a legitimate news organization. Real news organizations must reject FOX's smears of Barack Obama, not parrot them."
Can you watch the new Fox Attacks video and sign the petition to the media today? Just click here:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3495&id=12319-5171107-hIVx.B&t=147
We'll deliver the petition to major news outlets so they know the public is paying attention and that parroting FOX is not okay. The more signatures, the better�€"so please tell your friends.
We've seen how effective our pushback against FOX can be. One year ago this week, progressives won a big victory by convincing Democrats not to have presidential debates on FOX.
We did that because we knew that the more Democrats treat FOX as a legitimate or neutral news outlet, the easier it is for FOX to spread Republican propaganda to the rest of the news media. This new video shows plainly how dangerous that is.
We hope you'll join us in taking on FOX's smears again today. Click here to see the new video and sign the petition.
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3495&id=12319-5171107-hIVx.B&t=148
Thanks for all you do.
�€"Adam G., Noah, Justin, Karin, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, March 15th, 2008

Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation grants, no money from unions. Our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. If you'd like to support our work, you can give now at:
http://political.moveon.org/donate/email.html?id=12319-5171107-hIVx.B&t=149
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org Political Action. To change your email address or update your contact info, please visit:
http://moveon.org/subscrip/coa.html?id=12319-5171107-hIVx.B
To remove yourself (Karen Durling) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=12319-5171107-hIVx.B

Barack Obama denounces controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, :PLEASE PASS IT ON

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:28:34 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFbDpTPd0ac

A MUST SEE VIDEO :Clinton strategizing to win

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:00:08 EDT

Clinton strategizing to win

March 13: Newsweek's Howard Fineman discusses Sen. Hillary Clinton's 'Big States' strategy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23620941#23620941

Hillary Clinton's Experience Debate

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:46:41 EDT

Thursday, Mar. 13, 2008 Clinton's Experience Debate By Karen Tumulty, Michael Duffy and Massimo Calabresi

In her race to win the democratic nomination against a first-term Senator from Illinois, Hillary Clinton has put the criterion of experience front and center. She often references what she says is 35 years of work that qualifies her to run the country. And the most important achievements Clinton cites are the ones she claims from her years as First Lady — a job that carries no portfolio but can wield enormous influence.

The nature of Hillary Clinton's involvement was always a matter of great sensitivity in her husband's White House. After her disastrous 1994 foray into health-care reform, Bill Clinton's aides went out of their way to downplay her role in Administration decision making. She rarely appeared at meetings in which officials hashed out important policy trade-offs, but when the discussion centered on issues that were among her priorities, she sent her aides — much the way Vice President Al Gore did. "There were certain issues they kind of owned," recalls Gene Sperling, who headed economic policy in the Clinton White House. The First Lady's top concerns, he says, were children's issues, health care, and foster-care and adoption policies.

Now the former First Lady claims at least a share of the credit for a wide range of the Clinton Administration's signature accomplishments, both domestic and overseas. Does she deserve it? The Clinton and Obama campaigns spent this week arguing that question with dueling memos and talking points.

TIME decided to cut through the spin with a series that will take a closer look at the claims candidates make. As Senator Clinton is fond of saying, It's time to get real. We kick off the series by evaluating three of the achievements she mentions most often:

Children's Health Care

WHAT SHE SAYS
One of her biggest achievements, Clinton often tells voters, is the multibillion-dollar health-care program that provides coverage for children whose parents are too rich for Medicaid but unable to afford health insurance on their own. As one of her campaign ads puts it, "She changed the lives of 6 million kids when she championed the bill that gave them health insurance."

After comprehensive health-care reform went down to defeat in 1994, Clinton and other health-care advocates looked for targeted changes that might win more support. The most likely seemed the issue of providing coverage to children of the working poor. In October 1996, Senator Edward Kennedy introduced a bill to do just that, financed with a 75¢ cigarette-tax increase; in his State of the Union address the following January, Bill Clinton announced a plan to cover 5 million kids.

It was one of several health policies Clinton proposed, including one that would expand coverage for the unemployed. Internally, according to one former White House aide, the First Lady argued that the White House should keep its focus on the more politically popular plan to focus on children.

In May 1997, however, when then Senate majority leader Trent Lott said the children's health plan would blow up their balanced-budget deal, the President abruptly changed course and actively lobbied Democratic lawmakers to vote against it. As a result, the provision failed, and Kennedy was furious at what he considered a betrayal. Hillary defended her husband's decision, telling one audience, "He had to safeguard the budget proposal."

The measure was resurrected a month later, largely through the efforts of Kennedy and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, who worked behind the scenes on Capitol Hill and built a coalition of children's advocacy groups to bring public pressure on Congress to pass the measure. Kennedy also privately pressed the First Lady to use her influence at the White House. After Bill Clinton signed the bill into law that August, Kennedy said at a press conference, "Mrs. Clinton ... was of invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program and also as a clear advocate."

THE BOTTOM LINE: The record suggests Clinton did indeed lobby for children's health coverage but that many others were responsible as well. And it also shows that her husband nearly killed the idea before it ever got off the ground.

Northern Ireland

WHAT SHE SAYS
On the campaign trail, Clinton has claimed she "helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland" in the 1990s.

Clinton's words are very carefully chosen. She has never claimed to have actually negotiated the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which paved the way toward power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Her involvement was more about generating public and private support for peace talks in the months leading up to that agreement.

It's a key distinction. There is no question that the First Lady encouraged women from Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods to push their political leaders toward the bargaining table. She traveled to Northern Ireland twice by herself in the mid- to late 1990s and praised those who stood up for peace. She engaged in particular with a group of women peace activists who were largely cut out of the male-dominated negotiations and encouraged them to keep the pressure on.

Some of Clinton's supporters, like former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, say this pressure was instrumental in creating the atmosphere for the eventual peace agreement. But several diplomatic sources who worked on the peace talks say that the women's groups were not nearly as pivotal to the process as Hillary's backers maintain. And Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, former First Minister of Northern Ireland, told Britain's Daily Telegraph that Clinton was not involved in the process and her claims to have played a direct role were "a wee bit silly."

Clinton's husband and, to an even greater extent, former Senator George Mitchell were much more involved in those efforts, when the eyeball-to-eyeball negotiations began. Clinton was working on the outside, said several involved in the process. "She was helpful with Vital Voices," said Jean Kennedy Smith, former ambassador to Ireland, referring to a women's organization in the country. "But as far as anything political went, there was nothing as far as I know, nothing to do with negotiations." Smith, who is supporting Obama, suggested the process was well under way by the time Clinton got involved.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Clinton played a role in hearing the concerns of Irish women left out of the peace process, and in encouraging them to put pressure on their countrymen to pursue negotiations. But that does not mean she rolled up her sleeves and conducted or led the talks that resulted in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

Macedonia Refugees

WHAT SHE SAYS
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," Clinton has asserted when asked to identify an example of her foreign policy experience.

Clinton's shorthand version of her role in the 1999 refugee crisis in Macedonia is accurate but oversimplified. She did discuss open borders with the President and Prime Minister of Macedonia on May 14, 1999. (Borders between that country and Kosovo had been opening and closing for weeks.) She did support requests for economic help that the Macedonians were making.

But keeping the borders open was a key U.S. diplomatic project at the time, and her initiative was but a part of the larger effort. During the NATO war with neighboring Serbia that spring, the fate of Kosovars fleeing Serbian ethnic cleansing was a pressing issue on the international stage. If a flood of refugees overwhelmed Macedonia, a wider regional war could erupt. No one, however, wanted to leave the Kosovars to the mercy of the Serbs. So finding a temporary home for them was crucial.

When Clinton arrived in the middle of the situation in that May, diplomats on the ground expected an ineffectual high-profile visit. But they were wrong. "She was quite at ease and professional," says a diplomat who served in the Macedonian capital, Skopje, at the time. Clinton visited refugees in camps on the border and held talks with the Macedonian leadership.

When the Prime Minister complained about American companies terminating textile contracts with local firms, Clinton promised to urge the businesses to change course. Five weeks after her trip, Clinton returned to the country with a pledge from Liz Claiborne to support textile manufacturing there.

THE BOTTOM LINE: In the case of Macedonia, Clinton engaged in personal diplomacy that brought about change. But securing the return of American business partners is not the same as the opening of borders to thousands of refugees. That accomplishment was a result of broader U.S. and European efforts during the war.

Find this article at:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html

THIS IS A MUST SEE VIDEO:Olbermann on Ferraro uproar

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:38:46 EDT

Olbermann on Ferraro uproar

March 12: Keith Olbermann gives a special comment on the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y and Geraldine Ferraro connection.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23601329#23601329

Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:55:14 EDT

Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air Force
Obama Receives Endorsement of Flag Officers from Army, Navy and Air ForceCHICAGOMILTARY-ENDORSES-OBAMA CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Citing his judgment and ability to lead, admirals and generals from the United States Army, Navy and Air Force that together have served under the last nine Commanders-in-Chief today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for president.

In offering their endorsement, the generals and admirals recognized Obama's judgment to oppose the war in Iraq before it began, his respect for the Constitution and rule of law, his leadership on behalf of America's servicemen and women and his ability to conduct the diplomacy necessary to restore America's standing in the world.

"Those of us who have served, worn the cloth of our nation, and gone into harm's way know that to be successful we must have the strongest sense of trust in our Commander in Chief.

// <a href="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/ad-hoc-news.de/Wirtschaft;pos=top;sz=300x250, 300x350;tile=2;ord=123456789?" target="_blank"><img src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/ad-hoc-news.de/Wirtschaft;pos=top;sz=300x250, 300x350;ord=123456789?" width="300" height="350" border="0" alt="" /></a> We must be confident that he or she has listened to the best possible advice, that he or she has garnered the best possible information from all possible sources, that he or she has analyzed and weighed all the possible consequences and outcomes, and that he or she has made the decision to exert military force as a last possible resort,' said Admiral (Ret.) Robert 'William' Williamson (USN). 'Of this I am certain: Senator Obama will do all of those things and much more to ensure the safety and freedom of our citizens, our allies, and coalition partners. He has all the great qualities and attributes required to carry out the most difficult duties of the Presidency.

'I spent a career involved in coalition warfare, and I am keenly aware of the importance of working with allies,' said Brigadier General (Ret.) James Smith (USAF). 'Senator Obama brings a powerful approach to dealing with national security challenges by truly leveraging multinational relationships. He brings a new face of America to the rest of the world."

'Senator Obama has a profound, even scholarly knowledge of our Constitution and he has the deepest respect for the rule of law. As a career naval officer, I trust his judgment, his temperament, and his ability to analyze complex international situations and relationships and to make military decisions that are in the best long term interests of the United States,' said Admiral (Ret.) Don Guter (USN). 'It will take the powerful leadership of Senator Obama to forge the consensus we need to right our ship of state, restore our honorable place in the world, and secure the safety of our nation."

'As a child of the Greatest Generation I learned that the attraction, glory and resilience of America come from the principle of 'We the People.' In my four decades in the national security arena I developed an increasing appreciation for the intent and expectations of this principle, particularly in terms of the Common Defense and Domestic Tranquility,' said Brigadier General (Ret.) David McGinnis (ARNG). 'In recent years, enticed to believe that these roles belonged to a chosen elite, each of us have paid an increasing price in loss of power, liberties, and national treasure. Today, by every measure, our current strategic situation is not good. It is from that perspective I believe only Senator Obama offers us the opportunity to reclaim our Republic, restore our national dignity and ensure our overall security. I salute his leadership, embrace his candidacy, and commend his courage.'

Obama is the grandson of a soldier who marched in Patton's Army. Throughout his career, he has exercised the judgment and leadership required of a Commander-in-Chief. In 2002, he opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning, cautioning that it could lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences' at a time when conventional Washington was lining up for war. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has worked across the aisle to secure the world's most dangerous weapons and as a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, he has compiled a record of standing up for America's troops and veterans, leading a bipartisan effort to improve care for injured troops, passing laws to fight homelessness among veterans, and increase screening for Traumatic Brain Injury. Over the course of the last year, Obama has unveiled a comprehensive national security agenda that includes detailed plans to secure America from the threat of terrorism, responsibly end the war in Iraq and renew American diplomacy to restore our standing in the world.

The following admirals and generals endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president:

Brigadier General Larry Gillespie. Gillespie has led a distinguished 33-year career with the U.S. Army. He served as the Assistant Deputy Commanding General, (ARNG) Army Material Command. He is a recognized authority in many of the technical challenges and solutions associated with Homeland Security and National Defense. As a civilian, General Gillespie has held a series of increasingly important positions with the Air Transport Association, Hughes Aircraft Company, Raytheon Systems Company, NCI, Hampton University, and Eagle Force Association.

Major General Scott Gration (USAF-Ret). General Gration is a retired two-star general and was the Director of Strategy, Policy, and Assessments of the United States European Command in Germany. General Gration was raised in Africa and entered the Air Force in 1974 through the Air Force ROTC program at Rutgers University. He served as a White House Fellow, operations group commander and two-time wing commander. The general served as Director of Regional Affairs in the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of the Air Force for International Affairs. General Gration served as the Commander of Task Force West during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His aerial combat experience includes almost a thousand hours of combat time with 274 combat missions over Iraq.

Admiral Don Guter. Admiral Guter served in the U.S. Navy for 32 years, concluding his career as the Navy's Judge Advocate General from 2000 to 2002. Admiral Guter currently serves as the Dean of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh, PA. He also is executive director of the Navy Marine Coast Guard Residence Foundation.

Brigadier General David 'Dave' McGinnis. General McGinnis was the Chief of Staff of the National Guard Association of the U.S. McGinnis served as director of strategic plans and analysis for the Honorable Deborah R. Lee, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. He served two tours in Vietnam before leaving the active Army in 1972 and joining the New York National Guard that same year. In 1990, he became branch chief of the force management division at National Guard Bureau (NGB) in Washington. Subsequent assignments included Deputy Chief from 1991-92 and Director from 1992-1993.

General Merrill 'Tony' McPeak. General McPeak is a retired four star general and served as Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force during Operation Desert Storm. McPeak entered the Air Force in 1957 and was appointed Chief of Staff in 1990, holding that office until his retirement in 1994. As a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War, McPeak served as a top wartime advisor to the President, the Secretary of Defense, and National Security Council. General McPeak is the recipient of the Silver Star, Distinguished Service Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross. He was a fighter pilot and flew over 300 combat missions in Vietnam.

Admiral John B. Nathman. During his thirty-seven year career with the U.S. Navy, Admiral Nathman held a variety of positions in naval air and sea-based operations, finishing his service as Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command. After graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy, Admiral Nathman became a naval aviator, ultimately serving as an instructor at the Navy Fighter Weapons School. In 1971, Admiral Nathman earned a Master of Science degree in Aerospace Systems Engineering from the University of West Florida. He attained Flag rank in 1994 and served in a number of command positions, including with the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, Naval Air Forces, and U.S. Fleet Forces. Admiral Nathman also served as the Vice Chief of Naval Operations.

Major General Hugh Robinson. A West Point graduate, Robinson was promoted to brigadier general and became the Corps of Engineers' first African American general officer. He served as deputy director of Civil Works, and in 1980 assumed command of the Southwestern Division, a position he held until his retirement in 1983 as a major general. In 1965, he was appointed as military aide to President Lyndon B. Johnson. Robinson was the first African American to serve in that position and held the appointment throughout the remainder of Johnson's presidency.

Brigadier General James Smith. Smith retired from the U.S. Air Force as a brigadier general and served as Commander, Joint Warfighting Center, U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center. He was responsible for managing the joint force exercise and training development program and the modeling, simulation and deploying of solutions that demonstrated high probability of operational success. His previous assignments included Commander, 18th Wing; Vice Director for Operations, Headquarters North American Aerospace Defense Command; Commander, 325th Operations Group; and CSAF Chair, National War College.

Admiral Robert 'Willie' Williamson (USN-Ret Rear Admiral). Retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Williamson served as military Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition and Director, Office of Program Appraisal. He was the senior military advisor on the Secretary of the Navy staff. Williamson commanded the aircraft carrier, USS Nimitz, during Desert Storm, and his last operational assignment was Commander, Carrier Group Two, (John F. Kennedy Battle Group), Deploying to the Mediterranean and Adriatic Seas in support of allied operations in Bosnia.

Major General Ralph Wooten. Wooten is a former Commanding General of the Army's Chemical Arsenal. His civilian corporate career includes Management of large material management and control of multi-million Department of Defense programs. He served 31 years in the U.S. Army and retired as a Commanding General. During his military career he crafted strategic vision, formulated operations plans, developed investment strategies, controlled facilities and equipment, executed multi-million dollar budgets, and provided leadership, direction and advocacy to human resources numbered in the thousands, and corporate management to major military installations. He is currently the Executive Vice President of Management Systems, Inc.

http://www.ad-hoc-news.de/CorporateNews/15885360

Why Michelle Obama is no Hillary Clinton.

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:48:10 EDT

Wife Lessons

Why Michelle Obama is no Hillary Clinton.

Michelle Cottle, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Michelle Obama

It is impossible not to be at least a little awed by Michelle Obama. It's not just the height (5'11"), the style (among Vanity Fair's best-dressed on the planet), and the air of supreme confidence (the woman sports sleeveless tops at major photo ops). There is also her up-by-the-bootstraps backstory as a South Side of Chicago girl gone double Ivy (Princeton and Harvard Law, thank you very much), followed by her years spent juggling a successful legal career while raising two daughters. And, of course, there is her famously un-Stepford stump style--the sarcasm, the candor, the compulsion to ignore the cardinal rule of political wifedom by portraying her husband as something less than God-made-flesh--that thrills even as it unnerves, prompting eyebrow-arching and hand-wringing over how sassy is too sassy. Even Barack jokes--a bit self-consciously, at times--that Michelle is tougher, smarter, and "a little meaner" than he is.

A charmed (or intimidated) press has embraced this Tough Broad narrative, proclaiming Michelle "strong-willed," "gutsy," "regal," "steely," "direct," "forthright," "unscripted," "mordant," "outspoken," "cool in temperament," and "military" in bearing. It's "clear that nobody tells her what to say," notes USA Today. The Wall Street Journal recently recounted Michelle's dressing-down of a TV cameraman who dared "place [his] hand" on her press secretary, while the March 10 New Yorker tells how Michelle once confronted a mob questioning Barack's "loyalty to the community" at a Chicago campaign event during his Senate run: "She came out the back door, and there were a bunch of hoodlum thugs ready to do a full-blast demonstration," recalled former Black Panther associate Ron Carter. "She put on her street sense and asked all the guys, 'Y'all got a problem or something?' They all froze, guys who would slap the mayor, who would slap Jesse Jackson in the face, even." Barack Obama may be auditioning to be the most powerful man in the world, but Michelle is the one with the force-to-bereckoned-with reputation.

Such distinction carries clear risks. Throughout the campaign, tongues have now and again clucked over whether Michelle is perhaps too edgy. Last April, op-ed queen Maureen Dowd set the political class atwitter by scolding Michelle for infantilizing and "emasculating" Barack with her exasperated-wife shtick about how stinky and snore-y and sloppy he can be. Afterward, there was a noticeable decline in Michelle's Barack-directed zingers. No matter: As the spotlight intensifies, whenever Michelle stumbles (say, by remarking that her husband's candidacy has made her proud of America for the first time in her adult life), the political establishment resumes its whispered debate over whether she is becoming "a problem." Brickbats like "ball-breaker" and "henpecked" are bandied about, and, in the distance, you can hear the low grinding sound of conservatives sharpening their claws.

And yet: While much of Michelle's resume screams Successful Superwoman, she hardly strikes me as the stuff of which revolutions are made. She was raised with deeply traditional notions about family life that are reflected in her own home today. If anything, tensions within the Obamas' marriage seem to have centered around Barack's lack of investment in fashioning a domestic tableau reminiscent of a "Leave it to Beaver" retro fantasy, where everyone gathers around the table for dinner each night and Mom and Dad are always on the scene for bedtime. And, despite her overachieving Type-A urges and obvious talents, Michelle has typically been the one to adjust her personal ambitions to accommodate the needs of her clan. She has long served, to use Barack's word, as the family's "rock," providing the emotional, practical, and even financial stability to enable her high-flying husband to go out and conquer the world. Michelle Obama may be tougher, tarter, and more accomplished than most occupants of the East Wing, but she isn't a mold-shattering new breed of First Lady, or even the fierce symbol of feminism that was Hillary Rodham Clinton circa 1992. She is, rather, a hybrid model: a fresh, modern exterior wrapped around a fundamentally traditional core--which, for the purposes of her husband's campaign, seems to me the best of all possibilities.

Smart, competitive, organized, and ambitious, Michelle LaVaughn Robinson had all the early markings of a classic striver. Raised on Chicago's South Side by parents of modest means but high expectations, she worked her butt off to get into first the local magnet school, then Princeton, then Harvard Law. At every step, Michelle tells us, she confronted folks who told her she wasn't smart enough or didn't have high enough test scores to reach her goal--especially when compared to her older brother, Craig, a top student and basketball star for whom everything in life came just a little bit easier. Michelle worked that much harder to prove the doubters wrong, and, after conquering academia, she landed at the blue-chip corporate firm of Sidley Austin. There she met Barack Obama, when, in 1989, she was assigned to mentor the dashing summer associate. It took a while for her to succumb to his charms. (She initially rejected his affections, insisting it would be "tacky" for the firm's only two black employees to hook up.) But, once she fell for him, the romance proceeded like any modern fairy tale: First came love, then came marriage, and by 2003 Michelle Obama found herself pushing two baby carriages, working as a community outreach coordinator for the University of Chicago, and sitting on a handful of corporate and non-profit boards. She was, in other words, completely overwhelmed. Factor in a loving but ambitious husband increasingly away from home, and it is little wonder that Michelle recalls her days as a working mom as a struggle to keep both career and family afloat, while perpetually convinced she was failing on all fronts.

In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Michelle observed: "What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first. ... And, for women, me is fourth, and that's not healthy." This is not a radical observation: Get a half-dozen gals together with a few bottles of Beaujolais, and a similar theme will eventually emerge. (Trust me on this.) Looked at one way, Michelle was issuing a pointed call for female selfempowerment; but, looked at another, she was offering a poignant commentary on how things have long run chez Obama. For all the talk about this being a partnership of equals, the domestic roles Michelle and Barack have assumed are, in many ways, strikingly stereotypical. He is the dreamer, the visionary, the inspirational leader. She is the workhorse, the general manager, the hyperorganized multitasker who makes the trains run on time. Their friends talk about the compromises the couple has made, but the examples commonly cited hardly make the exchange seem equitable. Michelle didn't especially want Barack to run for state Senate, much less U.S. Senate, and certainly not president. At every step, he talked her into it. (No question, the man is quite the talker.) Michelle, in turn, found herself endlessly rearranging and reducing her own work schedule to ensure that their daughters weren't getting lost in the shuffle.

This disparity did not go unnoticed in the Obama household. There is an oft-cited passage near the end of The Audacity of Hope in which Barack admits that, after the arrival of their second daughter, Sasha, "my wife's anger toward me seemed barely contained. 'You only think about yourself,' she would tell me. 'I never thought I'd have to raise a family alone.'" This uncomfortable situation ground on under mounting layers of stress and resentment until, Michelle reveals, she came to terms with the reality that Barack had no intention of assuming a greater share of the domestic burden. As she told Vanity Fair last year, "One day I woke up and said, 'I can't live my life mad. This is not fun.' I thought the help I needed had to come from Barack. It wasn't that he didn't care, but he wasn't there. So I enlisted moms and baby sitters and got help with the housecleaning, and I built that community myself." Again, on one level, this is a tale of personal growth that would make Oprah proud: Michelle took stock of her needs and found a way to address them herself, without relying on a man. On the other hand, there is something more than a little traditional about Michelle's sense of what responsibilities rest squarely on the shoulders of the Mommy.

As for Barack's sacrifices, the only significant one we hear about is Michelle's refusal to uproot the girls and move with him to Washington after his Senate win. Beyond that, we are left to consider the adjustments Barack has been asked to make around the edges of everyday life. For instance, Michelle stresses that, when Barack is home, she expects him to contribute to running the house--washing clothes, taking out the trash, making the bed. It's important for their daughters to see him doing that, she told Vanity Fair: "I wasn't content with saying, 'You're doing important things in the world, so go off and be important and I'll handle everything else here'--because the truth is, if I did that, I'd probably still be angry." But, since even a garden- variety senator is only home a few days a week (and in hot demand even then), having Barack fluff and fold the occasional load of underwear is, in practice, largely symbolic. Running a household is a full-time job, and someone who only occasionally drops in on the effort can bring as much disruption as relief. So much for struggling together to achieve a work-life balance.

Now, Michelle has left her job for the duration of the campaign--and, with a little luck, for the next four or even eight years. One can only imagine her ambivalence about this decision. Months after she cut her work schedule last May, Michelle's boss at the University of Chicago Medical Center, Susan Scher, told Vanity Fair, "Her involvement in her work life has been so serious that it's not easy to just say, 'Never mind.'" But, when asked directly if it was hard setting aside her career, Michelle has repeatedly demurred. She has allowed that it feels a little weird to be unemployed after a lifetime of striving but declines to elaborate much beyond that. Rather, she points to the unique opportunity Barack has to Make a Difference. Besides, she insists she isn't defined by her work but by her role as a mother--and so putting her own ambition on hold won't spur an existential crisis.

As for her on-the-trail patter, Michelle is far from a feminist bomb-thrower, instead relying heavily on conventional, even old-fashioned, material. She gigs Barack for being too much of a guy: messy, thoughtless, and only marginally competent when it comes to life maintenance. More than once, Michelle has laughed about how she assigns Barack easy-to-manage projects, like procuring balloons for their daughter's birthday party, rather than anything more involved, like picking out goodie bags--"You'd walk in there and wander around the aisles for an hour, and then your head would explode." It's a folksy, humanizing shtick guaranteed to have women nodding en masse in amused agreement precisely because it is such well-trod territory. Women have long bonded over the knowledge that their men, though masters of the universe, are a disaster on the home front. It is a semi-comic routine as old as marriage itself: Sure, my husband can slaughter a mammoth with his bare hands, but can he put his club away? Can he pick his loin cloth up off the floor? And God forbid I ask him to supervise the kids' birthday down at the tar pits. No one would make it home alive. The fact that Michelle tells such tales on her hubby may be a departure for political wives. Yet, for wives in general, it is anything but new.

In this way, Michelle is comforting and likeable because she is deeply familiar. On the campaign trail, women are always gushing to reporters about how normal Michelle seems and how they feel they can relate to her. She may be black. She may be an overeducated lawyer. She may top six feet in her Jimmy Choos. But, when she talks smack about her husband's hygiene, she sounds like any old housewife gabbing to her girlfriends about what a hopeless mess her man is. It's a clever approach, winning Michelle props for being outspoken and un-Stepford, even as she avoids alienating more traditional voters by keeping her focus on the family.

Assuming she can maintain this balance, Michelle has a good shot at skirting the political sinkhole into which Hillary Clinton tumbled all those years ago, when the change Hillary stood for became a long-term liability for her husband. To be fair, that was a different time. But Hillary put herself out there as a dramatic rejection of all who had come before--campaigning as a potential co- president while her husband promised "two for the price of one." She had no intention of getting personal or providing a humanizing peek at the First Family (except maybe Socks) or talking about the everyday challenges she and Bill had tackled as working parents. She seemed to scorn such warm-and-fuzzy nonsense and, by extension, those for whom such triviality was of interest.

Michelle, by contrast, is happy to talk--laugh, even--about her domestic travails. This automatically makes her seem less alien and more sympathetic. It also allows her to stake out a middle ground--modern enough to talk about her marital stresses and maternal anxieties, traditional enough to suffer them in the first place--in a cultural battle that still too often divides women. For my part, I just want to buy the broad a drink and salute her for surviving the madness thus far. Let Barack handle bedtime duty for the night.

Michelle Cottle is a senior editor at The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1fabbb3c-5efa-4b6d-a613-9220d1a652a9

Is Obama Or Clinton The Better General Election Candidate?

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:05:28 EDT

March 12, 2008 Is Obama Or Clinton The Better General Election Candidate? By Thomas Edsall

The extended battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton raises numerous interesting questions: Which candidate can better put the Democratic party back together for the general election? Is a nomination fight that could last all the way to the convention a negative or positive? Which is better going into the general election, the Clinton or Obama primary coalition?

These questions and others have captured the imagination of many of those closely watching the contest.

Take, for example, William Frey, a Brookings Institution demographer. On the assumption that the general election will ride on who wins the battleground states, the question then becomes, which are the battlegrounds?

"In my mind, there are slow-growing battlegrounds, including much of the Great Lakes and Midwest (e.g. Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, among others) and fast growing battlegrounds (e.g. Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, as well as Florida, among others)," Frey says.

If the fight comes down to the slow-growing states, "Hillary should have a strong advantage, because Obama's post-boomer appeal will turn off the aging baby boomers and seniors who would be more likely to go for McCain than to someone much younger and hipper, not to mention non-white."

Conversely, Frey argues, "Obama will have the advantage in the more diverse, fast growing battlegrounds. Not only is he a self proclaimed post-baby-boomer, but in many respects, he leads the way toward a post-ethnic, post-partisan America, which is spreading out to these states."

Frey suggested that "this election, like the last one, could depend on the 'old white belt' of the slow growing battlegrounds, in which case Hillary would fare better in perhaps the last battle of aging white presidential candidates."

Looking at the election on a state-by-state basis, Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz came to a different conclusion:

"Obama does better in the western states. She does better in the Northeast, but those states are almost certain to end up in the D column anyway. So on balance, I'd say he looks a little stronger because of his ability to generate higher turnout of some Democratic constituencies and his ability to turn some previously red states into battlegrounds: Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, maybe even Texas."

American Prospect contributing editor Adele Stan looked at the issue from the vantage point of completing constituencies, contending that the general election advantage falls to Obama:

"Barack Obama stands to inherit most of Hillary Clinton's coalition, minus the party's racists. Clinton will likely lose more of the party's sexists, plus its new contingent of young voters (who may just stay home) ... Hillary's strength is among white people over 50; Barack's is among young people of all backgrounds. McCain could cut into Hillary's advantage with older whites, but is unlikely to get Obama's young people. So, I would say that the Obama coalition has a slight advantage over Clinton's in the general.

Robert Borosage, co-chair of the Campaign for America's Future, contended that Obama is the higher risk candidate, but he is also the candidate who could give the Democrats a major payout:

"Race is a powerful force in this society. Obama has potential, in my view, to have far greater upside than Hillary -- you can imagine him creating a realignment, with young people, Latinos, independent professionals, etc., joining working people in a new majority coalition. But Republicans will turn him into an alien, and since folks haven't had a chance to know him, the risks of a real downside are greater also."

The strongest case for Obama was voiced by a Republican, Alex Castellanos, who was a senior media consultant in both of George W. Bush's campaigns and in Mitt Romney's failed bid for the nomination.

"Obama is the hope and future of the Democratic Party, not Hillary, and everyone knows it. He is the one bringing new energy and voters. He could be a Democratic Reagan, invigorating the party for 25 years. If the Clinton people knee-cap Obama, it would be like killing Santa Claus Xmas morning in front of the children. The children won't forget or forgive."

Castellanos warned, however, that Obama carries his own liabilities:

"He is a weaker, consensus leader, not a strong leader in an uncertain world. Hillary is the past, polarizing, but a tough, strong leader in uncertain world. In 50's America terms, it is role reversal: It might be said that she is the tough, daddy bear candidate, and Obama is the weaker, consensus mommy bear candidate."

The costs (and benefits) of the exceptionally long Democratic nomination fight are not easily agreed upon.

Author Katha Pollitt sees it as pretty much an unmitigated disaster:

"I think it is BAD for the Democrats for the fight to go on, because inevitably Hillary and Obama will have to do their best to tarnish each other in ways that will turn off less-committed voters and will give McCain ammunition. HRC's saying she and McCain were ready to be commander-in-chief but Obama has just given speeches is a good example."

In contrast, Borosage contends that the length of the nomination fight "has been good thus far, getting the country accustomed to a black or woman at the head of ticket, getting both campaigns more ready for prime time.

"I think people overplay the negative effects of a nomination struggle. This one has helped excite people, kept Democrats in the news, raised masses of new donors and activists etc. Once over, both candidates have a stake in bringing party together. And while activists are bruised, low information voters are just getting sense of what's going on, and are not likely to be dismayed."

While Borosage anticipates that the contest will soon "get more destructive," he is sanguine about the detrimental consequences of some of the tough charges the candidates are throwing at each other.

"If Hillary's peddling Moslem, black church, Farrakhan, inexperience, yada-yada now -- and Obama learns how to respond (and how to talk to working people) -- she's not saying anything the Republicans won't say in far harsher terms."

Castellanos, however, sees virtually no pluses on a long primary fight.

"Look at the land wars across Russia. It didn't work out too well for Charles XII in 1707, Napoleon in 1812 or Hitler in 1941. In each case, the long campaign was no "victory" since the great armies were obliterated on the way. In each case near certain victory was turned into defeat by the length of the bloody campaign."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/is_obama_or_clinton_the_better.html

Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton and helps to shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:11:24 EDT

Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton

Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.

Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.

Sinbad, performing in 2007 for shareholders of Wal-Mart. Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. (Spencer Tirey -- The Associated Press)

Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.

In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"

Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.

Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.

"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

As you may have guessed by now, Sinbad isn't supporting Clinton for president. He's an Obama guy. All because of Clinton.

"What got me about Hillary was her attitude of entitlement, like he messed up her plan, like he had no reason to be there," Sinbad said. "I got angry. I actually got angry! I said, 'I will be for Obama like never before.'"

But he's less ticked off with the Clinton campaign than he is with Saturday Night Live for its Hillary-loving sketches that portray Obama as an unqualified nervous Nelly. What really bothers him is SNL's choice of actor (Fred Armisen) to play Obama.

"My problem is -- you couldn't just temporarily hire a black man to play Obama? You had to put a white man in a black face? You couldn't find a light-skinned brother to play Obama?"

The Clinton campaign doesn't seem amused by Sinbad's commentary or his recollection of the 1996 Bosnia trip as more depressing than harrowing.

Defending Clinton's characterization of her Bosnia mission, campaign spokesman Phil Singer kindly provided experts from news stories written about the trip at the time, including a Washington Post story from May 26, 1996, that said, "This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone."

Singer also cited a Kansas City Star article from September 2000 that quoted Sinbad as describing the situation in Bosnia as "so tense. It was Crips and Bloods." (And that's how Sinbad continued to characterize the situation in our interview Monday. He said, "At the time, we didn't realize how crazy it was between the Bosnians and the Serbs. I didn't realize how much hate was going on.")

Still, defending Clinton against Sinbad the refuter, Singer said, "The sad reality of what was going on in Bosnia at the time Senator Clinton traveled there as first lady has been well documented. It appears that Sinbad's experience in Bosnia goes back further than Senator Obama's does. In fact, has Senator Obama ever been to Bosnia?"

Snarky, snarky!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 01:33:12 EDT

To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?
DA: March 11, 2008 When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue, not at 3 AM or at any other time of day. When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims, i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign, would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated. Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one." News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it." Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage." Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999. The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments, U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations." Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention. At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote, urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda, in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs. Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide. China:
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not. Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda." If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others, led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment. Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim, as the TV ad, consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it. On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation, the War in Iraq, Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued, remarkably, that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization, like a blank check, to fight on with no end in sight. Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader, an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage. And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

Clinton's Exaggerated Foreign Policy Experience

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:44:48 EDT

Clinton's Exaggerated Foreign Policy Experience
By Greg Craig

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasnâ€™t on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obamaâ€™s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make - any vote that may lead to war should be hard - but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/clintons_exaggerated_experienc.html

Delegate debate

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:58:57 EDT

I Think that Obama must attack HRC on her so called experience on foreign affairs:she thinks that her role as first lady is foreign affairs LOL LOL
Please check out this video below

Mihou
Delegate debate

March 10: Keith Olbermann breaks down the latest delegate debate with Chuck Todd and Richard Wolffe

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23566896#23566896

Obama: 'I'm not running for vice president'

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:36:42 EDT

Obama: 'I'm not running for vice president'

March 10: Rejecting the idea of being Hillary Clinton's running mate, Barack Obama says, "I don't know how somebody in second place is offering the vice presidency to the person who is in first place."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23561059#23561059

Being first lady doesn't qualify you to be president

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:24:34 EDT

Being first lady doesn't qualify you to be president

March 10: Huffington Post blogger Gary Hart explains why the Clinton campaign crossed the line.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23559351#23559351

LESS TALK AND MORE ACTION ON THE FIELD

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:23:52 EDT

LESS TALK AND MORE ACTION ON THE FIELD

I am forwarding these emails coming from people who like me are worrying about PA.
To win in PA we need to go on the field and register the most people we can RIGHT NOW because we are running out of time:it's better than phone banking

Please let's hit the streets in big cities,small cities and especially in rural areas in PENNSYLVANIA

Question for the Barack Obama HQ:Who's in charge of getting universities in PA registered?
Mihou

from emails i received today:
«
Who's in charge of getting these universities registered? We're running out of time!

Penn State University
Temple University 58,000
University of Pittsburgh 34,000
Drexel University 20,000
University of Pennsylvania 18,000
Carnegie Mellon University 10,000
Lehigh University 7,000

DEADLINE to register voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania - Monday, MARCH 24, 2008

REGISTER:

1. NEW voters

2. CHANGE of party to DEMOCRAT

3. CHANGE of address

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Folks need either a Driver's License or State ID number. If they don't have that, the last 4 digits of the Social Security number. Ask for the (optional) phone number, so that any errors with the form can be fixed.

Let's do this! Carry forms with you everywhere you go. Take the forms back to the campaign office, to save stamps. »

Obama's campaign needs to do more outreach to the smaller cities and towns. More than just phone calls too!? »

John McCain's temperament. Does his temper betray an inability to handle being president?

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 01:08:10 EST

Hi everyone,
Please check out the video below
This a very important point about McCain temper that Barack Obama should use against him in coming debates.
Also ,there are some top republican generals who are openly supporting Barack Obama.
Could someone put their name on list to show that Barack Obama is actually creating a real coalition EVEN IN THE US ARMY from which he has a strong support of top democrat and republican generals

Does McCain have a temper?

March 7: Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Lawrence Korb talks about Sen. John McCain's temperament. Does his temper betray an inability to handle being president?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23527978#23527978

Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut endorses Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:31:45 EST

CLEVELAND - Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut has endorsed Barack Obama, his former rival in the Democratic presidential race.

"He's ready to be president and I am ready to support him in this campaign" Dodd said at a joint news confernece with Obama.

He said Obama "has been poked and prodded, analyzed and criticized, called too green, too trusting and for all of that has already won" more than half the states and millions of votes.

Dodd was an early dropout in the campaign, quitting after the lead-off Iowa caucuses.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_on_el_pr/obama_dodd

The cynism of the Hillary Clinton clan:shame on them

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:00:36 EST

The cynism of the Hillary Clinton clan:shame on them

What happened to Hillary's multiculturalism?
Vasko Kohlmayer
In their desperate attempt to derail the Obama juggernaut, the Clinton campaign has circulated a picture of Barrack Obama dressed as an African village elder.

One just wonders what happened to all their multiculturalism. As bona fide liberals, the Hillary people should be celebrating this photo with all the cultural diversity implied therein.

It could not be more paradoxical that the Clintons are trying to sink the historic candidacy of a black man with a picture that shows him going back to his African roots.

Assuming that the photo will turn voters off, the Clintons have insulted not only Obama but also the whole African culture for which the garb he wears stands. This is especially hypocritical of these liberals who so often talk of Africa as a repository of special wisdom.

Now we know what how they really look at it: They think that Obama dressed as an African will somehow demean him in the eyes of Democrat voters. Could anything more cynical come from these shameless purveyors of multiculturalism?

The Clintons owe an apology not only to Obama but also to all people of African descent.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/what_happened_to_hillarys_mult.html

OBAMA SECURITY

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:04:38 EST

OBAMA SECURITY HAS TO BE OUR MAIN CONCERN Mihou

Posted on Thu, Feb. 21, 2008

Police concerned about order to stop weapons screening at Obama rally

By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."

The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked.

Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.

"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

http://www.star-telegram.com/251/story/486413.html

--
Rejoignez le forum MONDE-HISTOIRE-CULTURE GENERALE
http://vuesdumonde.forumactif.com/
Défendez une juste cause
http://tirailleursafricains.blogspot.com/
OPERA AGENDA EST.
LA CONNAISSANCE NE VAUT QUE SI ELLE EST PARTAGEE

Obama wins Democrats Abroad primary

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:08:38 EST

Obama wins Democrats Abroad primary

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago

Barack Obama won the Democrats Abroad global primary in results announced Thursday, giving him 11 straight victories in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The Illinois senator won the primary in which Democrats living in other countries voted by Internet, mail and in person, according to results released by the Democrats Abroad, an organization sanctioned by the national party.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has not won a nominating contest since Super Tuesday, more than two weeks ago.

More than 20,000 U.S. citizens living abroad voted in the primary, which ran from Feb. 5 to Feb. 12. Obama won about 65 percent of the vote, according to the results released Thursday.

Voters living in 164 countries cast votes online, while expatriates voted in person in more than 30 countries, at hotels in Australia and Costa Rica, at a pub in Ireland and at a Starbucks in Thailand. The results took about a week to tabulate as local committees around the globe gathered ballots.

"This really gives Americans an opportunity to participate," said Christine Schon Marques, the international chair of Democrats Abroad.

Italian Sports Minister Giovanna Melandri, who has dual citizenship, cast a vote for Obama in Rome.

"It wasn't an easy choice for me. I would still love seeing a ticket with Obama and Hillary (Clinton)," Melandri told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. "A drive for change is what is needed in the U.S. and I think that Obama has that drive."

There is no comparable primary among Republicans, though the GOP has several contests this weekend in U.S. territories, including party caucuses in Puerto Rico Sunday.

The Democrats Abroad controls seven pledged delegates at the party's national convention this summer. However, the group's system of dividing the delegates is unique, and could create an anomaly in which Obama and Clinton end up with fractions of delegates.

The party will send 14 pledged delegates to the convention, each with a half vote. The primary was used to determine nine people, or the equivalent of 4.5 delegates. Obama won 2.5 and Clinton won two, according to Schon Marques.

The Democrats Abroad will hold a global convention in Vancouver, Canada, in April to select the other five people who will attend the convention. They will represent the remaining 2.5 votes.

The system creates the possibility that Obama and Clinton could each end up with an extra half vote at the convention, Schon Marques said.

Democratic parties in U.S. territories use similar systems, in which they send twice the number of delegates, giving them each a half vote. But their systems are designed to ensure that that candidates do not end up with fractions of delegates.

Heading into the Democrats Abroad primary, Obama led with 1,351 delegates, and Clinton had 1,262.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_delegates

Teamsters union to endorse Barack Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:17:11 EST

Teamsters union to endorse Barack Obama

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, AP Labor Writer1 hour, 36 minutes ago

Sen. Barack Obama is poised to get the endorsement of the powerful Teamsters, the second major union endorsement for the Democratic front-runner in a week, union officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Obama will meet with Teamster President James P. Hoffa in Austin, Texas, on Wednesday. The endorsement is expected to come soon thereafter, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the planned formal announcement.

The Teamsters represent 1.4 million members.

Union support will be key in the Democratic primaries in the next few weeks, particularly in Ohio on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22. Ohio and Pennsylvania have some of the nation's largest number of union workers, with more than 15 percent of the work force unionized in Pennsylvania and just over 14 percent in Ohio.

The Democratic presidential contenders have lobbied hard for the Teamster endorsement because of the power the union wields through its fundraising for Democratic candidates and get-out-the-vote programs. The Teamsters gave more than $2.2 million to Democrats in federal races in 2004. They have given more than $24 million to Democratic election causes since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The endorsement from the Teamsters is Obama's fourth from organized labor in a week. The 65,000-member International Brotherhood of Boilermakers endorsed Obama on Wednesday, the 1.9-million member Service Employees International Union backed the Illinois senator last Friday, and the smaller United Food and Commercial Workers endorsed him last Thursday.

Rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by far has a larger number of unions in her corner with 12 endorsements from unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO — the nation's largest labor federation — and the United Farm Workers from the rival Change To Win labor federation.

But Obama also has one AFL-CIO union in his corner — the Transport Workers Union. He also has the backing of the independent National Weather Service Employees Organization. And with a Teamsters endorsement, he will have four Change To Win unions in his corner: the Teamsters, SEIU, the United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE HERE, who gave Obama his first national endorsement from a union.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_on_el_pr/obama_teamsters

Why Lorna Switched from Clinton to Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:02:26 EST

Why Lorna Switched from Clinton to Obama

PLEASE FORWARD THESE LINKS to as many people as you can

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs

Lorna Brett Howard at the election party in San Francisco

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7llr2oLjDN0

Holding Obama Accountable

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:13:42 EST

Holding Obama Accountable
By Bruce Dixon--BlackAgendaReport.com
Feb 14, 2008, 16:37

Email this article
Printer friendly page
The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation. Journalists and leading Democrats have done shockingly little to pin Obama down, to hold him specifically responsible for anything beyond his slogans of "yes we can" and "change we can believe in."

Prominent Black Democrats, many ministers and the traditional Black leadership class are doing less than anybody to hold Obama accountable, peddling instead a supposed racial obligation among African Americans to support this second coming of Joshua and his campaign as "the movement" itself. What would holding Barack Obama accountable on war and peace, on social security, health care and other issues look like? And is it possible to hold a political "rock star" accountable at all?

Whether it is truly possible to hold elected officials accountable in a political system where big money, big media, big corporations and the very rich call all the shots is uncertain. But we have tried and will keep trying. So will others. The stakes are too high not to.

How We Held Obama's Feet to the Fire in 2003
Although close friends and confidants had been talking up a run for national office since the early 1990s, Barack Obama in 2003 was still an Illinois state senator running in the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate. This reporter, a longtime and former Chicago community and political organizer, had worked with Obama in 1992's highly successful Project VOTE Illinois registration drive. After moving to Georgia in 2000, I managed to keep in touch with events at home, and was well aware of Obama's run for the US Senate.

While researching a story on the Democratic Leadership Council for the internet magazine Black Commentator in April and May of 2003, I ran across the DLC's “100 to Watch” list for 2003, in which Barack Obama was prominently featured as one of the DLC's favorite “rising stars”. This was ominous news because the DLC was and still is the right wing's Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party.

The DLC exists to guarantee that wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign donations have more say in the Democratic party than do flesh and blood Democratic voters. The DLC achieves this by closely examining and questioning the records, the policy stands and the persons of officeholders and candidates to ensure that they are safe and worthy recipients of elite largesse. The DLC also supplies them with right wing policy advisers beholden to those same interests, and hooks up approved candidates with the big money donors.

Then as now, the DLC favors bigger military budgets and more imperial wars, wholesale privatization of government functions including social security, and in so-called “free trade” agreements like NAFTA which are actually investor rights agreements. Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.

I revisited Obama's primary election campaign web site, something I had not done for a month or two. To my dismay I found the 2002 antiwar speech, the same one which Barack Obama touts to this day as evidence of his antiwar backbone and prescience, which had been prominently featured before, had vanished from his web site, along with all other evidence that Obama had ever taken a plain spoken stand against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. With the president riding high in the polls, and Illinois' Black and antiwar vote safely in his pocket, Obama appeared to be running away from his opposition to the war, and from the Democratic party's base. Free, at last.

After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling out Barack Obama. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his Web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its "100 to Watch" that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do--fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire.

Facing the possible erosion of his base among progressive Democrats in Illinois, Obama contacted us. We printed his response in Black Commentator's June 19 issue and queried the candidate on three "bright line" issues that clearly distinguish between corporate-funded DLC Democrats and authentic progressives. We concluded the dialog by printing Obama's response on June 26, 2003. For the convenience of our readers in 2007, all three of these articles can be found here.

It was our June 2003 exchange with candidate Obama that prompted him to restore the antiwar speech on his web site, though not as prominently as before, the same antiwar speech which is now touted as evidence of his early and consistent opposition to the war. Our three “bright line” questions invited him to distinguish himself as an authentic progressive on single payer national health care, on the war in Iraq, and on NAFTA. And it was our public exposure of the fact and implications of the DLC's embrace of Obama's career which caused him to explicitly renounce any formal ties with the Democratic Leadership Council. We didn't do it because we were haters. We were doing our duty as agitators.

Holding Barack Obama Accountable in 2008
That was then. This is now.

The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience. From its Bloody Sunday 2007 proclamation that Obama was the second coming of Joshua to its nationally televised kickoff at Abe Lincoln's tomb to the tens of millions of dollars in breathless free media coverage lavished on it by the establishment media, the campaign's deft manipulation of hopeful themes and emotionally potent symbols has led many to impute their own cherished views to Obama, whether he endorses them or not.

To cite the most obvious example, the Obama campaign cynically bills itself as “the movement,” the continuation and fulfillment of Dr. King's legacy. But the speeches of its candidate carefully limit the application of all his troop withdrawal statements to “combat troops” and “combat brigades,” omitting the six figure number of armed mercenary contractors in Iraq, along with “training,” “counterinsurgency” and other kinds of troops. Obama also presses for an expansion of the US Army and Marines by more than 100,000 troops and a larger military budget even than the Bush regime. The fact that both these stands fly in the face of the legacy of Martin Luther King, and flatly contradict the wishes of most Democratic voters is utterly invisible in the establishment media, and in the discourse of established Black leaders on the Obama campaign. The average voter is ill-equipped to read Obama's statements on these and other issues as closely as one might read a predatory loan application or a jacked up insurance policy, trying to determine exactly what is covered.

As we pointed out back in December:
The Obama campaign is heavy on symbolism, and long on vague catch phrases like "new leadership," "new ideas," "a politics of hope," and "let's dream America again" calculated to appeal to millions of disaffected Americans without actually meaning much of anything. Corporate media actively bill Obama as "the candidate of hope," and anointed representative of the "Joshua generation." There are good reasons campaign placards at Obama rallies say "change we can believe in" instead of "stop the war --- vote Obama" or "repeal NAFTA - Barack in '08." The first set of messages are hopeful and vague. The second are popular demands among the voters Obama needs against which his past, present and future performance may be checked. When the comparison is made, the results are dismaying to many who want to support Barack Obama.

Who Will Speak Truth to Power? And When?
No less a luminary than Dr. Michael Eric Dyson last month asserted that the time to pressure Obama to cut the military budget would not come till after the election when, as he said “we have a seat at the table.” We think this is transparently wrong. Obama responded to our calling him out in 2003 because he was still in an election campaign, and needed every vote he could get. The day after the election, he could have ignored us with relative safety, just as Cheney and Bush ignore their approval ratings in the twenty and thirty percent range the last three years and more.

But in 2003 Obama was a mere mortal. Now corporate media have made him a rock star, Joshua, a prince on his way to a coronation. Those who raise questions about Obama's commitment to a progressive agenda will have to struggle to be heard. That's just the way it is. They may even have to be impolite at times. That's just the way it is too. Rock stars, royalty and the uncritical adulation they require make little room for polite criticism or democratic discussion.

Third party runs for the presidency have sometimes succeeded in exerting leftward pressure on Democratic presidential candidates. The best example is 1948, when Henry Wallace campaigned for president on the Progressive Party ticket with Paul Robeson at his side defying Jim Crow laws in dozens of states. It was this credible threat on the part of the Progressive Party to peel Black voters away from the Democratic party which led Truman to issue his election year executive order de-segregating the armed forces.

This year, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader have both declared their intention to explore presidential candidacies this year outside the Democratic party. Both have exemplary records of public service. Neither is a hater. Both are agitators in the best sense of that word. If Barack Obama, or for that matter Hillary Clinton is to be the Democratic presidential nominee, it's time they felt the heat to line up with Democratic voters, rather than with the DLC and the party's biggest donors.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton, also a corporate DLC candidate to the core, may have been more responsive to some heat from the party's grassroots on a few questions than Barack Obama. Clinton has at least promised to repeal No Child Left Behind, the legislation that has forced an unproven and unworkable "teach to the test" regime upon public schools nationwide, and carved tens of billions nationwide from the budgets of schools to foster a privatized, for-profit education industry. By contrast, Obama is still mumbling about "adequately funding" this failed and malevolent educational experiment. Similarly, in a California debate which showed the tiny differences between the Democratic front runners, it was Hillary Clinton who broke the corporate taboo by at least mentioning single payer, the workable universal health care system implemented by every other advanced industrial country on earth and favored by most American voters. Clinton didn't do this because she loves us, or because she is innately more progressive than Obama. She did it because she hard pressed and because activists are less confused and less likely to he silenced by the pernicious notion that her campaign is "the movement" itself.

It's time for a little less respect for the high and mighty of either party, and a little more action. It's high time for activists inside and outside the Democratic party to look for creative, innovative, sometimes impolite and civilly disobedient ways to reach larger audiences as they speak truth to the powerful. Even and especially when those in power are nominal Democrats.

Below are links to the original pages in which we called Barack Obama out for apparently running away from his early opposition to the war, and his ties with the DLC

This is the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator, with the story "In Search of the Real Barack Obama"
http://www.blackcommentator.com/45/issue_45.html

This is the June 12, 2003 issue of Black Commentator with the DLC story
http://www.blackcommentator.com/46/issue_46.html

On June 19, 2003 we printed Obama's response and his reason for eliminating the speech from his web site. He said the web site was for current stuff implied with the "formal" end to hostilities in Iraq it was "outdated" and removed by his staff to make room for more current stuff. Yeah. Right.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/issue_47.html

And we wrapped it up by printing Obama's response to our three follow-up questions, intended to delineate the "bright line" between being an authentic progressive and being something else. We wrung from him an explicit renunciation of the DLC at this time.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/issue_48.html

http://www.seeingblack.com/article_375.shtml

EVEN IN TEXAS: ADVANTAGE OBAMA

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:07:07 EST

« HILLARY CLINTON GOOFS AGAIN! EVEN IN TEXAS: ADVANTAGE OBAMA Feb 15 2008

While polls still show Hillary leading Obama in Texas and also in Ohio, her lead will likely fade and likely disappear by the time their primaries are held two weeks hence.

If Obama wins in Wisconsin, he’ll probably also carry Ohio, a state with very similar demographics. Neither state has much in the way of Hispanic voters (Only 2% of Ohio is Latino) or recent immigrants, the two key groups that gave Hillary the edge in California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

But it is more plausible to look for a Hillary victory in Texas where the population is 36% Hispanic. But even here, key obstacles lie in her path.

Most importantly, 67 of the 193 delegates from Texas to be chosen on March 4th will be selected in Iowa-style caucuses with the balance voted in a primary to be held on the same day. Hillary has only carried two of nine caucus states and admittedly does poorly in that format. She claims that her weakness in caucuses is due to the inability of her single female voters to spend the time at a caucus on a weekday evening or to find child care even if they want to go. Perhaps. But Obama’s candidacy, generating rock star enthusiasm especially among young voters, certainly seems to generate the kind of commitment that leads voters to want to attend caucuses. It’s obviously easier to get people to spend twenty minutes voting near their homes than to spend three hours travelling to caucus locations and attending their meeting.

Texas and Ohio also permit Independents to vote in their Democratic primary. Texas even allows Republicans to do so. With the Republican nomination largely decided, there is little to draw these voters to the McCain-Huckabee battle and much to induce them to enter the Democratic primary to vote against the candidate so many of them love to hate. The Texas primary will assume the aspect of a general election so heavy will be the crossing over and nobody could expect Hillary Clinton to carry Texas in a general election.

If Hillary loses both Ohio and Texas, she will probably have to drop out of the race. If she loses either, she will lose her last opportunity to catch Obama.

After Texas, it’s all downhill for Hillary. The states which follow March 4th (except for Puerto Rico) are largely devoid of Hispanics. They include Southern states like Mississippi, North Carolina, and Kentucky and western states, akin to those Obama has already carried like Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana. In Pennsylvania and Indiana, Obama’s star power, the lack of a Latino population, and his momentum should assure victories. Hillary will win Puerto Rico and perhaps West Virginia, but her victories will be few and far between.

So Obama will probably gain a net of more than 100 delegates in the days after Ohio and Texas which, added to his current lead of over 100 delegates, would be enough to assure him the nomination.

Will the super delegates rescue Hillary? Unless they were to go for her overwhelmingly, by almost 3:1, they would not be enough to tip the balance. More likely, they would tend to flake away from Hillary, frightened to ignore the wishes of the voters of their district. Voting for Hillary when your voters want Obama might be the easiest way to buy yourself a primary fight and possible defeat at the next election. And these super delegates, after all, are politicians.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/02/15/even-in-texas-advantage-obama/

Why Obama, Not Clinton?

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 20:11:13 EST

Here are some of the reasons Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton, is the change America needs.

Democracy

In Iowa, the Hillary Clinton campaign actively worked to suppress the votes of Iowa students.
In New Hampshire, the Hillary Clinton campaign harassed “get-out-the-vote” workers at the polls to hinder their efforts.
In Nevada, the Hillary Clinton campaign’s supporters filed a lawsuit that aimed to suppress the vote of culinary union members.
In Nevada, the Hillary Clinton campaign shut the doors on caucus-goers 30 minutes earlier than the official rules stated. Caucus-goers were not allowed to participate.
It is a sad day when America becomes dominated by two political families–the Bush family and the Clintons. America should be a democracy, not a dynasty.

Economic Concerns

In 1998, Hillary Clinton praised NAFTA, the bill President Bill Clinton signed into law. Now she opposes it. Barack Obama opposed it. NAFTA has been devastating to rural America.
Hillary Clinton has gone to other countries and proclaimed that “outsourcing will continue.” However, in front of American audiences she tempers this and talks about the problems with outsourcing American jobs. Why isn’t she saying the same things in both places?
Hillary Clinton misled an Iowa voter about her position on social security. The voter is still unsure where she stands.
Hillary Clinton argued that Americans who make over $97,000 per year are the middle-class.
The Washington Post gave Barack Obama an A- for his economic stimulus plan and gave Hillary Clinton a C+.

Electability

The polls consistently show that Barack Obama does better against John McCain than does Hillary Clinton.

The Environment

The League of Conservation Voters gave Barack Obama a higher score on his environmental voting record than all the other Democratic nominees.

Ethics and Lobbyists Reform

Barack Obama has a superior record to Hillary Clinton on confronting lobbyists and special interests.
Barack Obama does not take federal PAC or federal lobbyist funding for his Presidential campaign, while Hillary Clinton does. In fact, Hillary Clinton said, “Lobbyists represent real Americans.”
Barack Obama has released his personal income tax returns to the public for scrutiny, while Hillary Clinton has not.
Hillary Clinton uses more earmarks and pork spending than any other Democratic nominee or Republican nominee.
Barack Obama agreed to take public financing for the general election if the Republican nominee will do the same. Hillary Clinton has not agreed to this.
Barack Obama passed the toughest ethics reform legislation in the U.S. Senate since Watergate, while Hillary has not passed a bill yet of this magnitude.
The majority of Barack Obama’s campaign funding comes from small donors, while the majority of Clinton’s comes from large donors.
Barack Obama was the leader in revealing to the public all of his federal earmark requests, while Hillary Clinton was not.

Experience

Barack Obama has both sufficient experience and a record of good judgment.
Barack Obama will have held elected office for 12 years before becoming President. Hillary Clinton will only have held office for 8 years.
While Clinton claims experience from her husband’s presidency, she will not release her White House papers to let us know specifically what that experience is.
She cited her experience as the reason she voted to go to Iraq, so that nullified her experience argument.
Even Bill Clinton said when people criticized him for being inexperienced in the 1990s that, “The same old experience is not relevant.”
Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were before they took the presidency. He can’t help that he takes care of himself and ages well.
As John Kerry argues, Barack Obama has more legislative experience than either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards.
Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote. These bills include:
1. A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois.
2. A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations.
3. A bill that provided the earned income tax credit to thousands of Illinois families.
4. A bill that reformed the death penalty that had sent innocent people to death row
5. A bill that banned gifts and meals from lobbyists.
6. And much more.
While Hillary Clinton has spent more time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has gotten more substantive legislation that affects the American people passed while he’s been there. Many of Clinton’s bills were about naming post offices and buildings. However, Obama’s legislation includes:
1. A bill with Senator Richard Lugar which bans the development of nuclear weapons.
2. A bill that created a public database where average Americans can see how the government is spending their money.
3. A bill that provided important assistance to address the situation in the Congo.
4. A bill that Nancy Pelosi calls “one of the toughest ethics reform” bills in this history of the Congress.

Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War, while Barack Obama opposed the war from the start.
Hillary Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate report before voting to send troops to Iraq.
Barack Obama agrees that America should talk to countries that are our foes, while Hillary Clinton takes issue with his position.
Barack Obama understands the basic facts about Pakistan’s electoral system better than Hillary Clinton.
While Barack Obama has proposed a detailed foreign policy plan, Hillary Clinton has not provided Obama’s level of detail.
Hillary Clinton’s current foreign policy advisers were largely supportive of the war in Iraq. Obama’s current foreign policy advisers are more “forward thinking” and generally did not support the war. We need people advising our president who have good judgment on foreign policy, not people who carry the old conventional wisdom.

Health Care

Hillary Clinton should be applauded for her work trying to get health care passed during the 1990s. However, Obama should be applauded as well for his eight-years of writing health care legislation and getting it signed into law at the state level. Obama has a lesser known, but impressive record of getting results on health care.

Homeland Security

CIA Officials agree more with Barack Obama’s approach to finding Osama Bin Laden than with Hillary Clinton’s.
Hillary Clinton’s assessment of our America’s homeland security status contradicts the assessment offered by national intelligence agencies.

Human Rights

Hillary Clinton was the last Democrat to support the torture pledge.
Hillary flip-flopped on the issue of whether America should use nuclear weapons.

Judicial System

Hillary Clinton attacked Barack Obama for his position on mandatory minimum sentencing behind-the-scenes, while she touted her support for it in front of minority audiences.
Hillary Clinton was the only Democratic nominee to oppose retroactivity for mandatory minimum sentencing. All the other Democrats supported it. Even George Bush and the Supreme Court supported it.
While Hillary Clinton is opposed to retroactivity for crimes of poor people, she does not hold this standard for crimes of the rich.

Lying

News reporters have shown that Bill Clinton lied to voters about being opposed to the Iraq War from the start. The reporters have video of the Clintons expressing support for Bush’s actions back in 2002.
While Hillary Clinton gives traditional Washington non-answers to questions, Barack Obama has been praised by commentators for telling the truth.
All the Democrats made a pledge not to campaign in Florida or Michigan because the two states broke Democratic rules by moving their primaries ahead of other states. While Obama and Edwards abided by the rules and took their names off the Michigan ballot, Clinton kept her name on the ballot. Right before the Florida primary, Clinton started working to get the Florida delegates counted even though she agreed not to do so at the beginning of the primary season. If she cannot keep her promises during the campaign season, how will she keep her promises as President?

Poverty

Hillary Clinton has the weakest formal platform of the top three Democratic nominees on addressing urban poverty.
Barack Obama has gotten more anti-poverty legislation signed into law in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton has. He passed numerous bills during his work in Illinois.

Technological Innovation

TechPresiden t rated Barack Obama’s technology platform as superior to Hillary Clinton’s.

Women’s Rights

In New Hampshire, the Hillary Clinton campaign misled female state senators to sign a letter attacking Senator Barack Obama’s women’s rights record. After the New Hampshire primary, the senators apologized for misleading people about his record and took issue with the Clinton campaign’s practices. This incident left great division among women’s rights activists in New Hampshire.
When women’s rights came under attack in South Dakota, women’s rights activists asked all the senators in Congress to write a letter and help fundraise on their behalf. Barack Obama was the only Senator who wrote a letter and fundraised on their behalf. Hillary Clinton did not.
Hillary Clinton also tried to mislead voters about Barack Obama’s commitment to helping victims of sexual abuse, an issue on which he has been a strong advocate.

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/why-support-barack-obama-not-hillary-clinton-comparison-compare-records/

Lawrence Lessig explains his support for Barack Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:08:13 EST

Lawrence Lessig has produced an extraordinary good presentation on why he is supporting Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. As usual his presentation style is just great.

http://accidentalideas.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/lawrence-lessig-explains-his-support-for-barack-obama/

Obama vs. the Phobocracy

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:46:11 EST

Obama vs. the Phobocracy

By Michael Chabon
Monday, February 4, 2008; 12:00 AM

There are many reasons not to support Barack Obama's candidacy for president, but every one of them is bad for the same reason.

Because I have come out publicly for the senator from Illinois, I am often called upon to listen as people offer up -- with wistfulness and regret, or with a pundit's show of certainty, or with a well-earned but useless skepticism -- their bad reasons for not giving Obama their support. For a long time now, I have listened to these people with forbearance and with a sense of duty -- not to some principle of open debate or of the inherent merit in the free exchange of even meritless ideas, but rather out of obligation to the candidate whose cause I champion.

Because Obama appears to be a patient, forbearing man with a gift for listening, I figured I owed it to him to play the thing his way. So I have nodded and looked into their eyes and hummed sympathetically as people gave their reasons and made their excuses and generally offered up, as if they were golden ingots of profound wisdom, the handful of two-penny nails with which they plan to board up the windows of their hopes for themselves, their families, their country and the world.

But now, with everything seeming to come down, at last, to the first Tuesday in February, and in the wake of an all-out, months-long push by the cynicism industry to cook up an entire line of bad reasons ready to heat and serve, I admit that I'm getting tired of listening to rationales from people who know that Obama is a remarkable, even an extraordinary politician, the kind who comes along, in this era of snakes and empty smiles, no more than once a generation.

Oh, sure, most of these people tell me they would like to see Obama become president. No question, he comes off as at once brilliant and sensible, vibrant and measured, engaged and engaging, talented, forthright, quick-witted, passionate, thoughtful and, as with all remarkable people whom experience has taught both the extent and the bitter limits of their gifts, reasonably humble. In a better world, people tell me, in theory, sure, having a president like Barack Obama sounds great. But not, you know, for real. Not in the base, corrupt, morally spent, toxic and reeling rats' nest that we like to call home. Things are so bad we just can't afford to waste our votes, people tell me, on some fantasy super-president with magical powers. We need someone electable, someone, as I have been told repeatedly in the past year, who can win.

Of course this misses the point; it misses all kinds of points. In a better world, if there were such a thing (and so far there never has been), we would not need a president like Obama as badly as we do. If there were less at stake, if our democracy had not been permitted, indeed encouraged, to sink to its present degraded and embattled condition not only by the present administration but by a fair number of those people now seeking to head up the next one, perhaps then we could afford to waste our votes on the candidate who knows best how to jigger, to manipulate and to conform to the vapid specifications of the debased electoral process it has been our unhappy fate to construct for ourselves.

Because ultimately, that is the point of Obama's candidacy -- of the hope, enthusiasm and sense of purpose it inspires, yes, but more crucially, of the very doubts and reservations expressed by those who pronounce, whether in tones of regret, certainty or skepticism, that America is not ready for Obama, or that Obama is not ready for the job, or that nobody of any worth or decency -- supposing there even to be such a person left on the American political scene -- can be expected to survive for a moment with his idealism and principle intact.

The point of Obama's candidacy is that the damaged state of American democracy is not the fault of George W. Bush and his minions, the corporate-controlled media, the insurance industry, the oil industry, lobbyists, terrorists, illegal immigrants or Satan. The point is that this mess is our fault. We let in the serpents and liars, we exchanged shining ideals for a handful of nails and some two-by-fours, and we did it by resorting to the simplest, deepest-seated and readiest method we possess as human beings for trying to make sense of the world: through our fear. America has become a phobocracy.

Since I started talking and writing about Obama I have come to see that this ruling fear, and nothing else, lies at the back of every objection or reservation people raise or harbor regarding the man and his candidacy.

Fear whispers to us that white voters have a nasty tendency to tell pollsters, friends and neighbors that they support an African American candidate, then go into the voting booth and let the fear known as racism pull the lever.

Fear tells us that ugliness, rage and brutality are the central facts of human existence, that decency and tolerance are luxuries on whose altar our enemies will be only too happy to sacrifice us.

It is through our fear of falling prey to the calamity and misadventure from which the media promise faithlessly to protect us -- a fear manufactured and sold by the media themselves -- that we accept without question the media-borne canard (tainted, in my view, by a racism as insidious as any that hides behind the curtains of voting booths) that Barack Obama, a seasoned and successful 46-year-old husband and father of two, a man sweeping into the prime of his life with all his sails and flags unfurled, is too young and inexperienced for a job that demands vitality and flexibility and that, furthermore, has made nonsense of glittering resumes, laughingstocks of practiced old hands and, in a reverse of Popeye's old trick, ravenous alligators out of years of accumulated baggage.

Fear and those who fatten on it spread vile lies about Obama's religion, his past drug use, his views on Israel and the Jews. Fear makes us see the world purely in terms of enemies and perils, and leads us to seek out the promise of leadership, however spurious it proves to be, among those who speak the language of that doomed and demeaning, that inhuman view of the world.

But the most pitiable fear of all is the fear of disappointment, of having our hearts broken and our hopes dashed by this radiant, humane politician who seems not just with his words but with every step he takes, simply by the fact of his running at all, to promise so much for our country, for our future and for the eventual state of our national soul. I say "pitiable" because this fear of disappointment, which I hear underlying so many of the doubts that people express to me, is ultimately a fear of finding out the truth about ourselves and the extent of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into. If we do fight for Obama, work for him, believe in him, vote for him, and the man goes down to defeat by the big-money machines and the merchants of fear, then what hope will we have left to hold on to?

Thus in the name of preserving hope do we disdain it. That is how a phobocracy maintains its grip on power.

To support Obama, we must permit ourselves to feel hope, to acknowledge the possibility that we can aspire as a nation to be more than merely secure or predominant. We must allow ourselves to believe in Obama, not blindly or unquestioningly as we might believe in some demagogue or figurehead but as we believe in the comfort we take in our families, in the pleasure of good company, in the blessings of peace and liberty, in any thing that requires us to put our trust in the best part of ourselves and others. That kind of belief is a revolutionary act. It holds the power, in time, to overturn and repair all the damage that our fear has driven us to inflict on ourselves and the world.

And when we all wake up on Nov. 5, 2008, to find that we have made Barack Obama the president of the United States, the world is already going to feel, to all of us, a little different, a little truer to its, and our, better nature. It is part of the world's nature and of our own to break, ruin and destroy; but it is also our nature and the world's to find ways to mend what has been broken. We can do that. Come on. Don't be afraid.

mchabon@gmail.com

Michael Chabon's novels include "The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay," "The Yiddish Policemen's Union" and, most recently, "Gentlemen of the Road."

var comments_url = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302526_Comments.html" ; var article_id = "AR2008020302526" ;

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302526_pf.html

PUERTO RICO Gov Backs Obama for President

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:43:09 EST

PR Gov Backs Obama for President

Puerto Rican Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila endorsed Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday, giving the candidate potentially key support from one of the island's superdelegates in a close fight for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Acevedo said he chose Obama because the Illinois senator supports a process of resolving Puerto Rico's relationship to the United States that is also favored by the governor's Popular Democratic Party.

Acevedo supports retaining the territory's semiautonomous relationship with the U.S. and he opposes a bill before Congress that could force residents to choose between statehood and independence.

The governor also said Obama expressed support for continued U.S. assistance with Puerto Rico's economic development and the cleanup of the former Navy bombing range in Vieques.

"This is a unique opportunity to have a president who genuinely respects and appreciates Puerto Ricans and is willing to assume an important role in favor of Puerto Rico," he said in a statement.

He called Hillary Rodham Clinton an "extraordinary senator" for New York and a "friend of Puerto Rico," but said Obama had made more of a commitment to the island.

As one of eight superdelegates from the island, Acevedo casts one of Puerto Rico's 63 votes at the Democratic convention. The other 55 are apportioned based on the results of the island's June 7 primary. Residents of Puerto Rico can't vote in the general election.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004180171_aponthe2008trail13.html

The Houston Chronicle endorses the senator from Illinois for the Democratic presidential nomination.

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:48:05 EST

Feb. 16, 2008, 2:09AM
For Obama
The Chronicle endorses the senator from Illinois for the Democratic presidential nomination.

if (MCP_PLUCK) { gSiteLife.Recommend("ExternalResource",PluckItemID); }

The presidency of the United States is a powerful bully pulpit. The occupant of the White House must not only issue orders, but also inspire and advocate for all Americans.

Of the two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Chronicle believes Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is best-qualified by life experience, skill and temperament to be the standard bearer for his party. In a conference call, Obama told the Chronicle editorial board that "more than any other candidate, I can bridge some of the partisan as well as racial and religious divides that have developed in this country that prevent us from getting things done."

Those who have viewed the numerous campaign debates know there's not much to separate Obama from his opponent, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. Either could ably represent the Democratic Party. Both candidates favor ending the war in Iraq by withdrawing combat troops and initiating regional negotiations to stabilize the country. Both would press for dramatic strides toward providing all Americans with health insurance.

Both support a cap and trade system to begin reducing America's carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Each promises to initiate multibillion-dollar efforts to promote conversion of the economy to clean energy technologies. They favor securing our borders, initiating comprehensive immigration reform and creating a path to earned legal status for those already here who are working and contributing to their communities.

However, there is a decisive difference. Obama vows to reach out to independents and Republicans with a message of inclusion and cooperation. He offers a historic opportunity to elevate national political dialogue to a higher ground. Those who insist on vitriol and obstructionism would be marginalized.

On several issues vital to Houstonians, Obama's positions need elaboration. He recognizes the need to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in space but said he wanted to study the costs and benefits of human space exploration — an exercise that should convince him of the space program's long history of indispensable contributions.

Obama said he did not expect the leaders of the energy sector to vote for him. He needs to realize that the energy sector must be a large part of a cooperative effort to develop alternative fuels and avoid an energy crunch.

The 46-year-old Obama has expanded his base of support, winning new legions of supporters. The more people see and hear him, the more they like him. As the Hawaiian-born son of a Muslim Kenyan father and an Anglo Midwesterner, the devoutly Christian Obama transcends race and religion. His life has been one of involvement with disadvantaged Chicago residents, excellence at Harvard Law School and eight years as an Illinois state senator. He was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, only the third African-American to serve there since Reconstruction.

Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies.

The passion and excitement that Obama has brought to the race can only stimulate more citizens to participate in the electoral process. The Chronicle urges Texas Democrats to cast what could be decisive ballots for his presidential nomination.

Democrats Look to Avoid Convention Rift

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:11:22 EST

February 16, 2008 Democrats Look to Avoid Convention Rift By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and JO BECKER

Former Vice President Al Gore and a number of other senior Democrats plan to remain neutral for now in the presidential race in part to keep open the option to broker a peaceful resolution to what they fear could be a bitterly divided convention, party officials and aides said Friday.

Democratic Party officials said that in the past week Mr. Gore and other leading Democrats had held private talks as worry mounted that the close race between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could be decided by a group of 795 party insiders known as superdelegates.

The signs that party elders are weighing whether and how to intervene reflects the extraordinary nature of the contest now and the concern among some Democrats that they not risk an internal battle that could harm the party in the general election.

But they also provided an early glimpse at the complex set of tradeoffs facing party leaders, from their desire to make their own influence felt to their worries about offending the candidates and particular constituencies — not to mention the long, sometimes troubled relationship between Mr. Gore and the Clintons.

The issues party leaders are grappling with, they said, include how to avoid the perception of a back-room deal that thwarts the will of millions of voters who have cast ballots in primaries and caucuses. That perception could cripple the eventual Democratic nominee’s chances of winning the presidency in November, they said.

A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.

“It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” Ms. Pelosi said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. Ms. Pelosi said she intended to remain neutral, though some of her closest friends and allies in the House are publicly supporting Mr. Obama.

She said the nomination should not be decided by delegates from Florida and Michigan allocated on the basis of voting in primaries there last month, as the Clinton campaign has proposed. Mrs. Clinton got more votes in both places, although neither candidate actively campaigned there and Mr. Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan. The party had penalized those states for holding their primaries earlier than the party wanted by stripping them of their delegates to the convention.

“We can’t ignore the rules which everyone else played by,” Ms. Pelosi said.

Few figures are being more closely watched by Democratic insiders than Mr. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who associates say has been lobbied hard for an endorsement by allies of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama.

Although it is not clear what role their past may play in his decision, Mr. Gore and the Clintons have a complicated, sometimes intense history, and Mr. Obama’s strength in the presidential race could make it even more complicated.

Some of Mr. Gore’s allies have complained bitterly that Mr. Clinton concentrated more on Mrs. Clinton’s Senate run in 2000 than on getting Mr. Gore elected president. For his part, Mr. Clinton was surprised and hurt that Mr. Gore did not enlist him on the campaign trail in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Although Mr. Gore has expressed concerns to some associates about the damage a brokered convention could cause, several associates said he was hopeful that one candidate would soon break through, sparing the party such an outcome. He told a close friend recently that his decision not to endorse “feels like the right thing” and that he remained optimistic the race “is going to tip at some point,” the friend said.

Another close ally of Mr. Gore’s, however, said: “He recognizes the need for a few party elders to stay on the sidelines to ensure, if needed, that the process is fair and honest. It could very likely take a group of senior party people, including Gore, to settle this, but the only way they can settle it is if they stay on the sidelines now.”

Kalee Kreider, communications director for Mr. Gore, said that he “has no present plans to endorse a candidate,” though she added, “He has not ruled out that possibility prior to the convention.” Ms. Kreider declined to discuss Mr. Gore’s private conversations with party leaders.

But four close associates of Mr. Gore’s said senior party officials had actively consulted him for his advice about what the superdelegates should do if neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton amassed the 2,025 delegates necessary to win the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7.

Party leaders described Mr. Gore as a potentially crucial mediator because the putative head of the party — and the man who chose him as his vice president — Bill Clinton, is hardly a neutral observer when it comes to his wife’s candidacy.

“Because President Clinton is very involved on one side, there is an opening for him to be a more neutral force and an honest broker,” said a close associate of Mr. Gore’s, who like most of the associates spoke only on the condition of anonymity. “He’s probably the only unaligned person with the kind of stature to step in to that role and have a real impact on this.”

Several allies said that because of Mr. Gore’s bruising defeat in 2000 presidential voting in Florida, he would have the credibility with Democrats to carry the message that the will of the people should be respected.

Both the Clinton and Obama campaigns are aggressively lobbying the superdelegates, a battle that received new attention after Representative John Lewis of Georgia, who had endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said late Thursday that he would cast his superdelegate ballot for Mr. Obama if the battle for the nomination went to the convention.

The Clinton camp has Mr. Clinton making frequent calls, and Mr. Obama’s surrogates are pushing for superdelegates from states where he won primaries or caucuses to pledge their support to him.

But there was no sign of any wholesale shift in support toward Mr. Obama on Friday. Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the Democratic whip and highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he intended to remain neutral and let the primaries play out even though Mr. Obama won overwhelmingly in his district and state.

“If I were to only reflect my state, then that may not be good enough for a national candidate,” Mr. Clyburn said. “So I think we ought to use our collective judgment to do what is in the best interests of our party.”

But the role that the superdelegates should play between now and the convention is at the heart of a raging debate. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which is trailing in the delegate count, has taken the position that superdelegates should be free to choose the best-qualified candidate. Mr. Obama’s campaign has said that the superdelegates should be bound by the voters’ will.

Several senior officials cautioned that the party elders had not yet determined whether superdelegates should be urged to cast their votes for the candidate who has the most delegates, or the one who won their state or Congressional district, or the winner of the popular vote. Because Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton might lead in different categories, the question is a vital one.

At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said. Although a number of his supporters had been urging him to endorse Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton has actively sought his backing, Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.

A senior associate of Mr. Gore’s said that surrogates for Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama had tried to lock up the former vice president’s endorsement. But he has steadfastly refused to even hint at which candidate he might favor.

Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16delegates.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1203176876-Lxo3pBvdEdGpYHoLeM8xWA#

Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:07:24 EST

February 16, 2008
Unofficial Tallies in City Understated Obama Vote
By SAM ROBERTS

Black voters are heavily represented in the 94th Election District in Harlem’s 70th Assembly District. Yet according to the unofficial results from the New York Democratic primary last week, not a single vote in the district was cast for Senator Barack Obama.

That anomaly was not unique. In fact, a review by The New York Times of the unofficial results reported on primary night found about 80 election districts among the city’s 6,106 where Mr. Obama supposedly did not receive even one vote, including cases where he ran a respectable race in a nearby district.

City election officials this week said that their formal review of the results, which will not be completed for weeks, had confirmed some major discrepancies between the vote totals reported publicly — and unofficially — on primary night and the actual tally on hundreds of voting machines across the city.

In the Harlem district, for instance, where the primary night returns suggested a 141 to 0 sweep by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the vote now stands at 261 to 136. In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.

The history of New York elections has been punctuated by episodes of confusion, incompetence and even occasional corruption. And election officials and lawyers for both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton agree that it is not uncommon for mistakes to be made by weary inspectors rushing on election night to transcribe columns of numbers that are delivered first to the police and then to the news media.

That said, in a presidential campaign in which every vote at the Democratic National Convention may count, a swing of even a couple of hundred votes in New York might help Mr. Obama gain a few additional delegates.

City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times’s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results.

“It looked like a lot of the numbers were wrong, probably the result of human error,” said Marcus Cederqvist, who was named executive director of the Board of Elections last month. He said such discrepancies between the unofficial and final count rarely affected the raw vote outcome because “they’re not usually that big.”

On primary night, Mrs. Clinton was leading with 57 percent to Mr. Obama’s 40 percent in New York State, which meant she stood to win 139 delegates to Mr. Obama’s 93, with 49 others known as superdelegates going to the national convention unaffiliated.

Jerome A. Koenig, a former chief of staff to the State Assembly’s election law committee and a lawyer for the Obama campaign, suggested that some of the discrepancy resulted from the design of the ballot.

Candidates were listed from left to right in an order selected by drawing lots. Mrs. Clinton was first, followed by Gov. Bill Richardson and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who in most election districts received zero votes, and by John Edwards, who got relatively few. Mr. Obama was fifth, just before Representative Dennis J. Kucinich.

Mr. Koenig said he seriously doubted that anything underhanded was at work because local politicians care more about elections that matter specifically to them.

“They steal votes for elections like Assembly District leader, where people have a personal stake,” he said.

A number of political leaders also scoffed at the possibility that local politicians, even if they considered it vital that Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton prevail in the primary, were capable of even trying to hijack such a contest.

Still, for those inclined to consider conspiracy theories, the figures provided plenty of grist.

The 94th Election District in Harlem, for instance, sits within the Congressional district represented by Charles B. Rangel, an original supporter of Mrs. Clinton.

Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright, a Clinton supporter who represents the same area, said he was confident that there was an innocent explanation for the original count giving Mr. Obama zero votes.

“I’m sure it’s a clerical error of some sort,” Mr. Wright said. “Being around elections for the last 25 years, no candidate receives zero votes.”

But Gordon J. Davis, a former New York City parks commissioner and an Obama poll watcher in the district, remained skeptical, even after being informed of the corrected count.

“First it was reported at 141 to 0, now it’s 261 to 136 in an Assembly district that went 12,000 to 8,000 for Barack,” Mr. Davis said on Friday.

“I was watching like a hawk, but how did I know the machine had a mind of its own?” he added. “And I speak as one who grew up on the South Side of Chicago where we delivered the margin of victory for John F. Kennedy at 4 in the morning.”

At the sprawling Riverside Park Community apartments at Broadway and 135th Street, Alician D. Barksdale said she had voted for Mr. Obama and her daughter had, too, by absentee ballot.

“Everyone around here voted for him,” she said.

The 53rd Assembly District, in Brooklyn, is represented by the borough’s Democratic chairman, Assemblyman Vito P. Lopez, another Clinton supporter. He said the party faithful have produced lopsided margins of as much as 160 to 4 and that on Primary Day he fielded election captains in every district to galvanize Hispanic voters for Mrs. Clinton.

“We ran it the old-fashioned way,” he said. Still, he said, the 118 to 0 vote “has to be a mistake.”

At the Archive, a cafe and video store on the border of Bushwick and East Williamsburg, the manager, Brad Lee, agreed. “There were Obama posters in everyone’s windows,” he said. “There was even Obama graffiti.”

Most election-night anomalies are later reconciled by the official canvass of the machines and in the formal count of absentee returns and of paper affidavit ballots issued on Primary Day, to people who do not appear to be eligible but demand the right to vote, and later validated.

On Feb. 5, Mrs. Clinton carried 61 of the state’s 62 counties but won Brooklyn by a margin of less than 2 percent. Because delegates are awarded proportionately on the basis of the primary vote in each Congressional district, Obama supporters expressed hope that if the official count continued in their favor, they might gain an additional delegate or two.

Kate Hammer and Robin Stein contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print

open letter to David Plouffe and David Axelrod for Barack Obama

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:29:51 EST

Hi David,
I just want to share few important and relevant ideas that i think Barack Obama should bring up during the coming debate:

How to fight obesity,diabetes by increasing physical activity in schools as a powerful mean of prevention and also to insist in early education at school in proper food intake to prevent all kind of diseases bound our bad food intake in the U.S.A.
Diabetes has become so widespread that the United States spends as much as $100 billion a year for the healthcare of Americans with diabetes.
Using physical activity as a tool,it does not cost money to the society compared to $100 billion a year for the healthcare of Americans with diabetes.

As you have to lead by example and as many of us know that Barack Obama likes playing basketball,it would be full of genius to do this:
Texas, is the only state with 3 basketball teams :Houston Rockets,San Antonio Spurs, Dallas Maverick.

My idea is to ask Bruce Bowen of San Antonio Spurs a long time supporter of Barack Obama to set up a one on one game with Barack Obama and the press-media :this could last only 15 minutes and would be a powerful publicity for physical activity and in the same time to show the fitness of Barack Obama.
He could also play in a gymnasium with college students which could bring more enthusiasm amoung american people especially the youth.
Same thing could be done with players in Dallas Maverick and Houston Rockets where Barack Obama has several supporters.

In Ohio,Barack could invite Lebron James to participate in one on one game or shooting ball as warmup exercise.

I am expecting your feedback on these ideas.

DONATE AND SIGN THE PETITION

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:12:30 EST

Barack Obama's groundbreaking campaign has been powered by small donations by people like me and you.

February 12th is the birthday of America's greatest president, Abraham Lincoln (who was also from Illinois)

Your vote counts : DO NOT LET ANY SUPERDELEGATE STEALS YOUR VOTE

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Abraham Lincoln is on the $5 bill and on the penny.

Therefore, on Feb 12th, join millions of other Obama supporters in giving a donation of $5.01 to the campaign.

Invite all of your friends and encourage them to do the same

P.S. If you want to give more, you could do $5.01 multiples (e.g. $10.02, $20.04, $50.10, etc)

DONATE, DONATE, DONATE

YES WE CAN!

PETITION

MONTREAL FOR OBAMA 08 — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 02:48:15 EST

Your vote counts : DO NOT LET ANY SUPERDELEGATE STEALS YOUR VOTE

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/