Patricia's Blog

" Alaska Women Reject Palin" Rally w/Photos!

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:25:12 EDT

in the Daily Kos by frsbdg Sun Sep 14, 2008 at 07:30:42 AM PDT

We begin in Anchorage, Alaska, where a group of average women decided to hold a small rally to let it be known that their Governor, Sarah Palin, does not represent their views on many of the issues that are important in their lives.They put together a press release and sent it to the Anchorage media outlets. A local right-wing talk show host broadcast the names and phone numbers of the two organizers over the air. They began receiving a series of harassing phone calls for the remainder of that afternoon. The leading TV station picked up the story on Thursday. Alaska Public Radio Network put up some audio.An anonymous caller contacted the local media on Friday afternoon and told them they were one of the organizers, and the rally had been cancelled. Someone even faxed forged a document saying the Secret Service had cancelled the permit for the rally, even though no permit is required. Some people were putting an awful lot of effort in to making sure no dissent would be heard from Alaska.
Well, it didn't work. Despite overcast skies and a forecast for rain, there was a rally here today. Oh man, was there! In fact, it was by most accounts the largest protest rally in the history of Alaska. The Anchorage Daily News wrote that the rally drew an "estimated" 1500 people. Let me be clear: the organizers used a hand-clicker and counted at least 1,483 Alaskans, mostly women, who showed up to say that Sarah Palin does not speak for them. They also counted 93 McCain/Palin supporters. The national media loves to say that Sarah Palin enjoys an "80% popularity rating" in Alaska. Do the math on todays rally, and you'd need a faith-based calculator to get 80%. This was grassroots activism at its best - Alaskans coming out to speak their minds on a host of issues. Here are some still pics, I'll update with video later today.The site of the rally.
At 10:30 AM, the sidewalk was empty.

Holy cow!
Seriously. Wow.
Probably the biggest protest rally in Alaska history. I can believe that.
No shortage of Pitbulls and Lipstick.
Again with the Pitbulls?!?
A smart young girl.
Two of my favorites.
Another good one.
These two women weren't buying the hype, either.
An excellent question. Governor?
Lots of other folks here support her choice, too.
I sense a pattern developing here...
Folks

Check out more pics here.As you can see from these photos, the rally was AMAZING! With few exceptions, there was no friction between the two camps. To help keep things civil, the organizers set up some ground rules for the rally. Here is the "Code of Conduct" that they distributed to attendees:

ALASKA WOMEN REJECT PALIN RALLY
Saturday, September 13, 2008, 12:00 noon
Loussac Library, 36th and DenaliWelcome to the Alaska Women Reject Palin Rally. We invite you to introduce yourselves to each other and discuss legitimate policy concerns and what brought you out this weekend. Please review the code of conduct outlined below. We are committed to exercising our right to free speech and assembly in a peaceful, respectful manner.
� This rally is non-partisan.
� Stick to issues and speak about your individual experience and views.
� Be respectful of all view points.
� Do not engage with counter rally participants in arguments about the merit of specific issues or value systems.
� No personal attacks on Governor Palin, her family, or her supporters.
� Do not use abusive language.
� Stay off the lawn and do not block sidewalk or road traffic.
� Please recycle this flyer and don't litter.

And if you're still with me...
Ed Schulz held a town hall meeting here on Saturday night. He'll be broadcasting it on Monday. Be sure to tune in to hear real Alaskans tell the country what they think of Sarah Palin in their own words. Don't miss it!

Biden vs. Palin on Violence Against Women

Patricia-Iowa — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:32:47 EDT

Salon.com has an article by Lynn Harris today (9-11-08) raising the question whether Sarah Palin supported making rape victims pay for their own rape kits (cost $300-$1200) when she was Mayor of Wassila. The article also reflects on the fact that Senator Biden passed the Violence Against Women Act, legislation that not only protected victims from being billed for the kits/tests but also ensured that DNA evidence was taken immediately whether the victim was in a state of mind to be able to make a decision initially to prosecute or not. However, Harris does not provide evidence that as Mayor, Sarah Palin was directly responsible for requiring victims to pay for their own rape kits but makes this case:

"One can only assume that she supported Wasilla's policy of billing rape victims for their own rape kits ... not only because Fannon (Wasilla Police Chief) was her appointee, but also because this was four years into her tenure as mayor and because, let's be honest: in a town of that size, the mayor doesn't get to plead ignorance of policies or public statements of her own chief of police."

"As Broadsheet noted in May, a new provision in the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (why, hello, Sen. Biden!) requires that states -- in order to keep receiving VAWA-related funding for other services -- must (as of January 2009) find the money for those rape kits ... anywhere but the victims' pockets. (The provision does not require the kits to be anonymous, as was widely reported -- just that they be free for victims.)"
Read more at:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/10/palin_rape/index.html

Senator Joe Biden, Violence Against Women Act
"I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I've crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate. Indeed, the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994 was the beginning of a historic commitment to women and children victimized by domestic violence and sexual assault. Our nation has been rewarded for this commitment. Since the Act's passage in 1994, domestic violence has dropped by almost 50%, incidents of rape are down by 60%, and the number of women killed by an abusive husband or boyfriend is down by 22%. Today, more than half of all rape victims are stepping forward to report the crime. And since we passed the Act in 1994 over a million women have found justice in our courtrooms and obtained domestic violence protective orders." – Senator Joe Biden
Ending Violence Against Women: Senator Biden wrote the ground-breaking Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the 1990s that set the national agenda on criminalizing violence against women and holding batterers truly accountable. It encouraged states to set up coordinated community responses to domestic violence and rape; was the catalyst for passage of hundreds of state laws prohibiting family violence; and provided resources to set up shelters so battered women abused by husbands and boyfriends had a place to go. The law also established the national hotline that over 1.5 million abused women have called for help. By empowering women to make changes in their lives, and by training police and prosecutors to arrest and convict abusive husbands instead of telling them to take a walk around the block, domestic violence is down 50 percent and rape is down 60 percent nationwide. Read more on VAWA at:
http://biden.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=975b0cf4-ce25-42cc-b63d-072fb81e8618

Letter to a 7 year old boy from Senator Obama

Patricia-Iowa — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:04:19 EDT

By Jackie Will.

My 7 year old son sent Senator Obama a letter and got a reply more
>> wonderful than we both could have imagined. I hope you all will
>> read it tonight to your children, grandchildren, sisters,
>> brothers, friends and foes.
>>
>> I am going to frame it and hang it in our home even with the French
>> fries stains (from my son, not Senator Obama - smile). It looks
>> like he really signed it. It's going to be a family treasure.
>>
>> Here's what it said in part...
>>
>> "I hope you always remember to seize every opportunity to make the
>> world better. Now, making the world better is not always easy, and
>> you will probably find in your life that it is more comfortable to
>> ignore injustices that don't affect you directly. Don't take that
>> comfortable road. Challenge yourself to make a difference.
>>
>> If you don't already know what it means, I want you to look up the
>> word "empathy" in the dictionary. I believe we don't have enough
>> empathy in our world today, and it is up to your generation to
>> change that.
>>
>> I leave you with three bits of advice that will make your life more
>> fufilling: Look out for other people, even when it does not
>> directly benefit you; strive to make a difference everywhere you
>> go; and get back up every time you are knocked down."

Why I Support Barack Obama by Lawrence Lessig

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:26:25 EST

Lawrence Lessig is a Professor of Law at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. Prior to joining the Stanford faculty, he was the Berkman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a Professor at the University of Chicago.

He has won numerous awards, including the Free Software Foundation's Freedom Award, and was named one of Scientific American's Top 50 Visionaries. Professor Lessig is the author of Free Culture (2004), The Future of Ideas (2001) and Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999). He chairs the Creative Commons project, and serves on the board of the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Public Library of Science, and Public Knowledge. He is also a columnist for Wired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq7VCQO5siU (video transcription by SJ Klein, Madeleine Price Ball and Chris Ball)

I received a strange request from someone I didn't know in my inbox the other day — a letter asking me to make a video "enumerating why I support Barack Obama." As Julie Cohen wrote, "Many of my smartest friends have been recently leaning towards Clinton" and that, she said, was because "I believe that his speeches are not detailed enough regarding his policy strengths" and she concluded "now is the right time for you to make a video, I know you can change a lot of minds."

Well I doubt I can change a lot of minds, Julie Cohen, but I do agree with you that this is an extraordinarily important election. But it's important not because of the details about Barack Obama's policy strengths. I believe his policies are strong, especially the policies I know something in particular about — his technology policies are extremely strong. But policy differences between these two candidates are actually quite small. As the New York Times said in their editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton, "On the major issues there is no real gulf separating the two." So in policy alone I'm not sure that there's any good reason to prefer the one over the other. Yet I still think it extraordinarily important that one win over the other: namely Barack over Hillary Clinton. For what's at stake here, I think, is something much more important than the particulars of some laundry list of policy disagreements that there might be between them.

So what is that something important — why should one support Barack over Hillary? Well I think there are three factors to consider here: character, integrity, and what each candidate would do. So let's start with character. In particular I'm thinking about a certain kind of moral courage. The question of whether the candidate is calculating in the face of right, or whether in the face of knowing what's right or consistent with his or her principles, he or she chooses that answer regardless of the consequences.

So for example, one feature of this man's presidency (Bill Clinton), a man I supported for president (and think he did an extraordinary job as president), but one feature (or let's say bug) was his consistent refusal to stand up for for what were strong principles, at least as he articulated them, in his campaign. So for example within a couple weeks of coming into office he had given up a commitment to let gays serve openly in the military. It was expedience that led him to that result rather than standing and fighting on the basis of principle.Now, the question is whether Hillary is like Bill in this respect. And I think to be fair we have to say you can't really know, we haven't seen enough. There are things to make one suspect that she lets principle yield in the face of expedience. So, for issues as small as whether she would call for presidential debates to be left free so that people could download them and remix them without fearing copyright restrictions, Hillary — unlike Barack and John Edwards and others even on the Republican side of the debate — refused to endorse this call, fearing, perhaps, that it would alienate some of her strong pro-copyright interests in the Democratic party.

To issues as large as Iraq, where here the decision she made was the wrong choice. But she made that choice in the face of overwhelming political pressure to go along with the president. Now maybe she didn't know it was the wrong choice, maybe she actually believed what she did was right; though it's important to remember that among the Democrats not facing re-election at the time of this war, a majority opposed the war. And for senators running for president — therefore susceptible to this political pressure more than anybody — all but one endorsed the war, including John Edwards. So while we can't know about this feature of her character, I think all of us remember believing that when she voted in favor of the war at that time, rather than taking a strong and principled view that a majority of the Democrats not facing re-election did, it was an expression or sign of a certain kind of weakness that reminded many of us too much of the presidency of her husband. This is the moral character — or lack of moral character, moral courage — that I fear most about this candidate.

Now, in this respect I think Barack Obama is exactly the opposite. There's one clear example of this all of us know, that's the example of Iraq. And we have to remember here just how hard this was. We have to remember the insanity of us, or of the United States, at this time. In October 2002, as the drumbeats for war were increasing, Barack Obama took to the streets of Chicago and made a strong call to stop the entry into this war. As he said:

"I stand before you as someone not opposed to all war in all circumstances. I don't oppose all wars. What I'm opposed to is a dumb war, what I am opposed to is a rash war. A war based not on reason, but on passion; not on principle, but on politics."

That was precisely the right description of the war that led us to Iraq, and this was not a popular position for a candidate for the United States Senate to take, especially in a State that had a Republican governor. Yet Barack Obama took this position. And in this one respect at least, it shows that he has a certain kind of moral courage. Not because he was smarter, not because he had access to better intelligence about Osama bin Laden, but because he had the moral courage to stand up for what was right in the face of very strong political opposition. This is one clear example — perhaps the most important moral and political judgement of the last thirty years, signalling he is much less likely to make the same kind of cowering mistake again. That's character.

Think now a little bit about integrity. When I think about the worst in politics in the last fifteen years there are two features that stand out for me. One is the lack of moral courage, of again candidates and presidents like Bill Clinton, and second, a lack of political decency, in particular around the elections that got this man (Bush) into office orchestrated by this extraordinary figure, Karl Rove. Think about Karl Rove's tactics in South Carolina, where he made racial suggestions through push-polling that drove many Republicans away from John McCain, probably costing McCain the election. Suggestions that were false and were extraordinarily unfair to make, and that were made for the purpose of defeating the opponent.Or think about the swiftboating of John Kerry, by taking his strongest character — the fact that he alone of all the candidates had voluntarily gone to war to defend the interest of his country — an unpopular war, while the President and the Vice-President found a way to escape that war. What Rove did was to find a way to take this strong feature and make it a target of an attack, by suggesting false and misleading facts about his service in Vietnam, to weaken this feature of his character: that's swiftboating.I remember when watching these things happen, thinking to myself "How in America can these sort of techniques win?".

Yet the worst in this campaign, was to watch this kind of Rovian Republicanism become Rovian Democrats. Think for example about the issues around the war: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have launched an attack on Barack Obama, claiming he has been "inconsistent" about the war. Here's what she said in one of the debates:

“It was after having given that speech, by the next year the speech was off your website. By the next year, you were telling reporters that you agreed with the president in his conduct of the war. And by the next year, when you were in the Senate, you were voting to fund the war time after time after time.”

Now as Hillary Clinton knows, this statement is both false and misleading. It's false because in fact, the speech that she says was removed from Obama's website remained on Obama's website throughout the course of the next year. You can know that by going to this site, The Archive org's Wayback Machine, and you can actually see copies of the web taken in every couple of month intervals from 1996 on. And here's a copy of the Barack Obama website — we have to decode it a bit by looking at the very top line — this is a copy of February of 2003, there's Obama's speech.Here's a copy taken in April of 2003, there again is Obama's speech. June, it's still there... August, it's still there... October, it's still there. It was there the whole year. And even after that year Barack continued to lead his Foreign Policy section by describing his strong and consistent and principled opposition to George Bush's decision to take us to war. But the charge is also misleading, because there's no inconsistency with opposing the war and actually supporting funding for the war once it has been launched or supporting funding for our troops once they are there. Think about Howard Dean, who was the strongest candidate in the 2004 election opposing the war: he absolutely and clearly signaled that even though he opposed the war he would not cut off funding for the troops or withdraw them immediately if he became President.

This is a kind of swift boating — it takes the strongest feature of Barack's political character here, the fact that he made the right decision about the war, and tries to weaken it by alleging false and misleading facts about that decision.Or think about the brou-ha-ha around Ronald Reagan. At a Nevada editorial event, Barack said this about Ronald Reagan:

“I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America, in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it.”And then a little later he said:“And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it's fair to say that the Republican party was the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging the conventional wisdom.”

This statement says two things:

a), that Reagan was a transformational president

b), that the Republicans were a party of ideas.

Both statements are obviously true. What Barack did not say, however, was

a) that he agreed with Ronald Reagan's views, or

b) that only the Republicans had ideas.

And here's how that statement was used by Hillary Clinton in the debate at Myrtle Beach just before the South Carolina primary: She said, quote:

“He has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last ten to fifteen years.”

Now you saw what he said, and you can see that what she says here is just plainly false; Rovian in its character.

But finally, consider this issue around the question of a woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy or not. Hillary Clinton and her campaign have campaigned on the idea that Barack Obama is weak on "choice." In mailings in both Iowa and New Hampshire she has claimed he's weak on choice and in public speeches to women, and young women in particular, that he is weak on choice.”Lorna Brett Howard was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, a former president of the ChicagoNow! organization. But she was so outraged by what she called the "false statements" about Barack's campaign that she made this video, now appearing on You Tube where she asserts first that 100% ratings were received by Barack Obama during his time as Senator in the Illinois State Senate; and that the fact the he supported women's rights had never been questioned, including the right to choose.Here the campaign — the Hillary Clinton campaign — is totally ignoring the truth, and this time, ignoring the truth with a certain important consequence, as Lorna Brett Howard said:

“And this line of attack on an issue that I care about so deeply is not acceptable to me.”

And because it wasn't acceptable, she publicly switched her support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, switched her support because she had been using — Hillary Clinton had been using — the kind of techniques that we Democrats thought were only at the level of Republicans. This is a measure of a certain kind of integrity, an integrity that I think we should all demand that the political process reveal.

Now people will say in response to this "Oh, that's so naive. This is the way that politics is. All politics is like this. You can't punish one candidate because they're using the style of politics." But this is the way all politics will be only if we reward the behavior of people that employ this Rovian style of political behavior. We will get more of it if this is the kind of behavior we reward, and that's a good reason, following Lorna, for people who support Hillary Clinton to either criticize this behavior of her campaign or to switch support to Barack Obama.

But finally, most important is the distinction between the two candidates about what they will do. But to see this we have to think about what we expect this election to be about. The rhetoric around this election is focused on "change". But what is this idea of change? What do the candidates mean by it? Here's what Hillary Clinton said in one of the debates:

“Well, let me say first, that I think we're all advocating for change; we all want to change the status quo, which is George Bush and the Republican domination of Washington for so many years.”

When I heard that, I thought to myself "Is that really all we're trying to achieve in this election, to get the Republicans out of office? Because as I heard candidates like Edwards and Obama, I heard a call for a change much more fundamental. A change in how Washington runs; a change in the power of money or corruption in how Washington runs. A change in the very core of the system that has produced the results that have slowed responses to global warming or slowed the adoption of healthcare. Edwards and Obama have evinced their support for this strong version of change by refusing to take any money from lobbyists or PACs: their target, at least as they see it, is fundamental reform of the system. Hillary Clinton, here, is very different. Here is a speech she gave at the yearly Kos convention last summer:

"Senator Edwards has really a very straightforward question here, which is will you continue to take money from lobbyists or will you take his position...""Yes I will. I will, because you know a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not... represent real Americans."

No-one doubts that the lobbyists represent real Americans; though of course they also represent lots of foreign entities as well. But the question is not who they represent, the question is whether their influence represents — mis-represents — solutions for America. Whether the effort they have and the power they have in controlling the agenda and access to members of Congress shifts the way Congress responds to the issues. But it's very clear given what she said, that when she speaks about change she speaks of a different kind of change; not the real change that Barack Obama puts at the center of his objective for a new administration. But there's a second kind of change that I think is actually much more important than this change in how Washington works. This is a change for peace.

We have to understand of course that the presidency has become something very different from an accountant or CEO of the Government. The president is a leader, a leader who inspires moral courage, who inspires us to be something different, to transform us, and inspires the world in how the world sees us. Here I think there is no comparison between these candidates. Hillary Clinton is good enough, she's a good enough speaker, she's very powerful and responsive, she's a great debater. But in this debate, Barack Obama is just off the charts. Remember his intervention at the Democratic Convention in 2004:

"Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely. My father was a foreign student, born and raised in a small village in Kenya. he grew up..."

And then, on his campaign too:

"There's no such thing as false hopes. But what I know deep in my heart is that, we cannot bring about change unless we are unified. Unless we do it together. Change does not happen from the top down, in America or anywhere else. It happens from the bottom up!"

This is a man who will inspire as he leads. He will inspire all of us, across racial lines, and gender lines, across class lines, across age. He will inspire us because he can capture, in a way that very few presidents in the last hundred years have been able to capture, the imagination of a generation.

But there's one more crucial way in which Barack Obama can inspire, distinct from how Hillary Clinton could ever hope to inspire, and that's the inspiration he would offer towards peace. We in this country need to acknowledge to the world a certain mistake that most of us understand we made. At the height of insanity, after this extraordinary and horrible bombing, of our own citizens on our own territory, we were led into war by a president who didn't care to pay attention to the facts. This was the biggest political blunder, perhaps ever, that an American president engaged. It was extraordinarily destructive — destructive to us and to them. If we're going to find peace here, then that peace will only come if we can signal our own change. A change that they understand is a change in who we are, a change that they can see.

So I want you to shut your eyes and imagine what it will seem like to a young man in Iraq or in Iran, who wakes up on January 21st, 2009, and sees the picture of this man as the president of the United States. A man who opposed the war at the beginning, a man who worked his way up from almost nothing, a man who came from a mother and a father of mixed cultures and mixed societies, who came from a broken home to overcome all of that to become the leader in his class, at the Harvard Law Review, and an extraordinary success as a politician. How can they see us when they see us as having chosen this man as our president? There can be no clearer way that we could say, that we could say that the United States could say, that we have changed, than by electing this man. There is no way we could more clearly move on toward peace than this.

He represents the very best of who we are, the best of character, of integrity and ideals. And someone who opposed the war from the start.So Julie Cohen, here is my request: I agree with you nothing could be more important than this election and this candidate; but nothing could be more important also than solving this impossible war; not just by bringing the troops home, but also by enabling the peace. By enabling that peace, by beginning a process of forgiveness and of hope. That is the great hope that this new generation, represented in this leader, Barack Obama, gives us. And gives the world.

Obama Lacks Specificity. Really?

Patricia-Iowa — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:15:39 EST

By Doctor Ron Walters

In the last few weeks, I have heard several analysts, who should have
known better, say that Barack Obama's presentations "lack specifics" and
that he is only good on inspirational themes, making him sound more like
the stereotypical Black preacher than a U. S. Senator who was also a
brilliant Constitutional scholar. So, I looked into this charge and
found it totally false.

First of all, in this age of computerized information, those who
make such charges apparently have not visited Obama's website. In his
two dozen policy papers I counted at least 328 specific policy
proposals. And although these papers are occasionally referred to (I
heard one commentator say that they existed in "outer space somewhere"),
rather than treated as mere artifacts of the campaign they should be
taken seriously as a guide to what the candidate would do once in
office.

Second, Obama's website also contains a list of speeches that he
has given which in 2007 alone amounted to nearly 100. Most of these
speeches contain specific policy proposals, some drawing on the policy
papers, but others commenting on breaking issues of the day, such as
Katrina, Home foreclosure crisis, Stimulus Package, the Iraq Surge and
others. Moreover, the subject of these speeches invited his serious
attention, as most of them dealt with complex issues such as:
economy/labor (15); foreign policy (12), health care (6), technology,
urban/family (7), nuclear proliferation/security (6), and many others.

Finally, these analysts admit, by such a charge, that they have
spent their time doing something other than watching the Presidential
candidate debates. Barack Obama participated in 18 such events,
accounting for nearly 50 hours of discussion. Any review of these
events should convince the objective person that they were designed to
elicit responses from the candidates on specific issues of public policy
and that Barack Obama either held his own or won a substantial number of
them.

Given the weight of such easily available evidence to those in
the media, I am baffled by the ease with the charge is made that Obama's
proposals have been non-specific.   It says that otherwise competent
people are making such evaluations based on the thinnest resource such
as a few minutes of his televised stump speech.   But this is serious
because it suggests a misunderstanding of the differences between the
basic speeches of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Hillary Clinton has attempted to portray herself as the most
experienced candidate to be president and with that experience she has
offered herself as the person who can successfully propose and get
enacted a series of policies that are perceived to be in the interest of
the American people.   And while this is laudable, it also lacks
context.

Barack Obama has provided the context by giving Americans an
understanding of where we are at this moment in history - at the era of
a politics of deep ideological, racial and other divisions that have
reigned for the past two decades and prevented the adoption of many
things that would bolster the condition of the middle class the poor.
His message of change logically and powerfully suggest what is possible
and evokes the psychology of commitment necessary to believe that it can
be achieved. Both are important speeches, but if one is looking at what
has excited the American people to turnout in such great numbers and why
Barack Obama has run an historic race thus far, it will not be found in
any shopping list that one might construct.

Dr. Ron Walters is a Political Scientist at the University of Maryland
and author of Freedom Is Not Enough: Black Voters, Black Candidates and
American Presidential Po litics (2005). He was also a Senior Staff
member for Rev. Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns.

How Obama Could Create A Long-Term Democratic Majority

Patricia-Iowa — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:35:47 EST

By Paul Rogat Loeb, AlterNet

Commentators are talking, and rightly so, about how young voters are flocking to Barack Obama. Their overwhelming support gave Obama his Iowa margin, kept him just a few points behind in New Hampshire and Nevada, and contributed to his massive South Carolina victory. Young voters haven't always turned out historically, but they're responding to Obama's message, and together with his equally massive support from African-Americans and strong appeal to independents, their passionate enthusiasm could help him expand the Democratic base enough not only to win in November, but to win decisively.

Obama also offers the chance to make this new generation part of an enduring Democratic coalition -- because once young voters support a particular party a few times in a row, they're likely to gravitate toward that party for the rest of their lives.

That so many young Obama supporters are turning out to rally, volunteer and vote suggests that he might be one of those watershed candidates who really can bring a new generation into politics and help shape their long-term loyalties, permanently enlarging the Democratic share of the electorate. But because of Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama, she risks destroying this shift just as it's beginning to emerge.

Look at the historical patterns: Studies from the past 50 years find that party loyalties tend to form early -- for Republicans, Democrats and independents alike. It was true for the FDR generation, for those who came of age during the anti-war activism of the late Vietnam era, and with the young adults who helped cascade Reagan into office and whose compatriots have remained more conservative ever since.

Major historical events like wars and economic depressions can shift this. So can political scandals and personal crises and conversions. Systematic organizing efforts can also shift voters' worldview and context, particularly for those politically detached, which is one reason unions matter so much. Still, some major patterns get set early on, and that's likely to keep being true.

Generations need several elections to cement the pattern. The votes of 18- to 29-year-olds started shifting back in the Clinton years. Young voters gave Clinton an initial 9 point margin and increased it the next round, but their turnout dropped from the highest since 18-year-olds got the vote to the lowest in the same period. In 2000, Gore led Bush among this group buy 3 percent, with Ralph Nader bleeding off another 5 percent. Led by increases in young African-American and Latino voters, they were the only generation to favor Kerry, and did so by a ten percent margin.

These shifts accelerated in 2006. Fueled by the Bush administration's myriad disasters, young voters played a critical role, supporting Democratic congressional candidates over Republicans by a massive 60 percent to 38 percent difference. They did so in every region of the country, from a three to one split in the East to a three point margin in the South. They provided the critical margin for Sens. Tester, Webb and McCaskill, and fed the victories of the four other victorious challengers. Had it been up to young Americans alone, the Democrats would have also won Senate campaigns in Tennessee, Arizona and Nevada; Ned Lamont would have defeated Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, and a slew of additional House seats would have changed hands. The Democrats would have elected Senators from 26 states, with Republicans carrying just four.

The passion of young people for Obama's campaign is fueled by the Iraq war, an uncertain economy, major concerns about the environment and global warming, and the religious right's attacks on sexuality. But more than anything it's also fueled by Obama's eloquent insistence that change is possible and that ordinary citizens can play a key role. It's fueled by the sense that Obama's personal story anticipates the story of an America that moves beyond its divisions and tackles our fundamental problems. This group also seems to resist the idea that a presidency can simply be handed down like a dynastic succession.

Participating in numbers we haven't seen in decades, these new voters fervently want Obama to win. They're reaching out to enlist their peers and volunteering to help reach others. They can be a powerful force to help him prevail.

But if Hillary Clinton is nominated, this momentum will likely crumble. The young women and men who've been flooding the Democratic primaries and caucuses will feel betrayed by a candidate who's just finished doing her best to destroy the person they've invested their hopes in. And as a result, they may simply stay home. It's not just that Hillary is running against Obama. That would be fine. It's that she and Bill and their surrogates have relentlessly assaulted Obama's character, in a scorched-earth style worthy of Karl Rove. I've devoted an entire article to documenting just a fraction of these instances: her lying about his record on critical Iraq and Iran votes, and his votes on abortion choice; her unleashing surrogates like civil rights activist turned Wal-Mart pitchman Andy Young to explain how Obama really wasn't black enough, or Black Entertainment Television CEO Robert Johnson (a virulently anti-union corporate head who's backed Bush on issues like the estate tax and privatizing Social Security) to refer to Obama's youthful cocaine use, with Clinton standing next to him at a South Carolina rally. When Hillary says Obama has no right to build up "false hopes," and Bill calls Obama's vision of history "a fairy tale," how can Obama's young supporters not feel attacked in their own hope and dreams? Had Clinton run a less-harsh campaign, like that of John Edwards, she might expect to inherit Obama's passionate young voters -- and volunteers. But given the virulence of her attacks, I just can't see them suddenly turning on a dime and enthusiastically supporting her.

Young voters are historically the least likely to participate. The failure of the Democrats to stop Bush's Iraq war has already made many cynical. Obama has reversed this cynicism, but if Clinton crushes the dreams of his supporters, a great many will stay home in disgust. Or, if they do end up voting, they certainly won't work to turn out their peers. As a friend said of his community college students, "The most active ones in my class say they won't even vote for her if she's nominated."

The same is true, of course, of African-American voters. The Clinton campaign's attempts to cage Obama in a racial box (for instance by Bill Clinton's dismissing his massive South Carolina victory as just an echo of Jesse Jackson's 1984 and 1988 campaigns) could have an equally disastrous impact on African-American turnout if Hillary Clinton is the nominee come November. Clinton also risks the defection of people who fit neither demographic but are simply so furious at her support for Bush's Iraq and Iran policies and her massive corporate ties that they simply cannot let themselves vote for her. I get those responses every time I write on the subject. Taken together, if these groups stay home (and Republicans mobilized by Hillary-hatred turn out), it's easy to see how a candidate like John McCain could transform a prime Democratic opportunity into yet another needless defeat.

If the youth vote affected only the upcoming election, the stakes would be massive. But it's worse yet because Clinton's nomination would likely shift the future votes of a generation. If I thought Barack Obama were simply an empty suit, I'd be skeptical too. Like any political leader, he has his weaknesses. I wish he'd deferred less to the senior Senate leadership on issues like Iraq. But then I look at his record engaging and bringing together once-powerless individuals and communities, speaking out against the war and linking our healthcare crisis to his mother dying of cancer while her insurance company tried to throw her off its rolls. I value his stress on empowering ordinary citizens to act. I see enough actions of courage and vision to suggest his presidency might just be able to equal the sum of his powerful words. Then I look at Clinton and wonder why she's fighting so fiercely against her fellow Democrats after doing so little to fight Bush's destructive policies when he was riding high in the polls. I think this is part of what the young voters sense too and why their hopes have soared with Obama's campaign. If we dash them now, we may be paying for this choice for far longer than the next four years.

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change.

A President Like My Father

Patricia-Iowa — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 22:58:03 EST

A President Like My Father

By CAROLINE KENNEDY Published: January 27, 2008

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people — known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics — to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents’ grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

Senator Obama is running a dignified and honest campaign. He has spoken eloquently about the role of faith in his life, and opened a window into his character in two compelling books. And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved.

I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.

Caroline Kennedy is the author of “A Patriot’s Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love.”

Washington Post:: Obama's Economic Stimulus Plan Gets Top Grade

Patricia-Iowa — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:18:39 EST

Washington Post: Obama’s Economic Plan Gets Top Grade January 23, 2008

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has graded all the presidential candidates economic stimulus plans, and Barack Obama received the only “A” on either side. In fact, the only “B” was given to John Edwards. With the nation focused on the economy, this is key. Especially considering Republican frontrunner John McCain (”D-plus”) has admitted that he doesn’t know much about the economy. Check it out:

Barack Obama: A-minus. I criticized his previous tax plan, but Obama is at the head of the class with an intelligently designed, $120 billion stimulus plan. He would speed a $250 tax credit to most workers, followed by another $250, triggered automatically, if the economy continues on its sour path. Obama would direct a similar rebate to low- and middle-income seniors, who are also apt to spend and could get checks quickly. One demerit: Obama omits any increase in food stamp benefits, which Moody’s estimates would have the greatest bang for the buck, $1.73 for every dollar spent.
John Edwards: B-minus. Edwards gets points for handing in his paper early — in December, he issued a $25 billion stimulus proposal (plus $75 billion more if needed), including important help to states to avoid cutting Medicaid rolls. But like Hillary Clinton (see below), he would spend too much money on programs — investing in “green collar” jobs, for instance — with too long a lag time to make them an effective stimulus. Edwards’s grade goes down because he also hasn’t explained how the $75 billion would be spent.
Hillary Clinton: C-plus. Clinton, too, raised the issue early, then turned in a faulty first draft with a $70 billion stimulus plan that didn’t provide much immediate stimulation. It included a $25 billion increase in the program to help low-income Americans with heating costs — an excessive amount (the current program is under $3 billion) that probably wouldn’t kick in until next winter. Even worse was her housing plan, including a five-year freeze on subprime mortgage rates that could produce higher interest rates and reduce liquidity.
Four days later, Clinton said she would immediately implement a $40 billion tax rebate plan she had put in reserve in her first draft. Fine, but overall, the Obama plan devotes a far greater percentage to spending that is more likely to jump-start the economy.

South Carolina Black News Endorses Obama

Patricia-Iowa — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:53:23 EST

SC Black News endorses Barack Obama Thursday, 24 January 2008

South Carolina’s largest African American newspaper announces their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Senator Obama’s message has remained consistent throughout this arduous process and throughout his career. His intent to hold the office of President appears to be genuinely selfless and not ego-driven, but driven by the need to bring this country, and the world together. We find him to be the most qualified to lift this country out of the despair and his approach to the political process refreshing and inspiring. Race has little to do with our endorsement. It is the content of the message and the character of the candidates that has moved us in this direction. Senator Clinton and Senator Edwards bring many fresh ideas to the table and we respect their candidacies, but neither brings the kind of hope and vision we feel necessary to navigate our country successfully through the perilous challenges that lie ahead.

While the differences in the democratic candidates’ positions are really quite small, the tactics in which they have been delivered have undeniably influenced popular opinion. It may be impossible to negate the fact that when spokespeople are speaking off the cuff on your behalf, some less than diplomatic statements and responses may occur. However, Senator Clinton’s camp has repeatedly employed questionable attacks on Senator Obama’s character that have no place in the new political millennium as it relates to the racial divide. In her eagerness to point out how white presidents can get things done, she in effect relegated Dr. King’s sacrifice for racial equality to nothing more than a supportive role. And that came directly out of her mouth, not her husband’s, a politico supporter’s or a celebrity hired gun designed to reach out to the African American population. If indeed the barrage of attacks are unscripted and not part of a larger strategy to undermine Senator Obama, then they are at best indicative of a much larger problem. If she is unable to control and steer her campaign clear of divisive political disparages, how can she be expected to effectively run a country amid great partisan divide on varying critical issues? Senator Edwards has not availed himself to Black News after repeated attempts to establish a report. His message is strong in that he is for worker’s rights, the less privileged, the unemployed and the underemployed, but his lack of effort to reach out to our readership has greatly influenced our position with his overall campaign.

Obama has proven himself to be unaffected by insider political maneuvering. He politically strives to bring constructive dialogue to a problem and is truly a man of vision and embodies the spirit of cooperation that has eluded us for the past seven years. In a speech given last fall, Obama said, “What we cannot continue to do is operate as if we are the weakest nation in the world instead of the strongest one, because that's not who we are and that's not what the US has been about, historically. It is starting to warp our domestic policies, as well. We haven't even talked about civil liberties and the impact of that politics of fear--what that has done to us, in terms of undermining basic civil liberties in this country, what it has done in terms of our reputation around the world.” He has proven that through hard work, commitment and sound reason, we can come together as a nation to correct the evils that plague us, both domestically and abroad. We feel his ability to work with both sides of the aisle far eclipses the other candidates’ ability to effectively run a bi-partisan government and bring our country out of the darkness that now surrounds it. We believe Obama has the integrity and clarity needed to steer clear of such harmful digression and he will be able to affect change that can enrich us all. He has worked for civil rights, human rights and women’s rights throughout his career in activism, law and politics. It is his commitment to equality for all Americans that resonates with us - and the country.

Senator Obama’s record as a person who will work for change, champion those who need it most while maintaining an integral, innate sense of justice speaks for itself. Experience has been one of the most debated topics among the democrats. As a civil rights attorney and professor of constitutional law, Obama has a keen understanding and deep appreciation of our nation's core values and guiding principles. Obama will be a fierce defender of the fundamental American values of freedom and equality under law. He has very strong support in the African American community and speaks forthrightly about racial issues and has a great deal of history and experience in civil rights-oriented struggles. In many ways, he breaks that mold of the politician who softens his message in order to appeal to a wide range of voters. Let’s level the economic field for everyone, not just the rich and the privileged. Let’s withdraw our troops from Iraq and begin the healing process we so desperately need. Let’s make health care and medicines available to everyone who needs them, make housing affordable and keep our jobs in America. Let’s educate our children and take care of our veterans and seniors. Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar men make. Obama believes the government needs to better enforce the Equal Pay Act, fight job discrimination, and improve child care options and family medical leave to give women equal footing in the workplace.

And last but not least, we have to consider electability in November. Clinton does not automatically enjoy the position as the most popular candidate. We feel she will be unable to sway the considerable number of moderate voters needed for a Democratic victory. In contrast, Obama is able to inspire all walks of people from different social-economic backgrounds and has single handedly rejuvenated the country’s belief in a democracy that has the people’s best interests at heart, not multi-nationals, defense contractors and special interest groups. He has awakened a cadre of young Americans to the philosophies of elective politics and inspired many to register for the first time in their lives. Obama is clearly the choice if we are to change the direction of this country from a selfish, greed-driven nation to one of peace and justice for all.

Barack's Present Votes and Other False Claims Against Him

Patricia-Iowa — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:25:27 EST

CNN On Barack's Present Votes in the Illinois Senate/Clinton Strategy - False Attacks

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=6052559&ch=4226716&src=news

Barack Obama in Atlanta January 20, 2008

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:02:34 EST

“We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down,” he said. “We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.” Senator Barack Obama

N.H. Women Who Signed Pro-Rights Letter Against Obama Fooled by Clinton

Patricia-Iowa — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 03:22:42 EST

Trying to Heal a Rift in New Hampshire By Alec MacGillis

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/18/trying_to_heal_a_rift_in_new_h_1.html

Three New Hampshire Democratic leaders who signed a letter two days before the state's primary at the request of Hillary Clinton's campaign, attacking Barack Obama as soft in his support for abortion rights, are asking Obama supporters in the state to put the rifts of the primary campaign behind them and praising Obama for being "strongly pro-choice." Of the two dozen prominent women who signed the critical letter, e-mailed by the Clinton campaign to a list of supporters and undecided voters, three have now signed their names to another missive asking abortion rights supporters in the state to come together and take comfort in the fact that all of the Democratic presidential candidates are firmly pro-choice. One of the three Clinton supporters went even further, saying in an interview Thursday that signing the letter attacking Obama was a "mistake." Katie Wheeler, a former state senator, said the Clinton campaign had not given her background information about Obama's record on abortion rights when it asked her to sign the letter calling him weak on the issue, and said that, as a result, she did not understand the context of the votes that the letter was attacking him over. "It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

The new letter and comments by Wheeler are the latest twist in a back-and-forth that Obama supporters believe did real damage to his campaign in the final days in New Hampshire, though Wheeler said she doubted that the e-mail had that much impact in the final day of the race. "I don't think this one thing would sway people," she said. Nonetheless, the conflict over Obama's "present" -- rather than "yes" or "no" -- votes on abortion bills in the Illinois legislature has left behind such deep divisions among the state's Democrats that some Obama supporters vowed, in the wake of her come-from-behind N.H. win, not to vote for Clinton, should she become the party's nominee. The e-mail arrived in selected New Hampshire in-boxes shortly after a postcard from the Clinton campaign that attacked Obama for being "unwilling to take a stand for choice" was mailed to homes. "The difference between Hillary's repeatedly standing up strong on choice and Obama's unwillingness to vote 'yes' or 'no' is a clear contrast, and we believe the voters in New Hampshire deserve to know this difference," the e-mail stated. "We support Hillary Clinton because she never ducked when choice was at stake."

The Clinton campaign has made the same charge repeatedly over the past year, including a couple weeks before the Iowa caucus. The Obama campaign had rebuffed it by invoking statements by an Illinois Planned Parenthood official, who said the "present" votes were part of a deliberate strategy to protect other pro-choice legislators, other than Obama, in vulnerable districts. But the fresh New Hampshire attack arrived much closer to election day, leaving the Obama forces scrambling to respond by rushing out an automated phone call on the evening of Jan. 6, two days before the vote. On primary day, Clinton won by two percentage points after trailing in the final polls by as much as 10 percent, thanks in large part to a last-minute surge in support from women.

The new e-mail seeking conciliation was signed by five prominent Clinton supporters in the state -- including Wheeler, House Speaker Terie Norelli, and state senator Maggie Hassan, the three who signed the initial attack. The letter, which was also signed by several Obama supporters, states that "many of us...engaged in good faith in the rough and tumble of competitive politics. In doing so, feelings have been bruised and some deep anger has emerged." It goes on to downplay the dispute created by the initial e-mail as "nuanced differences" which should not be allowed to "drain our energy." And it concludes, in seeming contrast to the initial attack on Obama's abortion rights credentials, that "The good news is that all of the candidates within the Democratic Party are strongly pro-choice and we should be proud that our efforts have led to such a solid field. "

In the interview Thursday, Wheeler said she was not aware of the explanation of Obama's present votes by Illinois Planned Parenthood when she agreed to sign the critical letter at the request of Clinton officials in New Hampshire. "What we didn't know was the circumstances of those Illinois pro-choice votes. Since then we've learned that it was the plan of the pro-choice community in Illinois. These were subtleties that those of us in the Clinton campaign here didn't understand," she said. "I for one did not understand the present votes....I did not know the full context." Wheeler said she regretted the ill will it had caused. "I'm sorry there was a misunderstanding, and we're hoping to heal divisions that still may exist," she said. "It's a real pity it got so intense, but that's what happens in that close an election. People get impassioned and lose their judgment..It was the heat of emotions in a tight election where everybody cared deeply about the issue, and many of us over-reacted."

The other two Clinton supporters who signed both the critical e-mail and the conciliatory one stood more strongly by the initial one. Sen. Hassan said she, too, was unaware of the Illinois Planned Parenthood defense of Obama at the time she signed the critical letter, that she had only been told by the Clinton campaign that the Illinois chapter of NOW had cited concerns about Obama's present votes. She said it was wrong for anyone to suggest that Obama was not pro-choice, and that she was sorry about the upset that the letter had caused. But Hassan stood by what she said was the main point of the initial e-mail, that Clinton was the most staunchly pro-choice Democrat. "All of the leading Democratic candidates are strongly pro-choice but I think Hillary's record is unparalleled. I stand by what I signed before the election and don't think it's inconsistent with" the new e-mail stating that Obama is strongly pro-choice, Hassan said. "Everybody's going to interpret these letters and e-mails as they want to."

Norelli, the House Speaker, said she had been aware of the Planned Parenthood defense of Obama's Illinois record at the time she signed the critical e-mail but was comfortable with the letter's attack against Obama nonetheless, noting the concerns of the Illinois NOW chapter had raised about the votes. "I would say that the record is clear that he voted 'present' seven times. Planned Parenthood, some of the time at least, says it was part of a deal. Well, NOW says that in 2004, they chose not to endorse Sen. Obama" because of the votes, Norelli said. "I would say every voter needs to have all the factual information and each individual needs to make their own decision." As for the new conciliatory note, Norelli said there was no inconsistency in calling Obama "strongly pro-choice" after attacking him on the present votes. "I would take any of the Democratic candidates on issues of choice over any of the Republican candidates. But I would take Hillary Clinton and her leadership on choice over Senator Obama," she said. Norelli said the purpose of the latest e-mail was to help calm the ruffled feathers of the Obama supporters. "We are working to heal any problems that there are among the Democrats and looking forward to working together closely," she said. "They have time to get over it."

One of the Obama supporters who signed the reconciliation e-mail, Mary Rauh, said she did so because she was very worried that the rift created by the primary could seriously harm abortion rights efforts in the state if it was left unadressed. But she said that she remained aggrieved by the Clinton attack and by the willingness of so many Democratic leaders in the state to go along with it, and worried by reports that similar e-mails attacking Obama on abortion rights have gone out in other states preparing to vote.

"We still have battles to fight in New Hampshire and we can't let dirty politics destroy the choice voice here. It's too important," Rauh said. "But for Clinton to do this to the choice community is so appalling. I can't tell you how it distresses me ... how devastating this and how horrified I am that the Clinton campaign would do this. I fear it will happen elsewhere and it's just appalling."

Posted at 4:06 PM ET on Jan 18, 2008

Clinton Attacks Obama's Record on Abortion Rights

Patricia-Iowa — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:48:32 EST

Clinton Attacks Obama’s Record on Abortion Rights In an astounding mailer to NH voters, Sen. Hillary Clinton is attacking Sen. Barack Obama on his voting record on abortion rights. A quick glance down this blog and you’ll find some detail on his strong history of support in this area, but for kicks, I’ll reiterate the highlights. You can check the details at RH Reality Check.

1. 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate.

2. Honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area’s Roe v. Wade celebration.

3. Only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota.

4. His healthcare initiative includes reproductive health care as basic health care.

I’ll stop there. You can certainly read more at the link above. Now, Hillary’s case is based on the fact, and it is fact, that he voted “present” on several “key” abortion rights bills in front of the Illinois Senate. He did this because Planned Parenthood asked him to do so. In fact, the CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, Pam Sutherland, was quoted, “The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did.” (See here.)

There is no way that Hillary Clinton’s media machine doesn’t know this. She has to be fully aware that his “present” votes were part of an overall strategy on the part of representatives of the reproductive health community. So why, then, is she deploying these mailers? The only answer I can imagine is to scare voters into believing that he may, 1. be lying and/or 2. be a threat to pro-choice issues. It is shameful, really, and the exact kind of politics that Barack Obama is asking us to change.

Andrea Lynch, RH Reality Check

Obama Addresses Muslim Background

Patricia-Iowa — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 04:03:32 EST

Obama Adressess 'Muslim Background'By David Knowles
Dec 24th 2007 9:03AM

This weekend, the mood inside a Pleasantville, Iowa coffee shop was decidedly warmer than the frigid temperatures just outside. Barack Obama (a press entourage in tow) had stopped by to rub elbows with potential voters. Given his strengthening poll numbers of recent weeks, the candidate had reason to feel good about his prospects for winning the first two electoral contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, and he worked the room with what has been described as a newly-found authority. As CNN describes it, Obama joined four women in their booth and was promptly asked how his "Muslim background" would influence decisions should he become president.

No, Obama didn't choke on a bite of pumpkin pie, or spit his hot tea out all over the Christmas sweaters of the good ladies of Pleasantville. Instead, he seemed happy to have an opportunity to set the record straight.

"This is something that keeps on being misreported, so I'm glad you asked me," Obama, who is Christian, said.

He told them his father had lived in a Muslim-dominated village in Kenya, but "didn't practice Islam."

"The truth is, he wasn't very religious," said Obama. "He met my mother. My Mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married, and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So I've always been a Christian."

Such is Obama's burden. To counter the misinformation campaign that has swept the country via e-mail, erroneous television and newspaper reports, and even from the surrogates of his rivals, Obama has had to listen and respond to the Muslim rumor one voter at a time. As far as symbolic value goes, sharing a booth at a diner is as good a place as you'd want to set the record straight.

60 Foreign Policy Experts Endorse Obama

Patricia-Iowa — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:22:32 EST

Over 60 Foreign Policy Experts Announce Endorsement of Barack Obama for PresidentChicago, IL | December 19, 2007

Chicago, IL -- Over sixty foreign policy experts, with experience ranging from the State Department and the Pentagon, to the White House and the U.S. Congress, today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President www.barackobama.com .

The group, which includes individuals who have served under every President since John F. Kennedy, said that Obama has the judgment to lead America at this pivotal moment in history, and the ability to take on unconventional threats and restore America's security and standing in the world.

"On the most important foreign policy decision of the last twenty years, Barack Obama made the right judgment in opposing the war in Iraq. His combination of sound judgment, global understanding, and bold and detailed policy proposals is exactly what America needs in a President at this critical moment in our history," said Larry Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration.

Their endorsement came as Obama held a Foreign Policy Forum in Des Moines, Iowa, where he and several of his top foreign policy advisors engaged in a n open dialogue with Iowa residents on the challenges America faces and how Obama would address them as President. At the event, Obama discussed his specific plans to end the war in Iraq, renew American diplomacy, pursue aggressive diplomacy with Iran, fight terrorism and extremism, and lead the world against the threats of the 21st century.

Further details on Obama's foreign policy agenda can be found here: http://barackobama.com/foreignpolicy.

National Security Experts Endorsing Obama Today

Clifford Alexander, former Secretary of the Army

Ambassador Jeffrey Bader, Former Assistant US Trade Representative for Asia; Ambassador to Namibia

Professor Henri Barkey, Lehigh University, former member, State Dept. Policy Planning

Mr. Tom Bernstein, Human Rights Expert

Ambassador David Birenbaum, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. for Management and Reform

Dr. Esther Brimmer, former staff member State Department Policy Planning

Mr. Art Brown, former National Intelligence Officer for East Asia and Chief of CIA's East Asian Operations Division

Dr. Mark Brzezinski, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser under President Carter

Rep. Brad Carson, former Member of Congress; Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense

Dr. Joseph Cirincione, Author and Nonproliferation Expert

Ms. Bonnie Cohen, former Undersecretary of State for Management

Mr. Greg Craig, former Assistant to the President and Director of Policy Planning, State Department

Dr. Ivo Daalder, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council

General (ret.) Tom Daniels, Texas Air National Guard

Mr. Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the Navy

Senator Tom Daschle, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader

Ambassador Alice Dear, former U.S. Executive Director, African Development Bank

Mr. Michael Froman, Chief of Staff, Department of Treasury; Deputy Assistant Secretary, Dept. of Treasury; National Security Council Staff Member

Mr. Tony Gambino, former Mission Director, USAID, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Dr. Tobi Gati, former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research; Senior Director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasian Affairs, National Security Council

Ambassador Robert Gelbard, former Presidential Envoy for the Balkans; Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement; Ambassador to Indonesia; Ambassador to Bolivia

Dr. Matthew Goodman, Former Director for Asian Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Philip Gordon, former Director, European Affairs, National Security Council

Dr. Scott Gould, former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Management

General (ret.) Scott Gration, former Director for Strategy, Policy and Planning, U.S. European Command

Adm. Don Guter, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy

General (ret.) Richard Hearney, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps

Mr. Eric Holder, former Deputy Attorney General

Mr. John Holum, Former Director of ACDA and Undersecretary State for Arms Control and International Security

Ambassador Vicki Huddleston, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mali and Madagascar, Chief of Mission to Cuba and Ethiopia

Admiral (ret.) John Hutson, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy

Mr. Jeh Johnson, former General Counsel, U.S. Air Force

Mr. Brian Katulis, Author and Middle East expert

Mr. Noel Koch, former Special Assistant to President Nixon; former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

Mr. Larry Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense

Mr. Anthony Lake, former National Security Adviser to President Bill Clinton

Mr. David Lipton, former Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs

Mr. Robert Litt, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General; US Attorney

Mr. Jan Lodal, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense

Mr. Frank Loy, former Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs

General (ret.) Lester L. Lyles, former Vice Chief of Staff USAF 1999-2000

Governor Raymond Mabus, former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Governor of Mississippi

Dr. Michael McFaul, Professor, Political Science, Stanford University

General Tony McPeak, former Chief of Staff of the Air Force

The Honorable Abner Mikva, former White House Counsel under President Clinton; Chief Judge, DC Court of Appeals, Member of Congress (D-Ill)

Ambassador Donald McHenry, former US Permanent Representative to the United Nations

Ambassador Al Moses, former Ambassador to Romania

Professor Michael Nacht, Dean, School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley

Admiral (ret.) John Nathman, former Director of Navy Operations and Plans

Prof. Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Department of Geosciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force

Professor Samantha Power, Professor, Harvard University - Pulitzer Prize Winner

Ambassador Nick Rey, former Ambassador to Poland

Dr. Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; former Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council

Prof. Riordan Roett, Director of Western Hemisphere Studies and the Latin American Studies Program, SAIS, Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Barnett Rubin, Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center on International Cooperation, NY University

Ambassador David Scheffer, former Ambassador at Large for War Crimes

Dr. Witney Schneidman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs

Ms. Sarah Sewell, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Mr. Dan Shapiro, former Director, National Security Council

Representative Adam Smith, House Armed Services Committee, Chairman, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee

Ms. Gayle Smith, Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council

General (ret.) James Smith, former Deputy Commander, Joint Warfare Center, US Joint Forces Command

Ms. Tara Sonenshine, former Special Assistant to the President, National Security Council

Mr. Theodore "Ted" Sorensen, former Special Counsel to President John F. Kennedy

Ms. Mona Sutphen, former Special Assistant to the National Security Advisor

Dr. Jim Vermillion, former Mission Director, USAID, Nicaragua

Professor David Victor, Stanford Law School

The Honorable Pat Wald, Chief Judge, DC Circuit, US Court of Appeals, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, Iraq Intelligence Commission

Professor Celeste Wallender, Georgetown University

Senator Harris Wofford, former CEO Corporation for National Service (Americorps), United States Senator

Representative/Dr. Howard Wolpe, Former Member of Congress and Presidential Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Central Africa

Obama Touts Foreign Policy Judgment

Patricia-Iowa — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:59:15 EST

Obama Touts Foreign Policy Judgment

By Shailagh Murray
DES MOINES, Iowa -- Sen. Barack Obama turned the spotlight back to foreign policy today, arguing that his opposition to the Iraq war and willingness to talk to U.S. adversaries makes him the Democrat most likely to win the general election.

The electability argument is one Obama is expected to advance forcefully in the final days leading to the Jan. 3 caucuses, as Iowa Democrats sort through a crowded field and decide once and for all which candidate to support. To attest to his judgment, given his short tenure in national politics, Obama offered up a panel of foreign policy experts, including Anthony Lake, former national security adviser to President Clinton.

"We know what we're going to get from the Republican nominee -- more Bush-Cheney foreign policy," said Obama, speaking after the panel had concluded its session. "When I'm the Democratic nominee I will offer a clear choice. My opponent won't be able to say I ever supported the war in Iraq, because I haven't. He won't be able to say that I don't support a clear timetable to bring our troops home, because I support such a timetable. He won't be able to say that I voted to use our troops in Iraq to counter Iran, or that I supported the Bush-Cheney diplomacy of not talking to leaders we don't like, and he won't be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it's okay for America to torture, because it's never okay."

"This isn't simply about drawing contrasts," Obama continued, "it's about a change in our foreign policy that you can believe in. So when you consider who to caucus for, I ask you to consider my judgment and vision."

He even cut President Bush some slack on the Iraq war. "George Bush didn't take us into war alone," said Obama. "Congress gave him that authority," and then he read the title of the 2002 Senate resolution supported by Democratic rivals John Edwards, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd. Obama was not a member of the Senate at the time, but he said at the time that he would have voted against it.

Lake introduced himself as "an enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama" while calling the 2008 election a referendum on "authenticity" vs. "artificiality."

"That's why I'm for him," Lake said.

Obama fielded questions on Pakistan, China and Israel, and called for greater emphasis on foreign languages and cultures in U.S. schools. He singled out a decline in the number of foreign students who come here to study, the result of a visa crackdown after Sept. 11. Obama's father, who was born in Kenya, won a scholarship to the University of Hawaii, which is where he met Obama's mother. "This used to be one of the single best public diplomacy tools in our possession," Obama said of the student visa program.

The characteristics that make Obama different - the fact that he is African American, that his father was a Muslim and that Obama's middle name is Hussein, that he lived in Indonesia as a child - have become landmines for his opponents. But Obama and his surrogates increasingly tout those distinctions as strengths that set him apart from a more traditional Democratic pack. The senator mentioned his father several times during today's forum, noting at one point, "my father was from Africa," when addressing the crisis in Sudan.

"If we elect him, it is not just that we will elect a president who presents an extraordinary new face to the world. America needs to present such a face. But it's going to say something very important about us as Americans," Lake said. "The act of electing this man would tell the world we have turned the page, there is a new face to the American people."

Lake pointed to one perceived vulnerability, Obama's short tenure on the national stage. "I know he gets attacked on this, but I think it's a positive, his experience," said Lake. "The fact is, that having served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Veterans Affairs Committee, Homeland Security, etc., -- he has more experience already in our area than did Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton, George Bush."

Did someone say Bill Clinton? "Oh and by the way, I looked it up recently," Lake continued. Obama "is one year older than Bill Clinton was when I was organizing foreign policy for him in 1992."

Posted at 3:06 PM ET on Dec 18, 2007

Obama Brings It All

Patricia-Iowa — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 19:07:49 EST

Posted by: julieds | December 11, 2007 04:35 PM In Washington Post:

As far as Experience goes, what good is experience if you don't make the right choices?

Obama has been right on the major foreign policy issues of our time, AND has more experience than Hillary.

Regardless of race, Obama is the best candidate.

Not only does Obama offer Americans hope and inspiration, he has the best background and experience for today's international woes.

Obama has held elected office for 11 years (four more than Hillary). Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois Senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.

In 2002 Obama spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq, saying he does not oppose all war, just dumb wars, and proceeded to accurately predict the quagmire of Iraq.

Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for President) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with Republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only two lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the Senate. There are 890 bills in Obama's name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096.

Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs.

Obama has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years.

Obama 08!

Ethel Kennedy

Patricia-Iowa — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:03:21 EST

Ethel Kennedy - widow of Senator Bobby Kennedy, on Obama:
"I think he feels it. He feels it just like Bobby did," Ethel Kennedy said, comparing her late husband's quest for social justice to Obama's. "He has the passion in his heart. He's not selling you. It's just him." Ethel Kennedy invited Obama to deliver the keynote address at a ceremony commemorating the 80th birthday of Robert F. Kennedy. She said she had carefully followed the career of the Illinois senator, whom she referred to as "our next president." Chicago Tribune

Priceless!

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:41:39 EST

Winfrey said. "We recognize that the amount of time that you've spent in Washington means nothing unless you're accountable for the judgments you made with the time you had.

"We need good judgment," she continued. "We need Barack Obama."

I watched the Des Moines event on C-Span, then attended the Cedar Rapids event at the U.S. Cellular Center in person. There was no comparison. Its almost 2:00 a.m. Central time and home at my PC, I am still fired up. How will I be able to go to sleep?

I know that Oprah absolutely inspired thousands today when she reiterated the story from the movie about Jane Pittman, who kept asking newborns "Are you the one?" I went to the event in support of Senator Obama, but if I hadn't already been a supporter for him, Ms Winfrey absolutely touched my heart. And Senator Obama? He is the "one." Awesome beyond expectation! Senator Obama's supporters absolutely rocked the house with applause throughout the event.

I went to the same facility to see Jon Bon Jovi for the Kerry/Edwards campaign in 2004. There were more people in attendance tonight than for the super rock star - Bon Jovi. The organizational work of Team Obama in presenting this event, amazing! I am so happy to be even a small part of this movement, and will continue to work to support Senator Obama.

Obama's 100% Pro-Choice Record

Patricia-Iowa — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:00:07 EST

The Sunny Side Political news for the Friends of Progressive Government

From Anne and Women for Obama! From: "Women for Obama"
Date: December 4, 2007 8:26:55 PM CST
Subject: The Facts about Attacks and Obama's 100% Pro-Choice Record

Dear Friends,
The campaign is heating up, and Hillary Clinton is resorting to old-school political attacks in a last-ditch effort to slow Barack Obama’s growing momentum.

With new polls in Iowa showing Senator Obama moving into the lead -- and ahead with women voters by 5 points – Senator Clinton and her campaign are shamelessly attacking Barack’s record and his character.

Just weeks after Senator Clinton promised not to attack her Democratic opponents, yesterday she announced that she would enter a new period of daily attacks on Barack, going so far as to say this is "the fun part" of campaigning for the residency.

The problem with Hillary’s attacks is that they’re filled with false charges and desperate rhetoric. First, she falsely claims that Barack Obama doesn't support universal health care, even though he has a detailed plan that would provide affordable health insurance for every single American and do more to cut the cost of health care than any other plan in this race.

Then her campaign attacked our youth empowerment efforts and tried to intimidate Iowa college students who plan to participate in the caucus. They even published an article on their website attacking Barack for telling his kindergarten teacher he wanted to be president when he grew up.

Now they’re trying to attack Barack Obama’s 100% pro-choice record.

Today’s attack was delivered by Ellen Malcolm, President of EMILY’s List – which has endorsed Senator Clinton and is spending millions on an Independent Expenditure campaign to try to get her elected. Malcolm called into question Barack’s commitment to protect women’s rights by pointing to old votes on a few politically motivated bills in the Illinois Senate. What Malcolm failed to point out was that Barack cast these votes as part of a strategy employed by pro-choice leaders in Illinois. That’s why so many top pro-choice leaders were outraged by the attack and immediately defended Barack’s record of leadership on this important issue.

Not only is Senator Clinton’s claim another baseless, desperate attempt on her campaign’s part to distort Barack’s record, but this tactic does nothing more than divide the pro-choice community at a time when we need to work together to elect a pro-choice candidate for president.

But don’t take our word for it. Read what leaders in the pro-choice community – who have worked side by side with Senator Obama – had to say about the latest Clinton attacks:

“I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton and an EMILY’s List donor, but this line of attack is unacceptable. While I was the president of Chicago National Organization for Women, Senator Obama worked closely with us, could not have been more supportive of a woman¹s right to choose, and there was no bigger champion in Illinois on our issues. What¹s important is that the candidates do not cannibalize each other on issues we all agree about because we need to win in November.” Lorna Brett, former president of Chicago NOW

"During his years in the state legislature, Barack Obama was a strong and consistent supporter of women's reproductive rights. He worked hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood in developing and executing strategies to make sure that women had access to reproductive health care. I also want to thank him for standing up with us in the effort to open the Aurora clinic and for his introduction of legislation guaranteeing access to low-cost birth control. Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area has proudly endorsed Barack throughout his entire political career." Steve Trombley, CEO & President, Planned Parenthood/Chicago Action

"The present votes Obama took at that time, along with many other pro-choice legislators, were 'no' votes to bad bills being used for political gain. We asked Senator Obama and other strong supporters of choice to vote present to encourage Senators facing tough re-elections to make the right choice by voting present, instead of caving to political pressure and voting for these bad bills. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama showed leadership, compassion and a true commitment to reproductive health care. The Republican Senate President at the time constantly used anti-abortion bills to pigeon-hole Democrats so that he could target them with misleading mailers during campaign season. It was a tactic that was about politics, not policy - and Obama didn't let them get away with it." Pam Sutherland, President & CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council

“Senator Obama is one of America’s strongest and most loyal defenders of women’s rights on issues of reproductive health care. I’ve contributed to EMILY’s List in the past but I never will again, because I¹m so disappointed in their decision to launch these unfair, false attacks on behalf of Senator Clinton¹s campaign.” Libby Slappey, a former 13-year board member of Planned Parenthood of East Central Iowa.

Even Ellen Malcolm has praised Barack as recently as last year, after Barack gave the keynote speech at the annual Emily’s List Luncheon. In a letter to Barack, Malcolm writes:

Senator Obama,

Thank you so much for helping to make the 2006 EMILY’s List Majority Council Conference such a great success. Our Majority Council members told me again and again how energized they were to hear directly from you and how much they appreciated your spending time with us.

You truly inspired our members and reminded them why they support our work to elect dynamic pro-choice Democratic women especially after hearing you speak about how you’re fighting to make change happen.

I appreciate your commitment to EMILY’s List. Here’s to victory in November!

Warmest regards, Ellen R. Malcolm, President

Handwritten: “You were terrific and really lit a fire with our members!
Thanks so much!!”

These attacks are not going away any time soon. Let’s be sure to remind ourselves and our friends about what a fighter Senator Obama has been for the pro-choice community.

· Barack has a 100% pro-choice vote rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

· He was the ONLY U.S. Senator who helped raise funds in 2006 to successfully repeal a South Dakota law that banned abortions. Senator Clinton refused to help in the effort. In fact, even EMILY’S List refused to help repeal the ban in South Dakota.

· Senator Obama is the only candidate for President who rose in support of Illinois Planned Parenthood when their new Aurora clinic faced a threatened shut-down.

· When Congress failed to pass a law to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, Obama supported a successful law to provide that requirement in Illinois.

· He recently co-sponsored a bill with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to make birth control more affordable for low-income and college age women after changes in federal law led to a skyrocketing new costs.

Floor Statement of Senator Barack Obama on S.2271 - USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:35:28 EST

Thursday, February 16, 2006.

Mr. President, four years ago, following one of the most devastating attacks in our nation's history, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act to give our nation's law enforcement the tools they needed to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and all over the world - terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier attacks than we saw on September 11th. We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans everywhere wanted that. But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion. Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an "either-or" type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It asks too little of us and assumes too little about America. Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real, open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us. Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed. This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise: We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records. We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps. We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters. We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath. And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches. The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things. Sen. Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments - that I support - to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is preventing Sen. Feingold from offering these amendments through procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously its version of the Patriot Act - a version that balanced security and civil liberties, partisanship and patriotism. The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties. This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule of law. So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized. I thank the chair and yield the floor.

At a Time When..................We Have Obama

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:07:56 EST

By Kristian Idol November 24, 2007
"You can't be "too busy" to do a little research on the candidates, because an uninformed choice is just as bad as not voting, perhaps worse.

If you don't choose the best candidate for President, you have no right to complain about any part of our society.

I mean, for God's sake, at a time when the current administration is just shredding the Constitution, we have a man who taught Constitutional law!

At a time when the current President has eliminated habeus corpus (must charge someone with a crime to hold them) and ships prisoners to less-civilized countries to be tortured, we have a legislator who actually got his state's law enforcement organizations to agree with the ACLU to videotape interrogations.

At a time when this administration has committed the biggest foreign policy blunder in 40 years, when we literally have FRIENDLY countries pissed off at us, we have a man that got his degree in International Relations, currently serves on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and has the courage to stop unilateralism ("my way or the highway") and emphasize tough diplomacy.

And at a time when 47 MILLION Americans have no health care whatsoever, we now have a presidential candidate that has already passed legislation that gave health care to over 150,000 poor people in his home state!

All of the above are facts. Not "inevitability" or "return to a good administration" (Hillary is running, not Bill) or "making history" (first woman President) or "a plan".

(BTW, Hillary has NO PLAN for Iraq - her website says she will meet with Chiefs of Staff within 60 days "to formulate a plan". Obama has SPECIFICALLY laid out: Meet with Chiefs on Day One, immediately start pulling 1-2 brigades monthy, start diplomatic efforts immediately, etc.)

Have faith, though; if there is any truth in this campaign, it is the fact that the more people learn about Obama, the more they tend to like him.

Best videos:

Meet Barack Obama (6 min.) - Link

Barack Obama on Iraq, Opposition from the Start (3 min.) - Link

Barack Obama's Speech at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner (21 min.) - Link

Washington Post's Michael Kinsley Clarifies "Experience"

Patricia-Iowa — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:51:02 EST

By Sarah Ramey - Nov 24th, 2007 at 1:00 am EST

Much has been made over the issue of experience as the primaries and caucuses draw closer, and today the Washington Post came out with a helpful article by Michael Kinsley, a highly respected columnist for Time magazine, clarifying just what the term "experience" means and what kinds of experiences are essential for a potential President of the United States. Here are some excerpts:

Hillary Clinton declared the other day -- apropos of whom, she didn't say, or need to -- "We can't afford on-the-job training for our next president." Barack Obama immediately retorted, "My understanding is that she wasn't Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration. I don't know exactly what experience she's claiming." As wit, that round goes to Obama. Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, her first experience of public office. Obama was an Illinois state senator for seven years before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. In terms of experience in elective office, this seems to be a wash.
...Obama also has valuable experience apart from elective office...This is his experience as a black man in America and as what you might call a "world man" -- Kenyan father, American mother, four formative years living in Indonesia, more years in the ethnic stew of Hawaii, middle name of Hussein, and so on -- in an increasingly globalized world. Our current president had barely been outside the country when he was elected. His efforts to make up for this through repeated proclamations of pal-ship with every foreign leader who parades through Washington have been an embarrassment. Obama's upbringing would serve us well if he were president, both in the understanding he would bring to issues of America's role in the world (the term "foreign policy" sounds increasingly anachronistic) and in terms of how the world views America...
...My candidate...is Obama. When I hear him discussing issues, I hear intelligence and reflection and almost a joy in thinking it through. (Okay, not all issues. He obviously gets no joy over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.) That willingness, even eagerness, to figure things out seems to me more valuable than any amount of experience in allowing issues to wash over you as they do our incumbent president.

Obama Knee-Caps an Old Lady, and Other Iowa Tales...

Patricia-Iowa — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:12:44 EST

Comment from Norm Schieber in The New Republic: I see that this video of Obama engaging a voter on terrorism and immigration is getting some play around the web. The title of the YouTube clip--"Obama yells at elderly Iowa voter"--tells you all you need to know about the context in which it's been circulating. (According to this site, Drudge linked to it earlier today, though I can't find it now.) Having attended the event in question yesterday, I can tell you that the video has been framed and edited in such a way as to misrepresent what actually happened. The woman in question was a Republican named Jane Svoboda, who asked her questions in a pretty sharp and mean-spirited way. Obama began to answer them in a perfectly calm tone. The woman proceeded to interrupt and heckle him several times over the course of the response. Each time she did, he would grow more animated--not nasty by any stretch, just the way someone gets when they care quite a bit about an issue. It's true that at times he almost had to yell, but that was only to make himself heard above the cheering of the crowd, which was very much sympathetic to what he was saying and unsympathetic to the woman, who'd outed herself as a bit of a bully.

All of which is to say, "Obama yells at elderly Iowa voter" is almost completely backward as a description of what happened.--Norm Scheiber Posted: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:29 AM