Patty Craven's Blog

seriously folks...the Constitution and HRC

Patty in Colorado — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:53:55 EST

It would be a violation of the Constitution to appoint Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State because the executive order raising the salary of Secretary of State was made while she was in office as a Senator.

The salary amount can be recinded ("fixed" as in "Saxbe fix"), but it doesn't change the historical fact that she was in office when the SoS salary was increased.

Therefore, she cannot be appointed to SoS without violating the Constitution.

IF Hillary gets offered Secretary of State

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:46:48 EST

Again, we are engulfed in Clinton drama.

IF Hillary gets the nomination for Secretary of State - nothing official has come out on change.gov or this site, has it??? - IF she is nominated, the Senate has to confirm the nomination.

We will again be engulfed for MONTHS with Hillary drama and revelations about exactly how UNQUALIFIED she is to represent the United States.

How can she possibly pass the vetting? How can the activities of her husband, an impeached president who lied to the Grand Jury, to name one thing, possibly pass muster with the Obama administration?

If Obama lets these criminals into his administration, not only will his administration be seriously polluted, but his promises will all be overshadowed by two people who have their minds set to undermine him at every turn.

Recall when Bill Clinton called the potential of Barack Obama, a black man, becoming President "a fairy tale" ...?

The Clintons, by their presence, will guarantee that the Barack Obama administration will be a fairy tale with a very bad ending.

17 Reasons why Hillary will Poison the Obama Administration

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:24:44 EST

Hillary:
1. is all about DRAMA.
2. has no foreign relations experience.
3. is a control-freak.
4. disagrees with Obama on the major issue regarding foreign relations, that of meeting with adversaries without PRECONDITIONS.
5. believes in threatening adversaries with violence/attacks/ultimatums.
6. confessed to be waiting to see if Obama got assassinated before she finally conceded the primary and withdrew.
7. mismanaged her campaign horrendously.
8. is handling this possible nomination as if she is entitled to it, and as if it is inevitable - like her run for the presidency.
9. wants to be president and will do ANYTHING to get it.
10. would bring her own team on board and take over control of the position and the agenda.
11. could not be counted on to actually represent Obama's foreign policy.
12. would confuse foreign leaders, who know HRC has aspirations for a presidency and foreign policy positions of her own.
13. would undermine Obama's presidency because she could never be trusted.
14. would dilute and inevitably fracture Obama's attempts to create relationships with foreign countries because no one would ever really know if she was pushing her own agenda to other leaders, or truly representing Obama. Therefore, Obama's presidency would come under suspicion and could not be trusted either...just when foreign leaders have so much hope that Obama will be different than Bush...
15. was in favor of the Iraq war, voted for it, and refuses still to admit that she didn't read the intel, and made a mistake voting for the war.
16. does not believe that the troops should withdraw from Iraq, or that the war should end, so she will make sure it doesn't.
17. recently asked Senator Ted Kennedy to give up his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (which he has devoted his entire life to), so she could have a leadership position in the Senate. This she did while Senator Ted is dying of brain cancer and undergoing chemo. This action on HRC's part is simply deplorable, and reason enough not to entrust the position of SoS to her.

Why would Obama pick her? How is this sitting with the millions of us who gave up jobs, family life, time, energy, and money to support the promise of CHANGE ????

a hunch about Palin...

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:33:45 EDT

Way back, when McCain picked Palin, I conjectured that she had been "bought" by the campaign. I was thinking that McVain figured he was gonna lose and he "hired" her ( bought her) to stimulate the base and lure in the disgruntled Hillary voters. Ever since then, I've been saying she was his Political Viagra. LOL!

Anyway, I have always thought that she was told that being McCain's running mate would guarantee her political future, and she could have a lot of things in the way of perks, in exchange for firing up the base. McVain figured that if he lost, no biggie, she'd be gone. And if he won, he figured that he'd be able to wing it with her, and hand her off to his staff, while he engaged Lieberman as surrogate VP.

There's no question she initially fired up the base. She definitely didn't seem to get many of the Hillary voters, however.

I think she was also told that she'd have a lot more influence as VP, if she did her best to perform as required, and McVain somehow managed to get elected. That would account for her thinking that there were many more responsibilities involved with being VP, than there actually are. Far be it from her to think of looking in the Constitution, where the relatively few duties and privileges of VP are all laid out in plain language.

As the negatives against Palin continue to grow exponentially, and McVain's prospects of winning shrink daily, Palin is realizing that her political future is seriously at risk. She's now fighting for her own survival, while at the same time, continuing to nurture her vain illusions of ascending to the Vice Presidency, and beyond. She honestly believes she's qualified to hold the highest office in the land, even as she politically bungee jumps closer and closer to the ground.

She is now a liability and an huge embarrassment to the campaign, and to McVain in particular. He can't wait to get this over with. He cares very much what people think of him. It is excruciating for him to have his reputation, honor, and integrity, such as it was, rapidly disintegrate into a steaming pile of dung. He absolutely hates being the butt of jokes, no matter how well he seems to take it.

So, this news of Palin's $150K wardrobe and all the other perks she's getting, fits in pretty well with the picture of her being used, bribed, and basically poised for dumping at McVain's earliest convenience. It doesn't matter any more whether people or the press are good to her - McVain has realized that he's going down in flames. But he wants to make sure it looks like Palin is the reason for his failures, so he doesn't care if any of the negative stuff about her continues to sink his ship. The press is backing up this image; calling Palin "the biggest drag on the campaign" and blaming her for the continued downward slide of McCain's poll numbers.

It wouldn't surprise me if he actually had known that there were a lot of skeletons in her closet when he picked her. At the point he picked her, his ratings were taking a nosedive. He was not on good terms with his staff or the Republican Party, apparently due to their denial of Lieberman as his first pick for VP. He clearly lashed out at everyone, including his supporters and donors, by picking Palin in an openly impulsive act of defiance. McVain calculated that, if he wasn't able to resurrect or maintain his campaign with doses of Palin Viagra, he could bring the skeletons out to effectively put his campaign out of its misery. Now that he can't ignore the train wreck that his campaign has become, the skeletons come marching out, one by one. "It's all Palin's fault" he can say. He certainly never did - and doesn't now - give a damn about her political future.

Today, Chuck Todd (CNN) was talking about how he observed no apparent chemistry between Palin and McVain. He was talking about how mystified he was by this. [These guys need to learn to ask the women what's going on, when a woman's actions are mysterious.]

Here's my take on it...From the beginning, McVain was drooling over Palin. In the film footage of the rallies, you can see him hanging on her every word, but trying not to appear so obviously infatuated with her. You can see him following her around, conscious of his proximity to her at every moment, anxious when she strayed out on her own, and eager to hug her and kiss her at every opportunity.

This type of touchy-feely behavior no doubt surprised Palin initially, and she rolled with it to be a good sport. But ultimately, all the drooling made Palin (and the First Dude) quite uncomfortable. Not only is it unprofessional, but McVain wanted to be too close in the hugs, and too affectionate in the kisses. You can see all this in the news footage. Palin has been able to choreograph more physical distance between her and McVain. The hugs are shorter and there is a definite projection by Palin of some boundaries - she is keeping him at bay because she does not want to have this old fart lusting after her! I mean, a woman can only take so much of this crap! And she certainly doesn't want to give him any encouragement.

McVain probably thought he could basically have his way with her because he's (or his campaign or the RNC) is footing the huge bill for her presence and contribution to the campaign. He thought he could do with her what he does with all women - treat them like they are there for his pleasure, to do what he needs them to do, to serve him and to serve his agenda.

When she started making a fool of herself in interviews, McVain soon insisted on accompanying her, chaperoning her, to act as a control, fill in the gaps when she obviously was clueless, and to prevent her embarrassing gaffes. At this point in time, his campaign was starting to spiral out of his control. It's totally gone now. No one can even successfully do damage control anymore.

Tomorrow, Palin and her husband, Todd, are scheduled to give depositions in TrooperGate. The expectation is that there will be some negative repercussions on Palin's official position as Governor of Alaska. This, combined with the rest of the verdicts against Palin, will afford the McVain campaign an ideal opportunity to unload her - because unloading her is the only thing that might make a difference in the projected outcome of this election.

Third Debate - Barack Obama for President ! Clearly and Surely !!!

Patty in Colorado — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:55:34 EDT

Barack was FANTASTIC in this debate!!! He was calm and articulate. He treated McCain with tremendous respect. Obama is such an excellent role model for how to deal with challenging people and situations.

Barack clearly explained his healthcare policy, his plans for the economy, and every other issue he faced. When he was confronted with the Ayers matter and the Acorn issue, Obama very calmly and competently blew those issues away with the truth.

I think he won the debate very soon into it when, instead of being confrontational and deceptive as McCain was being, he pointed out that the people are NOT primarily interested in the various tactics in use to challenge the opponent, but rather, people are interested in hearing a debate about the issues.

He mentioned how important it is to "agree to disagree without being disagreeable."

There were a handful of other winning moments when Barack clearly swept away the opposition.

McCain had one good moment when he shined, and that was at the end, when he shook Barack's hand and congratulated him with, "Good Job! Good Job."

Biden v. Palin - Post-Debate comments

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:44:23 EDT

What we saw tonight was not what I or many others expected from Biden or Palin. If I had bet money on Biden losing it, and being unable to resist going after Palin, I would've lost bigtime! I'm happy to admit that, because it gives me a sense of peace of mind, that Biden really can reel it in when he has to.

After the debate, I am left with the feeling that Biden spoke from experience, heart and soul, passion, knowledge, and authority. There is no getting around the reality that Palin, no matter how personable and informed she was, spoke from a list of answers, which had been drilled into her head for the last three weeks.

On the technical aspects of the format and conduct of the debate, it seemed that the procedure of asking each candidate a question at the same time, and then giving them each time to respond and rebutt, basically had the effect of confusing the issues, to a certain extent. Answers were sometimes delivered in a disorganized way. There were quite a few times that both Biden and Palin had to backtrack to a part of a question and then go forward again later to answer the question completely.

Even as the political nerd I am, I admit to getting lost (and bored) by all of the Palin rambles and Biden droning. The time limits imposed on the candidates meant that they had to talk relatively fast. It was easy to miss the points made by the candidates, due to the difficulty in listening to a stream of words and details delivered quickly.

Since neither one of them actually dredged up things from the depths of the bucket of negatives available to them (about each other and their running mates), and both chose not to do any heavy attacks on each other, the debate remained civil in tone. There was no talk of TrooperGate, Rove v. Wade and fees for rape kits, lobbyists, national debt, medical records, GITMO, or torture, for example.

My own opinion about that is that both of them missed opportunities to confront each other about those seriously significant issues that actually do have an impact on the campaign. We have seen through the Bush Administration, that the Chief Executive and the Vice-President can wield tremendous power by exercising their ideologies through the executive branch.

Instead, both candidates kept returning the focus to their running mates.
Biden's emphasis was on the similarities between Bush, Cheney, McCain, and Palin. Palin's emphasis was on the capability of McCain to lead the country and how connected she thinks the McCain-Palin ticket is to the average population.

What the general public is left with is most likely the feeling that both candidates performed well, and probably fulfilled the expectations of their respective campaigns.

However, when the fact checkers zero in on what they actually said, there is bound to be significant fallout in the McCain campaign. Palin's twists on actual positions on specific issues (such as foreign affairs, gay rights, McCain's voting record, and taxes) no doubt has caused some yet to be heard dissent among McCain's supporters.

The task is still left to the presidential candidates to make their individual case to the American people. I don't think either candidate did any damage to their running mates. Time will tell how much they helped Obama and McCain.

Comments on Obama's Senate speech on the Bailout Bill

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:36:18 EDT

If you're an Obama supporter, as I have been for the last two years, this post may bother you. On the other hand, you may have perceived many of the same ideas while listening to Obama address the Senate yesterday, concerning the bailout bill.

Frankly, I was very disappointed with Obama's support of the bill. I was even more disappointed with his speech! To my ears, Obama used a rusty formulaic structure for his speech, with an unusual amount of fear and guilt lathered on the American people.

From the beginning of the speech, he was talking about blame for the state of the economy - but he didn't mention the Iraq War, outsourcing of jobs, or the plummeting employment rate. He used an analogy of putting out a fire now (by passing this bill in a hurry), but he failed to mention the other truthful part of that analogy - that some fires actually need to happen in order to destroy things so that new things can take place. Example: some of the moldy houses that Katrina visited had to be allowed to burn down, so new ones could be rebuilt. Many people have commented on the similarity between the devastation caused by Katrina, and the destruction to our economy.

Obama went on to accuse the House of failing to act. This is a blatant mischaracterization. The House DID act, just not the way Obama and others wanted it to. This is partisanship, pure and simple. I was surprised to hear Obama go there. He also connected the stock market drop to the House decision to vote down the original bailout bill. I was watching the stock market going down before the voting even started. Plus, it is simply inaccurate to attribute the activity in the stock market to anything other than investors' willingness to invest. Period. There are a multitude of reasons why investors choose to buy and sell stocks. Most of those reasons have nothing to do with what is happening at the same time in Congress.

Bottom line, Obama used fear and guilt in large doses in an attempt to persuade the American people to approve of this bailout bill created in the Senate. The bulk of his speech is chock full of talk about dire consequences, dangerous situations, threats of what will happen if we don't act now to rescue Wall Street. It was horrifying to hear him use causes near and dear, such as mortgages, car loans and college tuitions, payrolls, and bills, to convnce fellow Senators of the viability of this bailout bill. To plead the case for the bill based on a fear of a recession - that most of us already know we're in - well, that was an insult to our intelligence.

Obama also erroneously appropriated credit to the bailout bill for things that the bill simply doesn't guarantee, such as real protections for taxpayers, oversight, accountability, help for homeowners, elimination of golden parachutes, and profits or returns on our taxpayer contributions to this bill. Yes, those things are mentioned in the bill (I've read all 106 pages) - but every condition has a giant loophole for the Treasury Secretary to slide through, without any obligation to Congress, taxpayers, or anyone at all.

There are absolutely NO guarantees that the provisions of the bill will be managed correctly, that any money will be gotten back by the taxpayers, or that there will be any profits whatsoever. Obama clearly stated this in his speech. But didn't he also say previously that he would NOT support a bill that didn't have those guarantees built in?

One key item in the bill, which Obama mentioned in his speech, concerns the possibility Obama described by saying, "If we fall short, we will levy a fee on financial institutions so that they can repay us for the losses they caused." There's a clause in the bill about this, true. However, there are many more clauses in the bill, which indicate the very real possibility, even intention, that the Treasury Secretary will buy up assets and then dismantle the financial institutions. There would be no entity to "bill" a fee to, no financial institution from which to obtain reimbursement for our losses.

Another Senator has called this bailout bill "legislative blackmail."

The conclusion of Obama's speech exhorted the American people to do more to help our economy, to take more action to prevent the economic downfall we face. From this soapbox, Obama launched his familiar stump speech - blaming the runaway spending of the Bush Administration, and saying that many important programs will be delayed or abandoned, in spite of our great sacrifices.

The best line of his speech came at the very end, where he said, "...our destiny is not written for us, but by us." That rang true. Unfortunately, that truth was cloaked in thick political rhetoric, the likes of which has a real potential to derail Obama's voting base.

"Biden's Strategy: Go easy on Palin" by Roger Simon of Politico

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:06:13 EDT

This blog post is in response to "Biden's Strategy: Go easy on Palin" by Roger Simon in today's Politico.com Ideas feature.

It seems to me that the Obama camp isn't listening to the undecided and Republican voters, whose votes must be swayed towards Obama, in order to win this election. According to Roger Simon, the Obama Campaign is pursuing what I call a "Biden-Lite" approach to debating Sarah Palin tonight.

If the Obama campaign really believes that the voters aren't paying attention to the bottom of the ticket, then why is Palin so popular? Why was John McCain's campaign starting to sink, until it got a dose of "political viagra" in the form of Palin joining the ticket? ("Political Viagra" is a term coined by me. Feel free to use it as often as you like, as long as you give me credit for it.)

I am convinced that the bottom of the ticket is WAY more important to the Republicans this time. They don't have anything else to brag about!

Simon says that Biden is going to let Palin's blunders slide. That's fine. He's going to be calling her "Governor Palin", which will do a lot to reinforce her electability and experience, if only through the conveyance of stereotypes that we all have about authority figures with important titles.

Biden is being coached against condescension. He's still going to appear condescending, and maybe even arrogant. That's his personality. No amount of coaching is going to rid him of the trait he developed as a survival mechanism for the last 55 years.

He WILL go off-script. He is impulsive, especially when emotionally wounded. And he will feel wounded, because he can't help it. Part of his personality is to defend his dignity at all costs. It is reflexive. He thinks it is beneath his dignity to NOT respond with equal force to a personal or professional hit. He won't be able to resist pouncing on the lies and misscharacterizations Palin throws at him. He will forget about Barack long enough to be willing to sacrifice all that he has gained through the Obama campaign, in order to assert his pride.

The Obama camp is maintaining that McCain is the target, not Palin. How wrong, wrong, wrong that is. We all know who McCain is, and we're tired, bored, and disgusted with him. Alone, he can't even get 200 people to a rally without paying them. McCain is old news. But when we see Biden going after his friend of 25 years, suddenly we will feel sorry for McCain, the "underdog", who is getting attacked.

The "focus on McCain" strategy carries with it an extreme danger of backfiring on Biden, to the point of injuring the Obama ticket.

Palin IS the most vital component of the McCain ticket, and she is the most important opponent tonight. Millions of viewers will be watching this debate just TO SEE HER. She is, after all, only a heartbeat away from the presidency, if McCain gets elected.

The Obama campaign owes it to every voter to expose Palin for the unprepared, unqualified, inexperienced, radical right-wing, religious fanatic that she is.

Biden - Palin impact on Obama campaign

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:33:36 EDT

Palin is no match for Biden, no matter how many attacks she throws his way.

However, the Obama campaign could take a hit if Biden is exposed as having many controversial votes, positions, and assertions (and he has tons, apparently). Plus, if Palin exposes the disagreements between Biden and Obama, that will impact the Obama campaign.

Many people are still asking why Obama picked an old, angry, white guy, who voted for the war (before he was against it), who has been in the Senate for 26 years, tends towards arrogance and condescension, and currently makes significant gaffes when he speaks.

Such a hit on Biden, coupled with the very questionable vote for the bailout bill by both Obama and Biden, could cost the campaign some points.

I'm still voting for them, and I think they'll win. But we should be prepared for some negs in the coming days. McCain's negs will continue to surpass Obama's in the coming weeks, however. Palin could even drop out, and no matter who replaces her, it's too late for McVain to win.

Bailout Bill - Section 116 - Oversight and Audits

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:32:29 EDT

There's a section in the former House bill that pretty much nullifies every oversight feature that the proponents of the bill are pushing. It's in Section 116 on Oversight and Audits. (The Senate did NOT say that they deleted or changed this provision.)

Translated: IF the Treasury Secretary establishes the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program - he has the option to NOT create it, per this bill), the Comptroller General of the US is supposed to do some oversight of all the activities.

But IF the Comptroller (the top officer of the GAO - Government Accountability Office) finds anything that needs to be investigated (outlined in numerous pages in the bill), the TARP - IF it exists - can either take action to address the problems - OR - "certify to appropriate committees of Congress that no action is necessary or appropriate." (page 62 of the House bill draft)

In other words, Paulson can basically blow off the GAO and Congress, just like Bush has done for all the crimes he's committed. Congress may protest, but we've seen how effective THAT is.

By the way, Paulson put together a huge sub-prime mortgage system for Goldman Sachs, when he worked there. Goldman Sachs is first on his list, he says, to rescue. AND Paulson blamed the sub-prime mortgage system for the problems he says he'll fix with the 700 Billion.

The way I (and many other professionals) read this bill, it looks very much like Paulson will have the freedom to bailout whoever he pleases and get paid to do it, with basically zero accountability. There are so many loopholes built in to the bill; Paulson can essentially say "NO" to every effort at oversight, or anything and everything that would benefit taxpayers.

By the way, the Oversight committee mentioned in the bill (the top layer of the so-called many levels of oversight for this scheme) is composed of Secretary Paulson, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bernanke, HUD secretary, and a Fannie Mae exec, and a Freddie Mac executive. Having these people on the oversight committee is like having wolves guarding the henhouse.

Check MarketWatch.com for the article called "The Downturn has just begun"

Astrologically speaking ... TWO - watch Uranus!

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:57:19 EDT

I'm continuing to watch the sinking of the McCain ship...per the astrological transit he is experiencing - Transiting Uranus conjunct his Natal Saturn, in exact aspect today. (Also opposite his Natal Sun in Virgo, but past the exact aspect)

[interpretation: lightning bolt of change - he asked for it - to everything he considers his career and personal foundation]

Here's the latest news:

Calls rise among Republicans for Sarah Palin to step down from GOP ticket

BY THOMAS M. DeFRANK and DAVID SALTONSTALL
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS

Sunday, September 28th 2008, 11:31 AM
Link

Financial Markets Rescue Plan LINK

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 19:35:43 EDT

The most recent suggested bill for the Rescue Plan has posted the (printable) bill at:

http://www.cspan.org/pdf/marketsbill_draft.pdf

CSPAN.ORG/pdf/marketsbill_draft.pdf

Earlier in the day, Representative Gregg (R) briefly outlined the main points of the bill, and it sounded like the Treasury Secretary is still getting way too much unregulated and unsupervised power.

PLUS, the "oversight panel" they are constructing, he said, includes SEC Chairman Cox, FED Chairman Bernanke, CEOs from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and Treasury Secretary Paulson. The congressional oversight is only done by monthly reports from the above mentioned people, who are directly involved in receiving funds, profits, and other money from the deals they do to "save" the economy.

Initial reviews of the "new" bill say that it's basically the same thing Treasury Secretary Paulson proposed the first time! (See CSPAN Washington Journal for September 28, 2008: guest speaker from Freedom Works, Matt Kibbe.)

After the First Debate

Patty in Colorado — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:55:45 EDT

So - one word about Obama - GRACIOUS.

The reason he didn't tear McCain's head off and serve it to the American people is because that would've been too easy, for one thing. ;-)

The real reason is because, first and foremost, Obama is gracious. He has more integrity and dignity in his little toes than most people EVER have at all! He chose to make his points clearly and with deliberation.

He chose to spend his time presenting the information and character that the American people are looking for. People turn off when candidates attack each other. The fact that McCain did not, could not, and would not face Obama, was not lost on the American people.

With Obama presenting himself, as no one else can do, he wisely spent his precious debate time doing that, and cleverly left it up to commentators, pundits, political analysts, and his representatives to speak after the debate on all of McCain's problems with the issues, contradictions, inaccuracies, misstatements, untruths, and outright bs - which they are all doing relentlessly, and with glee.

At the same time, McCain thought he got off easy tonight. But, in fact, Obama basically was preparing McCain like he'd prepare a side of ribs for the bbq...polishing him with bbq sauce (a little sweet, a little spicy) before McCain spends 10 days in the marinade, until the next debate, when Obama slaps him on the fire.

Cindy McCain asks for Gustav donations to be sent to unidentified website

Patty in Colorado — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:48:56 EDT

Cindy McCain, at the Republican Convention, asked that donations of money for Gustav survivors be sent to "CauseGreater.com"

The following information shows that the registration for that domain is secret. The identity of the true owner is hidden; protected by Domains by Proxy, Inc. The info shows that the site was opened August 29, 2008 and is set to expire August 30, 2009.

If this is a legitimate site to provide relief for disaster victims, why is the administrator's name and information not disclosed? How can those who make donations be sure where their money and credit card information is going?

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: CAUSEGREATER.COM
Created on: 29-Aug-08
Expires on: 30-Aug-09
Last Updated on: 31-Aug-08

Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration CAUSEGREATER.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

Technical Contact:
Private, Registration CAUSEGREATER.COM@domainsbyproxy.com
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
(480) 624-2599 Fax -- (480) 624-2598

NOTICE: this identity-hiding company is located in Arizona. It was established on August 29, a few days ago, and is set to expire August 30, 2009.

Internet donations cannot be traced. Where are the donations really going?

Comment on Barack's stance on death penalty for rapists of children

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:58:45 EDT

He said he wasn't perfect...:-)

He seems to have reacted to the Supreme Court's recent decision (no death penalty for child rapists) like the father of two girls.

Most people agree that child rape is a heinous crime. But victim's rights advocates point out that children who are raped have a really difficult time reporting the incident, especially if the perpetrator was a trusted adult.

If the perpetrator was a relative who might get the death penalty, then apparently, those children who are aware of what that means, will hold back or refuse to report or identify the perpetrator.

Even more insidious is the reality that rapists who think they are going to get the death penalty for the rape might be more inclined to murder the victim to eliminate evidence. I think this is the key point made by the victim's rights advocate groups.

According to detailed, authoritative coverage of this on CSPAN this morning, there have only been two cases of rape in America's history, which received the death penalty, since 1964. At the time of this decision yesterday, there were only two people on death row for rape. As a result of this decision, those defendants now are sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.

Victim's rights advocates suggest that the money allocated for the conviction and processing of the countless appeals of death row inmates (charged with rape of a child) be used instead to pay for working with the victims to provide them with adequate, long term counsel and services, and for DNA research and other relevant activity of that nature.

Tim Russert's Go Get 'em Spirit now in All of Us

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:31:48 EDT

When I think about Tim Russert not being physically present to cover this historic election, his death seems so untimely and tragic.

I have since come to realize that Tim's spirit is now spread far and wide, enriching our hearts and minds. Part of him is with all of us, and so we are now more able to cultivate the qualities Tim shared with us: authenticity, truthfulness, loyalty, and celebration of each others' successes.

A great gift that Tim Russert's death has given to all of us bloggers, and especially to the media reporters, commentators, correspondents, pundits, executives, and personnel in all of journalism, is a powerful inspiration to go on and do our very best with our coverage of this election.

Why Barack Obama must vote for FISA

Patty in Colorado — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:36:59 EDT

Consider this: Most people do not have time in their busy schedules to read the original 1978 FISA, or any of the revisions and "supplementary" bills and acts that have been passed during the Bush Administration.

With the House passing this bill, what you hear on the news now or see in a headline quickly glimpsed is that the House passed a bill that will allow terrorist communications to be intercepted and enable the FBI or CIA to disable the terrorists before they can do anything to harm the citizens of the United States.

To the average citizen, who does not look beyond these announcements, disabling terrorists seems like a good idea - even if it means that U.S. citizens might have their communications listened to in the process.

If Barack Obama votes against FISA, he will be perceived as not being able or willing to keep Americans safe. Period.

You know McCain is going to vote for FISA.

So, if Barack opposes FISA, the Republicans and McCain will have a very strong argument for saying that Barack will not and could not protect the American people or the United States from terrorists.

If McCain convinces the public that Obama is too weak on terror and won't take a stand against terrorist communications, McCain could win the election on that ground alone.

Think about it, people. Barack Obama MUST GET ELECTED in order to change FISA, the PATRIOT ACT, the Protect America Act, the Detainee Treatment Act, the Military Tribunals Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, and on and on.

BARACK OBAMA MUST WIN IN NOVEMBER.

Is it a Blog or is it a Chat Room ? Suggestions to streamline the O Blog

Patty in Colorado — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:44:37 EDT

The Obama blog forum is being used as a chat room. This defeats the purpose and efficient use of the blog format. Blogs are utilized most efficiently when they are NOT used as chat rooms.

A blog, by definition, is a web log of essays, basically, to which people post comments. The comments are displayed in chronological order, as they come in. All comments appear in a linear order, placing the most recently received at the bottom of the comment section. New topics are written about on new blogs.

The blog format set on this Obama website is actually a series of combined blog posts, set up to have comments posted after each post. It is more like a live discussion list, with posts threaded together depending on the subject line.

As we've seen, people write comments on blog posts that may or may not be related in subject matter to the specific original blog post...thereby defeating the concept and purpose of a blog.

When someone writes on a topic that is not related to the topic originally blogged on, the thread is hijacked. This makes it very difficult to keep a thread topic and all related posts congruent.

In a blog that is functioning as intended, a poster does not have to keep scrolling up and down the blog to find their posts and related comments. More importantly, the time of each post is sequential, with the most recently received posts showing up at the bottom of the comment section.

It is contrary to the concept of blogging for posters to have to chase the new threads to find comments related to their posts.

What is starting to happen on the Obama blog is that there are regular posters who are having conversations. At some point, their conversation moves to a "new thread", and many posters are left behind. The whole idea of having to go back to a previous blog to make sure that "no blogger is left behind" is a function of a chat room, not a blog.

I see that the Obama blog is becoming less and less effective, as a core group of chatters start to dominate the flow of the blog. This will, in time, alienate a significant number of would-be contributors, who come to feel that their blog "essay" posts will not be read or commented upon because active posters (those currently logged on) have migrated to a new blog "thread", the existence of which is not evident until one reads the posts at the bottom of the window.

A significant number of posters have commented that they can't keep up with the blog. Others have expressed that they do not wish to discuss trivialities.

How HQ could make this blog more effective;

Program it so that the posts are displayed in chronological order, with the first one first, and each successive post following after that, with the last one last.

This would eliminate the need to scroll up to the top of the blog to look for new posts or new comments, as all posts would be in "real time". A contributor would get immediate feedback on their posts, and not have to return to previous blogs to check for comments. The dialog would be improved, and flamers or "trolls" would have less opportunity to dominate a conversation.

When you log on to the blog, you would know exactly where you are in the blog, in real time.

Although the blog would, in essence, be functioning as a chat room, this simple programming change would make communications more effective, efficient, and streamlined.

Go get 'em, everyone...in honor of Tim Russert

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:51:19 EDT

Reading somene's post on an afternoon blog today, an image came to mind...of Tim falling to the floor at the studio, and as he is descending, his energy is coming out of his body in lots of sparkly lights, like stars spewing forth in every direction.

It occurs to me that we all who love him are the recipients of that energy transmitted through those stars of his spirit.

Visualize what I've described and visualize yourself receiving the love he released in his passing...and then visualize sharing this energy with everyone, as you are so moved to do so on your journey in this life.

Meet the Press - Father's Day 2008

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:34:36 EDT

I burst into tears after the first three seconds of today's Meet the Press. When the camera panned in to Tim Russert's empty chair, it was so poignant and still so shocking. I'm still incredulous about Tim's sudden death.

There is a great article on Politico.com about the show, but there were some details not mentioned. The guests on the show were Mike Barnicle, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Betsy Fischer, Gwen Ifil, and James Carville with his wife, Mary Matalin. Tom Brokaw hosted this memorial show in Tim's honor. The table, where Tim made history week after week every Sunday, loomed in the background, dimly but adequately illuminated with gold lighting.

Each guest had many comments, anecdotes, and words of admiration to offer about Tim. Mary Matalin soon had a scrunched up tissue clinched in her hand. It was clear that everyone was making a brave effort to hold back tears. No one succeeded...there wasn't a dry eye in the house.

I especially enjoyed hearing everyone recount how inspirational, loyal, authentic, curious, and passionate Tim was with everyone and with his work. Much was said about how Tim enthusiastically and sincerely encouraged, supported, advocated for, and celebrated everyone's success.

One quote of his that will stick with me for the rest of my life is this, shared by Gwen Ifil, "The best exercise for the human heart is to bend down and pick someone else up."

Mary Matalin and James Carville, the Republican and Democrat husband-wife political consultant team, were holding hands for most of the show. Tom Brokaw, usually quite composed, audibly choked up when he repeated one of Tim's favorite expressions, "What a country!"

Like many of us, I planned my Sunday around watching Meet the Press, and often watched it a second time online late at night before the day was done. He was impeccably prepared for every show, covering vital details, leaving no stone unturned. Tim asked the questions and got the answers we all wanted to hear, with an almost infallible success rate. There was so much to learn from watching Tim on Meet the Press. I will miss him more than words can describe.

Tim will remain for me, and for so many others, a superior role model as someone who selflessly cultivated and generously shared his loyalty, humor, compassion, insight, intelligence, and love. Go get 'em, Tim!

Why the Rules and By-Laws Committee Meeting Should Be Postponed

Patty in Colorado — Sat, 31 May 2008 03:35:18 EDT

For the last two weeks, I've called and written a couple of dozen people (DNC, Senators, Representatives, Obama HQ, etc etc), and blogged on here, stating a request that the Rules and ByLaws committee meeting (on for tomorrow) be postponed.

My logic, as I've expressed it, was that no matter what the committee decides, it will fuel Clinton's agenda for staying in the race till her hair falls out.

If the committee decides to SEAT NO DELEGATES (Plan A), then Clinton can squawk about that for all the obvious reasons, and use it as an excuse to take this all the way to the convention and beyond. (think: endless lawsuits)

If the committee decides to SEAT HALF THE DELEGATES OR SEAT THEM ALL AND GIVE THEM HALF A VOTE EACH (Plan B), then Clinton can use this as a reason to go to the convention with her complaints and legal action.

The meeting should've been postponed until after the Primaries are done because if the committee executes Plan A, Hillary will complain. If they do Plan B (as described above), it moves the goal post for Barack Obama when he is "inches" away from the end zone.

After the primaries are done, Barack will have earned more than enough delegates to claim the nomination, thereby eliminating a huge part of Clinton's argument - she'll have to concede, willingly or under pressure - but her campaign will be a done deal.

After that, the Florida and Michigan issues could be decided and they will have their rightful place on board in November.

Senator Robert Byrd's Endorsement of Barack Obama

Patty in Colorado — Mon, 19 May 2008 23:50:46 EDT

I LOVE Senator Byrd. I Love the fact that he came from that tortured past of being a young buck (at 24 years old) and was a member of the KKK, and he went through the hell that must've been, and...obviously...guided by the light of his heart...and his faith...he found his way to 2008, where he endorses Barack Obama for President!!!!!

I mean...THIS IS HUGE....

I am so glad that he is present on the planet at this time in history. All the time, I send him vibes of love, surrounding him with love, and roses....

In the Audacity of Hope (GET THE BOOK OR THE CD, PEOPLE!!!), Barack talks of his meetings and conversations with Senator Byrd. It's riveting.

You gotta check out Senator Byrd on CSPAN...when he talks, you can hear a pin drop. He is dramatic, impassioned, and so so so sincere.

Senator Byrd is one of the reasons we can't give up on our Congress. Senator Byrd has the most incredible judgment and sense of truth. He tells it like it is. He calls it as he sees it. He does not mince words, yet he is ever so eloquent.

To me, Senator Byrd is the KING BEE of the Senate!

How Hillary's strengths are defeating her and how Barack is transforming obstacles into stepping stones

Patty in Colorado — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:01:54 EDT

I think Hillary is staying in the race because she is a strong person. Strong people think they can solve all problems, resolve all conflicts, find all the answers, heal all the wounds, and conquer anything they set their mind to. They do not think there is any goal that they can't reach.

But strong people have one big challenge that they crash into over and over again; knowing when to stop making super-human efforts with energy you don't really have. Strong people have a real hard time recognizing when that mountain is too high, when they've reached the limit of their resources, when NO means NO.

Strong people have boundary issues. Strong people plow over others to get where they want to go. Strong people are often fueled by their anger and frustration. The more difficult a challenge is, the harder they try to overcome it.

Strong people need to learn how to listen. They need to learn how to relax and let the river flow on its own. They need to open their eyes, pay attention, be honest about what is really happening, and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, be open to the outcome being different than they want it to be. They need to be open to the outcome that is really happening, and realize the benefits of this different outcome. This is the kind of strength that Barack is manifesting. He knows his limits. He honors his limits. He is grateful for life's journey, for the challenges, and for the victories.

Strong people can weaken themselves in major ways by relentlessly trying to drive through brick walls. Their creative energy and power, when wasted, soon becomes destructive.
They start operating out of a deficit. Then, everything they do becomes a major effort. At first they don't notice the toll it's taking on them, but ultimately, they come crashing down to earth.

We can help strong people by being ourselves, telling the truth, and by not indulging their delusions. We must keep our boundaries clear.

I think Barack Obama has clearly demonstrated what needs to be done and what action is required when it comes to dealing with Hillary. He has cut his losses and moved on. He has assessed his strengths accurately and is building on them. He is not hitting Hillary when she's down. Instead, he is giving her plenty of space to face the music, see the results of her efforts, and be the strong person she is. She will find her way much sooner because of Barack's respect for the personal process Hillary must go through, as she has met her match, and then some.

What I think is happening with Barack's strategy...

Patty in Colorado — Tue, 13 May 2008 23:42:45 EDT

Here's what I think is happening...True LEADERS recognize when to cut your losses and move on.

Barack has demonstrated, throughout the entire campaign, that he has an AMAZING intuitive sense about how to conduct himself, his campaign, and his personal and professional relationships.

After closely observing the evidence of strategy that we get to see, it sure looks like Barack Obama is exceptionally STRONG, dignified, respectful of everyone in the race, brilliant, and compassionate.

He hasn't neglected even one state. He did go to Kentucky and it wouldn't surprise me if he goes there again. He must have a very complex itinerary at this point. From what I've heard, he has dates scheduled in all of the remaining states that have primaries, AND in other states that he must talk to.

He obviously feels a need to make up some lost time, due to the controversy about Florida and Michigan, for example. How wise of him not to go there until he had a lead in delegates and super-delegates and popular votes.

That's what I think is happening....:-)
HUGS TO EVERYONE! :-)

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright - National Press Club Speech

Patty in Colorado — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:22:23 EDT

Unlike many others, I have a favorable reaction to, and very few criticisms of, Dr. Wright's speech to the National Press Club, which he gave on Monday, April 28, 2008. I'd like to share my thoughts with you.

The symposium was titled "Faith, Social Justice, and Public Service." I think Rev. Wright's speech adequately and passionately addresses these issues. His point of view is clearly seasoned with over half a century of experiences - experiences which many of us white folk will never have. As we strive to understand the meanings of his words and gestures, let us remember to have compassion for the man.

I learned a lot from listening to Rev. Wright over the last few days. I watched the interview with Bill Moyer's, I saw the speech given to the NAACP, and I viewed the speech to the National Press Club. In all of the presentations, I saw a man who has many facets of personal expression. Not once was I offended. More than once, I was brought to tears by the painful and joyful truth of what he said and how he said it. I'm not a practicing Christian, although I was one in my youth 40 years ago. I'm rethinking that now...provoked by Rev. Wright's "performances", where he is doing so well what every Christian is taught to do - spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I believe that there are several big gold nuggets of truth from the message of Rev. Wright's speech to the National Press Club. He said that the recent coverage of him preaching to his church by the media's incessant force-feeding of the American public with cherry-picked soundbites (he termed it "an attack on the Black Church") would result in the reality of the African American church no longer being invisible. I think this is so true. Many people have no idea what goes on in an African American church.

Reverend Wright also pointed out that honest dialogue between people of all races and religions can now begin, brought about by Obama's calling for it through his speech on race relations, which he gave in Philadelphia not long ago. As a white woman in my late 50's, I really think that it's been far too long and ardous of a trail from the civil rights movement of the 60's, to have such little to show for it, in terms of the level of discrimination that still exists in America. There's no time like the present to bring the civil rights movement forward and manifest some real change.

Reverend Wright's words echo in my mind and heart. We must bring the efforts toward equal social justice for all out into the open (from being relatively invisible), to INVALUABLE. We must move, as a nation, from alienation and marginalization to RECONCILIATION.

Reverend Wright illuminated the three core principles integral to the function and ministry of his church as being liberation theology, transformation, and reconciliation. Liberation theology, as he described it, means to exercise the liberation of captives AND captors, the oppressed AND the oppressors. Barack Obama certainly alludes to this when he says that he not only wants to end the way politics has been practiced negatively in this country, but also end the mindset that leads to such politics. This makes tremendous sense to me! This is one of the reasons I"m voting for Barack. He's not just saying it - he's also doing it in his campaign.

Rev. Wright called real change TRANSFORMATION. Positive, meaningful change comes about, he said, because there is a desire for radical change in a social order that has gone sour. Certainly we have seen much go sour in the last eight years under the Bush Administration. Case in point: human beings being tortured in illegal prisons, the torture being denied and approved by the government - just consult the Center for Constitutional Rights for details on the cases they are pursuing. Another case in point: the illegal Iraq war. The list of sour things is long. Discrimination itself is a long-standing and serious contradiction to what America stands for.

Yes, Reverend Wright brought up some controversial and widely misunderstood ideas. You can't defend those ideas, nor are you required to. All we need to do is to listen, and if anything inspires us to get more information, we can research it ourselves and become informed. What use is it to "kill the messenger" ? We don't have to follow every voice we hear. What if the message is true?

Reverend Wright calls us to examine some very scary and threatening possibilities. This requires us to face our fears. The path to freedom is filled with these types of challenges. Liberation from racism, transformation of history, and reconciliation of truth does not come easy.

As you can tell, if you've read this far, I give Reverend Wright a lot of credit for having the courage to speak out about these issues. Barack Obama will not get elected if we, as a nation, do not defend and practice - with our hearts, minds, souls, and bodies - the principles of liberation, transformation, and reconciliation.

Telling the Truth does not divide the Party

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:22:32 EDT

Telling the truth does not divide the Party. What divides the Party is the spreading of falsities, distortions, deceptions, and all manner of deviations from the truth.

Barack Obama definitely is an superb role model for us in the way he fires back at those who throw non-truths at him and his campaign. He counters b.s. with facts.

I've also noticed that the mainstream media responds to facts too. Although the commentators are paid to shovel b.s. around all day, they aren't making a lot of it up themselves, though. By my estimate, at least 80% of the falsities peddled by mainstream media comes from press people feeding releases loaded with distortions of the truth to the networks and newspapers. True, the other 20% of the coverage is comprised of twists, spins, embellishments, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, biases, and a wide range of opinionated colorings.

Fortunately, there are many other sources for real news and facts.

As far as politics, campaigns, and relations with opponents are concerned, however, it doesn't threaten the Party to tell the truth, even if it makes the other candidate look less desirable.

What Barack is trying to end, in fact, is the kind of partisan politics where people vote for inferior candidates or harmful legislation just because the Party is represented in some way. He wants us to be informed, to think about who we're supporting, and exactly why. He doesn't expect us to quietly tolerate his opponent's transgressions. He doesn't.

Thanks for listening.

Dinner With Barack - YUM!

Patty in Colorado — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:09:10 EDT

Tonight on the news, I heard that Hillary Clinton is doing a dinner thing too - you pay to have dinner with Elton John...I tell ya, this just PROVES that Hillary is the OLD way...Elton John hasn't changed his act in 40 years!!! He can't HOLD A CANDLE to a Dinner With Barack event! ;-)

And John McCain, the news said, is offering donors a...drum roll please....ride in his Straight Talk BUS. If I won that, I'd make sure I ate a lot of beans before boarding! ;-)

Dinner With Barack is a fantastic idea! and NOTHING tops it! Not even free Rolling Stones Tickets....:-D

Restoring the Dignity of the Democratic Party

Patty in Colorado — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:32:23 EDT

Democratic Party officials have got to take the donkey by the tail here and restore dignity to this race. Hillary Clinton is unfit to be president of the United States.

The Clinton campaign has slammed Barack Obama for the words of his pastor, and for attending a church that entertained controversial ideas. What about Hillary's close affiliation with someone, namely Bill Clinton, who is her closest advisor, who lied to the Grand Jury and was impeached from the Presidency of the United States? !!!

The Clinton campaign relentlessly chased Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) for his endorsement, and when she didn't get it, Hillary said it didn't matter. She and her campaign then went on to slam Governor Richardson, accusing him of being disloyal. In reality, her actions were disloyal and glaringly symptomatic of a seriously corrupt mentality. Do we want a president who will trash people who express dissent? Don't we have that now, in George W. Bush?

Hillary Clinton has betrayed her very own supporters by being dishonest, by consistently eluding the truthful response to direct questions, by holding back her 2006 tax returns, by her actions and words against people of her own party who disagree with her.

Hillary Clinton has effected the ultimate betrayal of her supporters and donors by her attempt to justify this division she's causing in the Democratic Party in all 50 states, the attempts to irrepairably damage a fellow Democrat, and the horrific blemishes she's making on the image of our American political system for those who view this from foreign nations - all in the effort to win at all costs!

Hillary Clinton has already proven that she cannot compete fairly. She has already demonstrated that she is visciously opportunistic, that self-proclaimed sleep-deprivation renders her memory and judgment dysfunctional. These are just the most recent revelations about why she is not fit to be president, no matter how hard she tries, or how bad she wants it, or how entitled she feels she is to it.

Hillary Clinton has done one good thing for her supporters, and that is to reveal her deep flaws in time for voters to change their preferences. By not withdrawing from the race, Hillary Clinton makes a statement that she'd rather destroy the party, and everyone in her path, before admitting the truth that she can't be president. This same attitude is what got us 8 years of George W. Bush.

I AM a "typical white person"

Patty in Colorado — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:31:15 EDT

When I first heard Barack say that his grandmother was "a typical white person" who tenses up when she sees a black person, who she doesn't know, on the street, I thought, uh oh, people are going to react negatively to having to think about whether they can identify with the "typical white person" characterization. Sure enough, the media has made an issue out of this.

Then, as an experiment, I searched my mind to see how I felt when I contemplated an encounter with a black person who is a stranger to me. I was seriously dismayed to notice that I mentally and physically tensed up, just thinking about the potential discomfort of an encounter of that sort.

I had to admit that, after all my years of trying to be as non-judgmental towards ethnic groups as possible, I still AM. I AM a typical white person, by Barack's definition.

That stark reality caused tears to come up from a deep place in me, a place in my heart that truly mourns the reality of what Barack is telling us, and what we all intuitively know,...that there are still significant problems between the learned cultural indoctrinations against differences...significant, negative stereotypes that we need to heal, conditioned reactions that we must release from our minds.

Forty years ago, when I was a teenager, I used to chide my grandmother about her comments against "colored people."

The enthusiasm for Barack's campaign is profound evidence that our nation is very hungry for a change in how we relate to each other. This isn't a new hunger. This is a hunger that has existed for decades. Our efforts to build bridges between ourselves is at the root of most, if not all, of our social programs - and social problems. Our efforts can succeed if we let go of all the stuff that doesn't work, and cultivate the stuff that does work. Barack is showing us how to do it.

We are being led by one of the most amazing visionary leaders of our time, Barack Obama.

Texas Debate

Patty in Colorado — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:14:27 EST

Barack Obama won the debate in the first ten minutes. First, by way of introduction, rather than launch into the limelight by talking about himself, he said he was honored to share the stage with Hillary Clinton. Very gracious of him, considering all the mud she's slung at him. He then talked about issues that are concerns for us all: the war, the economy, predatory loans, foreclosures, healthcare, college, education. He told a few stories about constituents, real people, who are experiencing things which form the basis of his inspiration for changing the way Washington works. He pointed us to the central premise of his campaign; to bring this country together, to break away from special interests, and to enlist the American people through hope and desire for change. He said that he wants to help America be as good as its promise.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton burst out of the gate, dropping names like leaves falling in an autumn breeze, focusing all attention on her with the majority of her sentences starting with, "I" this, "I" that. She mentioned several things she wanted to do, but didn't say how she would accomplish any of these things. Her bottom line was that she wanted everyone to vote for her, she'd take care of the rest, just trust that she's ready from day one. Nevermind that she was booed when she attacked Barack about the words he chose to use in one or two speeches. Nevermind that she has lost 11 primaries and caucuses in the recent weeks. Nevermind that the wounded, disfigured, and crippled people she saw at one of the functions she attended were casualties of a war she voted to approve!

And nevermind that, in her concluding remarks, she lifted, borrowed, or plagiarised words from a John Edwards speech!

Barack Obama knows that the United States must make concerted and conscientious efforts to rebuild relations with foreign countries. He has the grace, the dignity, the integrity, the intelligence, and the leadership ability to create successful communications with other leaders, even those who do not agree with him. He knows that the Bush policy of conditionality before communication has failed. He is fully invested in acting in good faith with others. He is not afraid of enemies, but rather brings courage to his actions.

No one can escape the reality that Barack Obama has always been against the war in Iraq, and Hillary voted for giving Bush the authorization to enact a pre-emptive, illegal strike against Iraq. Five years later, we know - the world knows - that invading and occupying Iraq was wrong and is wrong, is illegal, and cannot be allowed to continue to swallow up human lives, devastate our resources, and rob the treasure of the United States.

Hillary's emphasis on her 35 years of experience (riding mostly on Bill Clinton's coattails) paled in the face of Barack's impressive list of his own accomplishments. Her smug smiles and clinched facial expressions diluted everything she said. Yes, Hillary, let's get real. You're done.

Barack's goal to lift the country up instead of tearing each other down, his efforts toward transparency in the workings of Washington, his goal to change the way politics work in Washington, all received much deserved applause. I was surprised, however, that Hillary wasn't questioned about where she got the $5 million to loan her campaign, or why she won't show her tax returns, like Barack has done. Why won't Bill Clinton turn over Hillary's records of campaign donors?

Barack Obama won the debate because he took everything Hillary said to a higher level. Hillary simply talked about herself. Barack talked about a collaborative effort that he will make with US. And he explained that policy and plans have been circulating throughout Washington politics forever, but change can only happen if the people are INSPIRED by the HOPE that CHANGE is possible. Profound truth.

What we hope for...what change Barack Obama brings to America

Patty in Colorado — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:42:45 EST

People ask what are Obama supporters hoping for? What kind of change do we want?

We are hoping for no more liars in the White House. We are hoping for criminals, such as Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, and George W. Bush himself, to be held accountable for the things they've chosen to do outside of the law and in blatant violation of the Constitution.

We want Guantanamo Bay Detention Center to be closed down, the prisoners to be moved to decent facilities, and to get legal representation, be able to exercise the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be treated humanely.

We want Obama to appoint people who are qualified for government office.

We want a definite change in the way law-breaking is handled by government officials: evidence not destroyed, no more illegal wiretapping, invasions, wars, occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

We hope that Obama will end the war in Iraq, stop the killing over there, negotiate equitable oil contracts with Middle East and Venezuela, and restore the United States as a peaceful nation. We hope for the repeal of the Patriot Act, Military Tribunals Act, Defense of Marriage Act, and the Protect America Act, to name a few of the obliterations of our civil rights.

Obama will not be a "unitary executive", and this will be a huge change from Bush. We have hope that Obama won't expand the powers of the president beyond what is guaranteed by the Constitution.

We have much evidence that Barack Obama will live up to our hopes and change America in major, positive ways.

As a Political Science and Economics student at Metro State College of Denver, with my sights set on practicing Constitutional Law, this 56 year old white woman is more enthusiastic about Barack Obama than anything else I've experienced. Barack Obama is clearly the most amazing leader to come along in my lifetime.

My take on the Nevada Debate - January 15, 2008

Patty in Colorado — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:20:19 EST

The debate started out with questions more suitable for a job interview than a debate between presidential candidates. However, the second segment focused on issues. The roundtable setup was effective.

Points for Obama for his rebuttal to Hillary Clinton regarding the duties and qualities of a president. He made an excellent case for a president to be able to gather a competent group of people to work with, and to effectively inspire and mobilize them. He emphasized the value of judgment and vision for the future. No one can argue with his goal to create a government that reflects the decency and generosity of the American people.

Points for Obama for presenting specific solutions regarding the real estate market, housing foreclosures, economics, and taxes, with succinct explanations. Points for Obama for graciously and tactfully incorporating select positive efforts made by Hillary and John, pertaining to the matters under discussion. Points for Obama regarding his comments on lobbyists, and his goal for public financing of presidential campaigns. Points for Obama for his proposals regarding education, and tuition grants for service to the country. Points for passing legislation to eliminate the burden of meal costs and telephone bills for vets.

Major points to Obama for his response to Hillary’s complaints about President Bush’s habit of making agreements with Iraq without going to Congress for approval. Obama’s approach and goal, as he stated it, is to responsibly, carefully, and deliberately engage with Iraq for the purposes of getting out of Iraq and establishing peace. This power of this approach can’t be underestimated.

When Obama presented his goals for ending the occupation in Iraq, he stated that he did not want to maintain permanent bases there, but that he would leave enough military personnel there to protect the embassy, and protect any other Americans who were there. He emphasized the importance of exercising our strategic interest, without resorting to war.

Obama gets major points for not wanting to use fear of terrorism to score political points. He mentioned that he would continue the hunt for Bin Laden and implement the 911 Commission recommendations. This issue of using fear to gain votes was the one thing on which he took issue with Hillary. Major Boo on Hillary for insinuating that terrorists would have a better chance of success against Barack Obama than against her. Barack caught that and queried her on it. Of course, she denied making that assertion. But she did do it, although she veiled it in a pointed spew of carefully chosen rhetoric in an attempt to disguise her rather serious jab at Barack.

The discussion of Yucca Mountain and nuclear power put important considerations on the table about the absence of correct scientific information regarding the use of nuclear power, and the need for adequate, safe disposal of nuclear waste. Hillary directly accused both Barack Obama and John Edwards of contributing to the problems associated with Yucca Mountain. She claimed that they had voted for a related nuclear energy bill. Her assertions were firmly rebutted by Obama. Edwards admitted that he voted twice for it, but now he’s against it.

In the lengthy discussion about nuclear energy, Obama pointed out that he believes we must invest in clean energy and cost-efficient production and storage. He asserted that he would establish a menu of energy options, one of which would be to cap and trade carbon emissions based on units emitted, to reduce greenhouse gases. He also stressed the importance of people making concerted efforts to reduce consumption.

Still on the warpath, Hillary claimed that the energy bill was Cheney’s gift to the energy companies and heavy on benefits for the special interest groups. Edwards accused Hillary of being one of the main fundraisers for the energy companies, and she did not, and perhaps could not, rebut that assertion.

It is obvious that Hillary Clinton is required to clean up her own messes, which have resulted from bad votes and bad ideas, which she has exercised in the Senate, and as the wife of former President Clinton. In her presentation of her answers in the debate, she frequently escalated the volume of her voice and tone until she was yelling. Her answers had a perceptibly and predominantly negative tone. She consistently referred to the “black-brown” issues that dominate the states she’s focusing on right now, indicating that she has her target population pigeon-holed, and stereotyped for maximum manipulation. Many times, she would’ve liked to ramble on about herself, but time did not permit it. When she did get to expand her answers, the content focused on her projected achievements, her version of experience, and her professed connections to all the “right” people.

John Edwards does not need any more opportunities to talk about his childhood and professed sensitivities to the middle class struggle, or experience of segregation. I thought it was incredibly brazen of him, with Barack sitting right there, to talk about how, as a child, he saw the discrimination that blacks were forced to endure, and by his proximity to that injustice, he somehow possessed a depth of understanding, as if he’d experienced it himself. John Edwards does not need any more opportunities to apologize for voting for stuff that turned out to be detrimental to the American people (bankruptcy, energy bill, Iraq invasion, etc ). John Edwards consistently deflected answering questions directly, preferring instead to fall back on his stump speech and well-worn anecdotes. When asked about English as an official language, he went off on his immigration talking points on laws, fines, and learning to speak English, and never answered the question. John Edwards does not need any more opportunities to exercise his inflated ego. When he was talking about the very real tragedy of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, he reduced the significance of this horrific event to a plug for himself and his abstract, superficial meetings and knowledge of the people involved, preferring to name-drop in an effort to exaggerate his own importance and score political points.

On the question about how each candidate made the decision to run for president…Hillary went on blah blah blah with her stump speech spew. John Edwards said that his decision to run was based on the causes he crusades for, and for his desire to spend time serving the country. Barack Obama’s answer revealed that he put concerns for his family’s welfare first. He also pointed out that his priority was not whether he would win, but whether he should win, and what he could do for the country in terms of effective leadership, bringing the country together, and creating positive change.

After the debate, MSNBC spent the next 20 minutes solely focusing the cameras on Hillary Clinton. All but one of the commentators relentlessly praised what they perceived as Hillary’s assertion of power during the debate. They were amazingly slanted and skewed towards Clinton. Chris Matthews persistently preached how he had observed Clinton as reigning over John Edwards and Barack Obama. He repeatedly projected the image of Clinton being above all of this debate stuff and already transported to the Denver convention as the inevitable nominee. It was absurd. Hillary didn’t even come close to “winning” the debate.

There was no mention of the Michigan primary, in which Hillary Clinton initially appeared to zoom to a 63% lead, where she peaked, while “Uncommitted” steadily gained on her as she lost points. The ultimate result was HC 56%, Uncommitted 40%, Kucinich 4%, and Gravel less than 0%.

Why Obama resonates with us

Patty in Colorado — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:56:43 EST

Here's my experience of it: What he says and how he says it hits the deep core in me where I become inspired to act on my convictions. He tells us that he needs us to help him implement his solutions. He doesn't just tell us what he's going to do (as other candidates do), but rather, he speaks to that spirit in us which serves to empower us so that we can walk the walk with him and with each other. Without that inspiration and encouragement, we'd probably be content to wait for him to manifest all the change. It's not about him, however, but about US manifesting our visions and our hopesfor the recovery of this nation.

Hilary Clinton and women

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:24:06 EST

In my previous blog post, Obama and women, I mentioned the notions of women feeling they have an obligation to vote for Hilary Clinton because she's a woman, and the compulsion to support a woman on principle, because she is running for president.

Consider these points: When Bill Clinton was exposed as having an affair of sorts with Monica Lewinski, Hilary claimed that Monica was not telling the truth. Rather, she publicly and vehemently blamed the "right-wing Republicans" for a conspiracy against her husband. All of her assertions against Monica and the Republicans proved to be blatant lies. She betrayed all women by lying to protect her husband.

Is this the type of woman you can trust to represent women's issues? NO.

Second point, Hilary is clearly riding on her husband's coattails by citing his achievements and successes as a reason to trust HER leadership. This is completely contrary to the princiiples of feminist ideology and practice.

If you find yourself saying that you will vote for Hilary Clinton because her husband, Bill Clinton, "did a good job as president", beware. Bill Clinton says he will do whatever Hilary asks him to do. Is he really capable of being that passive? I think not. He is trying to manipulate women with his charm and appearance of flexibility. I predict he will leave Hilary to fend for herself if she is elected president, but that's another story.

It is a twisted dynamic we're being fed here, people. Don't believe it!

Obama and Women

Patty in Colorado — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:03:34 EST

The issue that women seem to be battling with is how to support a man for president, when a woman is also running. Shouldn't women support a woman on principle? My answer to that is an emphatic NO.

Gloria Steinhem led the way back in the early 70's, forging ahead towards women's liberation. (I was 20 at the time.) Women who choose to vote for Hilary Clinton because they feel an obligation to vote for a woman because she's a woman have completely missed the point of women's liberation.

Women's liberation is about being liberated from making choices based on men's priorities. It's about being free to decide our own agendas, our own values, and our own paths. Above all, women's liberation is about trusting our intuitions and instincts about people, male and female.

Clearly, Barack Obama is manifesting the essence of liberation of all people, in that he is fueled by the courage to step up in the face of a still-prevalent national racism, discrimination, and judgmentalism based on age. The courage to step up is the central gem of the feminist movement. He is embracing that central core belief and manifesting hope combined with action.

All women want to be listened to. Barack Obama knows how to listen to women. We know he sincerely listens to his wife!

Congratulations on the fundraising!

Patty in Colorado — Wed, 04 Apr 2007 11:53:47 EDT

Fantastic job on the Fundraising!!! I'm printing out the donation form and will be handing a copy to everyone I talk to about Barack Obama! Let's crank up the momentum and support Barack all the way to the Presidency!