An inspiring 2 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMGgyPm9kh4&feature=user
Everything I Hate About Myself I See in Hillary, by Judy Bachrach
You will love this piece. I had been toying with writing a similar piece after complaining after every debate and every speech that Clinton seemed to have no ideas of her own and merely appropriated those of Barack. After you read this chunk, read the rest of it. Good for Friday morning!
“What kills me is the way Hillary deals with men other than her husband, especially powerful men. Whenever Hillary thinks Obama is onto something – a phrase, say, or even a piece of rhetoric, however tedious – she doesn’t do what most politicians do: which is to, say, challenge it. No, what Hillary does is fiddle with a syllable or two and then appropriate the last thing that pops out of her rival’s mouth as though it were her own (Yes we WILL!!).”
http://www.wowowow.com/post/everything-i-hate-about-myself-i-see-hillary-judy-bachrach
Button: 1 for $3; 2 for $5 Bumper Sticker: 1 for $3; 2 for $5 Rally Sign: 1 for $3.50 (Very limited supply!)
JOIN US AT ANY (or all) OF THESE PHONE BANKING EVENTS:
PHONE BANKING On Saturday (9 to 1) near CRENSHAW & MLK
PHONE BANKING On Saturday (1 to 5) near CRENSHAW & MLK
PHONE BANKING On Sunday (1 to 5) near CRENSHAW & MLK
This is the last weekend for us to phone bank in Pennsylvania. Join us so that we can make the Pennsylvania a HUGE success for Barack!
WE'LL SEE YOU THERE!
Ralph Nader was one of the reasons that Al Gore lost in 2000. I find the man an absolutely reprehensible, dilusional narcissist.
I know someone who actually voted for Nader "on principle" in 2000 AND 2004. After eight years of personal misery, he promises that he's not going to participate in giving a Republican the White House in any way. He's voting for Obama this year. Smart guy. I trust that most of Nader's prior followers will do the same this year. (Don't be surprised if the Nader campaign gets lots of funding, as the Republicans will be hoping they can split the Democrats by contributing to his campaign.) Read on (Obama's comments after the fold):
By HOPE YEN – January 24, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ralph Nader on Sunday announced a fresh bid for the White House, criticizing the top contenders as too close to big business and dismissing the possibility that his third-party candidacy could tip the election to Republicans.
The longtime consumer advocate is still loathed by many Democrats who accuse him of costing Al Gore the 2000 election.
Nader said most people are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties due to a prolonged Iraq war and a shaky economy. He also blamed tax and other corporate-friendly policies under the Bush administration that he said have left many lower- and middle-class people in debt.
"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized, disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine/Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bungling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."
Nader, who turns 74 later this week, announced his candidacy on NBC's "Meet the Press."
In a later interview with The Associated Press, he rejected the notion of himself as a spoiler candidate, saying the electorate will not vote for a "pro-war John McCain." He also predicted his campaign would do better than in 2004, when he won just 0.3 percent of the vote as an independent.
MARK YOUR CALENDARS! And tell your Latino friends that both Univision and CNN will host and televise a debate between Hillary and Obama at the Lyndon B. Johnson Auditorium at the University of Texas Austin. It will first air live in English on CNN and CNN International, and three hours later, will be broadcast in Spanish on Univision. The start time for the debate varies in different news sources. I will provide an update as soon as CNN reports the broadcast time.
The debate will also be available in full on both CNN.com and Univision.com after the broadcast.
In Texas, Latinos represent almost 25% of eligible voters. Obama has been placing ads on Hispanic TV stations and in Spanish newspapers in order to reach this large Latino demographic. On the grassroots level, we (you and I) need to contact all of our Latino friends - and let them know about the debate in Spanish on Univision.
The debate will include questions from both CNN and Univision journalists and will be moderated by a CNN anchor.
On February 27, CNN, in partnership with the Ohio Democratic Party, will host another Democratic debate between Obama and Hillary.
Very nice op-ed piece this a.m. in the LA Times by Joel Stein. Not sure if the link will work, but here it is:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein8feb08,0,3418234.column
LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK, February 1: Senator Barack Obama and Representative Ron Paul have signed on to participate in Closing Arguments: A Presidential Super Dialogue, which will air tomorrow through a partnership between MTV, MySpace and the Associated Press.
The event will offer candidates polling above 10 percent a final chance to address the nation before Super Tuesday, when more than 20 states hold presidential primaries or caucuses, effectively deciding the Republican and Democratic candidates for the general election. Senator Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee have already confirmed their participation.
The event is part of MySpace and MTV’s Presidential Dialogue series, and will take place on Saturday, February 2 at 6 p.m. on several mediums. On television it will be aired by MTV, MTV2 and MTV Tr3s; online it can be viewed live through MySpace’s Impact Channel, the social network’s political hub, as well as MTV’s ChooseOrLose.com; on radio via XM Satellite Radio, MTV and AP Radio; and on mobile phones through MTV Mobile. It will also be translated to Spanish and broadcast online on ImpreMedia’s LaVibra. Additionally, the Associated Press will distribute a live feed and on-demand highlights of the dialogue to the 1,800 media sites in its Online Video Network; nearly 600 of those are local TV, newspaper or radio sites in states with Super Tuesday primaries on February 5.
John McCain and Mitt Romney have also been invited to participate in the event. MTV News correspondents Gideon Yago and Sway Calloway, as well as WashingtonPost.com political reporter Chris Cillizza will moderate, joined by an AP political reporter covering the campaign.
Each candidate will have the floor for roughly 15-20 minutes, answering questions submitted in real-time via MySpaceIM, ChooseOrLose.com and from the live audience in MTV's Times Square studio in New York. Viewers watching online can also use a polling tool, powered by Flektor, to indicate their approval or disapproval of candidates’ responses. The poll results will be monitored during the live broadcast, and will help guide the direction of the forum.
—By Ned Berke
California SEIU backs Obama
By LAURA KURTZMAN Associated Press Writer
02/01/2008 08:56:20 AM PST
SACRAMENTO—One of California's largest unions has thrown its support to Barack Obama for president.
The Service Employees International Union made its decision two days after its first choice, John Edwards, dropped out of the race.
"Obama's pledge to ensure working families have a strong voice, that health care is not a luxury and that our children are given the tools to succeed best represents the values that our members care about," said Annelle Grajeda, president of the SEIU California State Council.
The 650,000-member union's backing could help Obama cut into Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in the polls among Democratic base voters, many of whom are union members.
The SEIU includes city, county and state employees, as well as in-home support and health care workers.
But there are only a few days left before Tuesday's election, and the union does not have much time to muster support for Obama. Union officials said they plan a limited operation on his behalf by urging their members to vote for him.
Luis Vizcaino, a spokesman for Clinton's California campaign, said she had the support of other unions, such as the United Farm Workers and the California branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
"We're feeling very good about where we are with our labor support," he said.
MoveOn.org Political Action
For Immediate Release: Friday, February 1, 2008
Contact: Doug Gordon (202) 822-5200 x237 (202) 494-5141 (cell)
MoveOn Endorsement Throws Progressive Weight Behind Barack Obama
3.2 Million Members Nationwide Mobilize to Get Out the Progressive Vote for Senator Obama
Group Has Over 1.7 Million Members In Super Tuesday States
In a resounding vote today, MoveOn.org Political Action's members nationwide voted to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President. The group, with 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states, will immediately begin to mobilize on behalf of Senator Obama. The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.
Senator Obama accepted the endorsement stating:
"In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up. From their principled opposition to the Iraq war - a war I also opposed from the start - to their strong support for a number of progressive causes, MoveOn shows what Americans can achieve when we come together in a grassroots movement for change. I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead."
Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org's Executive Director, issued the following statement on the group's endorsement:
"Our members' endorsement of Senator Obama is a clear call for a new America at this critical moment in history. Seven years of the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration have left the country desperate for change. We need a President who will bring to bear the strong leadership and vision required to end the war in Iraq, provide health care to every American, deal with our climate crisis, and restore America's standing in the world. The enormity of the challenges require someone who knows how to inspire millions to get involved to change the direction of our country, and someone who will be willing to change business as usual in Washington. Senator Barack Obama has proved he can and will be that President.
"With 3.2 million members nationwide and over 1.7 million members in states that vote next Tuesday, we'll be able to immediately jump into action in support of Senator Obama's candidacy. We've learned that the key to achieving change in Washington without compromising core values is having a galvanized electorate to back you up. And Barack Obama has our members 'fired up and ready to go' on that front.
"We congratulate Sens. Clinton, Dodd and Biden, former Senator Edwards, Governor Richardson, Congressman Kucinich and former Senator Gravel on running tremendous campaigns. We thank them for their contributions to the important debate that has gripped our nation and for their ongoing engagement with our members. We're looking forward to working together to bring progressive values to the nation's capitol and to end this disastrous war in Iraq. MoveOn members are committed to putting a Democrat in the White House in 2008 and ushering in a new era of progressive values no matter who wins the nomination."
MoveOn members' comments in the vote reflect the reasons they support Senator Obama:
"Obama's grassroots organizing experience and unifying message combine to show he will work for working people and speak to a broad cross section of the American public. We need this," said Linda Blong of Penngrove, CA.
"There are defining moments in our nation's political history and this is one of them. Barack Obama appeals to the very BEST of the American Spirit," said Estina Baker, Hackensack, NJ
"Barack Obama represents CHANGE in so many levels. He brings HOPE that America can, again, be respected by the rest of the world and that Americans can be proud, again, of our leaders!" Isabelle Mollien, Denver, CO
"Obama has the ability to draw people to him, to energize people who generally don't vote, to create an atmosphere of long-overdue possibility around himself and what he could bring to the office. It is my belief that he can re-establish the lost connection between the American people and their leader, and put our country back on course to be a positive force in the world." Matthew Smith in Columbus, OH
MoveOn's endorsement means a fresh infusion of people-power for Obama in the critical days before Super Tuesday. MoveOn will immediately connect thousands of progressive activists into the Obama GOTV volunteer operation. It will also use the same cutting-edge computer-based phone program that made 7 million GOTV calls for Democrats in 2006 to allow MoveOn members to call other MoveOn members in Feb. 5 states and encourage them to vote for Obama.
Today's endorsement is the first time MoveOn.org has endorsed a candidate for President in the Democratic primary. Over the past year, MoveOn surveyed a rotating sample of 30,000 members each week to determine their membership's preference in the Democratic presidential primary. For months, MoveOn members were divided among many candidates -- as many waited to see who would take bold progressive positions on the issues. As the primary race has gained momentum, the polling showed a consensus forming and, with Senator John Edward's withdrawal from the race, members made their decision in favor of Senator Obama. The vote took place from Thursday, January 31st to Friday, February 1st.
From http://www.mceades.com/
Mark C. Eades
Wednesday, 23 January 2008
Swiftboat Campaign Underway Against Obama in South Carolina
As The Nation, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times report, a swiftboat campaign is currently underway against Barack Obama in South Carolina, and swiftboat veteran John Kerry is working to intervene on Obama's behalf. An e-mail forwarding campaign underway across the entire state is suggesting that Obama is secretly a Muslim schooled in anti-Americanism who refuses to take the Pledge of Allegiance. Meanwhile, misleading telephone "push polls" bashing Obama and promoting Clinton have been reported, similar to calls recorded in Nevada last week stressing Obama's middle name, Hussein, a tactic used by some campaign operatives to appeal to prejudice and suggest falsely that Obama is a Muslim (Obama is a Christian, as his campaign constantly finds itself having to remind voters). While there is no evidence of direct Clinton involvement in these activities, a growing number of Democrats have been speaking out against recent remarks by former president Bill Clinton on behalf of his wife's campaign, likened by Sen. Dick Durbin to swiftboating. ABC News' Jake Tapper commented Tuesday that Bill Clinton has been "spreading demonstrably false information" against Obama, while Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn concluded simply that "Bill and Hillary Clinton have lied brazenly about Obama's recent statement about Ronald Reagan." South Carolina is famous for rough and often dirty politics (as in the Republican swiftboating of John McCain in 2000), and despite Obama's apparent lead the ride into Saturday's primary may be a rough one.
Posted by Mark C. Eades at 6:38 PM GMT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton says that Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has shifted his position on whether the United States should institute a "single-payer" health-care system that is run by the government. It's an idea that many health-care experts think is the best way to ensure coverage for all, but that many Americans reject as a move toward socialized medicine.
Clinton says Obama once advocated a single-payer system, later supported the idea "in principle," and now backs a health plan, built on the current private insurance system, that would fall short of universal coverage.
THE SPIN:
By highlighting what she calls Obama's "evolution" on the single-payer question, Clinton tries to raise questions both about his commitment to health-care coverage for all and about his consistency. "What we're looking for is a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow," she said in a debate earlier this month. Obama claims he's always said that single-payer is a good idea that can't be achieved now because of the current entrenched system. His campaign says it's actually Clinton who has been all over the map on health care, and specifically on the question of "single-payer" coverage.
THE FACTS:
There is video of Obama telling the AFL-CIO in 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program. ... A single-payer health care plan, a universal health plan. And that's what I'd like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, we have to take back the House."
In 1996, Obama answered a questionnaire about whether he supported a single-payer system by stating, "Yes in principle," adding that it was probably best to have the federal government set up such a program instead of the state.
At Monday's debate, Obama said: "I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn't have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system."
Obama's words have shifted. But even in the 2003 video, he made it clear that he didn't think single-payer could be achieved under current circumstances.
___
Clinton's health-care proposals, and her language, have shifted too.
In 1993, as first lady, she proposed a drastic overhaul of the health-care system that would have established mandatory insurance-purchasing alliances, but not a single-payer system.
In 1998, speaking about the lessons learned from the 1993 disaster, she said: "I come from the school of smaller steps. It is far better to try to make changes that will help at least some people than to do nothing and help no one."
Last April, she was asked about a single-payer plan and said, "It is unfair to tell people we can do something politically when we don't yet have the votes to do it."
At Monday's debate, she said: "If you don't start out trying to get universal health care, we know ... you'll never get there."
Her current plan would achieve universal coverage not through a single-payer system but by an "individual mandate" requiring everyone to get health insurance, just as most states require drivers to buy auto insurance.
By Nancy Benac.
From today's Huffington Post:
By: Tracy Fischman
Yesterday -- January 22, 2008 -- marked the 35th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman's right to choose an abortion. It was on this day that I felt particularly compelled to speak out about my experiences with Senator Barack Obama -- a man who should be honored, not condemned, for his consistent and unwavering support for reproductive freedom, women's health, gender equity and -- more broadly -- social justice.
I recognize that outsiders are attacking Senator Obama on the "chutzpah" factor -- suggesting that he lacks courage or real commitment on the "hard" issues such as reproductive rights or other issues such as gun control and violence against women. My experiences could not be further from that depiction. I formerly worked for Planned Parenthood in Illinois. I had the honor of working with Senator Barack Obama during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. He was -- and remains -- adamant about his support for women's health and access to reproductive healthcare services. His present votes on abortion-related bills were part of a broader pro-choice strategy designed to ultimately defeat bad and dangerous legislation that would have compromised the health and safety of Illinois women. As Planned Parenthood's lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats. Specifically, Planned Parenthood turned to Senator Obama because of his strong record on reproductive rights. At the time, Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes. Senator Obama initially resisted the strategy, as he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures, but decided to work with our strategy to help defeat these anti-choice bills. It is important to note that a present vote on a bad bill is essentially the same as a "no" vote, as the bill needs "yes" votes to pass. However, it is difficult for Republicans to use "present" votes in their campaign literature against Democrats from moderate and conservative districts (also see December 20, 2007 NY Times article: "It's Not Just 'Ayes' and 'Nays': Obama's Votes in Illinois Echo"). This strategy is now being used against Senator Obama in the same way we planned for it to work in our favor then. It is confounding to me that Senator Obama is being demeaned and attacked so vociferously on this. I came into this campaign season feeling relieved and thankful that our two main candidates support women's health and reproductive freedom. I am now deeply disappointed that politics has led to deceitful misrepresentations of Senator Obama's commitment and work in this area. Senator Obama was a leader in the Illinois legislature, and has continued to demonstrate leadership in the U.S. Senate. He understands reproductive rights within a broader context of health and prevention. He promotes, both in words and in action, a public health agenda that includes (but is not limited to): prevention of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; access to contraception; comprehensive sex education programs (which include information about abstinence as well as age-appropriate information about prevention and the availability of health services); and reducing disparities in health access for low income communities. Again -- based on my experience, I can personally say that Senator Obama comes to his positions and his work from very deep-seated principles about justice, opportunity, equality and freedom. He also is strategic about finding ways to accomplish goals. It is these principles combined with his strategic sensibilities, experiences and ability to bring people together that garnered my personal support for his candidacy. We are at a juncture in our nation. Over the last eight years, we have faced unprecedented challenges to reproductive freedom, justice and equality. President Bush and his administration did more to turn back the clock on issues of concern to women and undeserved communities than we have seen in generations. These assaults came in many forms, including (but not limited to): the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule prohibiting international family planning programs from receiving US funds if they even counseled on abortion (with their own private money); the appointment of two anti-choice fundamentalist Supreme Court justices and many more like-minded Federal judges; increased funding for dangerous abstinence-only until marriage sex education programs; censorship within administrative agencies and with grantees; dismantling of family planning programs; broad barriers to contraception and reproductive health care services; and a general environment in which politics has trumped effective public health and good science. We must make a change and elect a president who believes in an America for us all. An America that values women and families, promotes both prevention and access to abortion, and fosters and implements programs to support the values that Senator Obama so deeply holds. Senator Obama is 100% pro-choice and is a champion for women's health and equality. For these reasons -- and many more -- he is getting my vote this year.
From today's: On February 5, Obama January 23, 2008
Lost amid the sound and fury of this year’s primary season is the certainty, not the promise, of change. For the first time since 1952, there is no heir apparent to the administration in power.
The stakes have rarely been higher in a presidential election. The question is not if there will be change in American leadership, but what kind.
And the change that is being offered has a focus and intelligence that is kindred to the best American traditions. It is embodied by one candidate in the Democratic Party who is offering a reinvigorated America: Senator Barack Obama.
The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state’s presidential primary on Feb. 5.
New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.
Most of the other candidates have absorbed, assimilated or appropriated Mr. Obama’s issue of change. It is a powerful concept. But a great deal of the argument for Mr. Obama’s candidacy is about one great issue in American life: restoring and reinvigorating American democracy.
Democracy is the greatest strength of this still-young nation. Its living enactment is our gift to the world. It is the product of our best instincts and most powerful ideals. But it has been polluted, sullied and compromised by an obstructive administration that seems to have to have no particular regard for its attributes.
It is difficult to remember the last national candidate who has charged and jazzed the democratic system as Mr. Obama has. Partly as a result of his candidacy, college campuses have remembered why they are proud of the United States, kids are going door to door, runners are handing out leaflets on weekends, racial lines have been culturally melted and the electoral approach to presidential campaigning has been reborn.
And, as more than one commentator has said, America is being reintroduced to the world.
Because of who he is and what he stands for, a former constitutional law teacher with few ties to the Washington establishment yet a sophisticated respect for it, Mr. Obama stands the best chance of restoring the essential relationship between power and the American people. He is not flanked and blocked by an existing, entrenched power structure; his words are not muddied by layers of handlers; he still says what he means.
We believe that Mr. Obama’s idealism and fresh ideas would ensure that the end of the Bush era would also mean an end to government by secrecy, Cheneyism, arrogance, oligarchy; an end to mindless armed unilateralism abroad; an end to the blustering, rank partisan disputes of the last quarter-century.
Mr. Obama has found his strength in the generation that succeeded the baby boomers, speaking for the frustrations of those who wish that their leaders would get over themselves, get over the 1960’s, get on with resolving issues that threaten our global leadership. Mr. Obama is an inclusive figure at a time when our popular culture demands that we embrace a new America while still comprehending the lessons of hard-won history—from World War II through the fall of the Berlin Wall—that have brought us to a free world in 2008.
He is also determined to mend this nation. Mr. Obama, as Walt Whitman did, hears America singing, not snarling. Too many candidates have turned opponents into traitors, critics into jackals. Mr. Obama believes the nation yearns to see hope and inspiration and courage emerge victorious from the era’s gauntlet of hypocrisy and lies and false bravado. Imagine, for a moment, any other candidate this year saying what Mr. Obama said at the 2004 Democratic National Convention:
“The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we got some gay friends in the red states. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
That is a song we have not heard for too long a time. It is the kind of song that can make citizens of spectators, Americans of couch potatoes, patriots of slackers.
Mr. Obama would also be the most formidable Democrat in the general election. He has demonstrated a capacity to energize young people and attract new voters, and is the only candidate in the Democratic Party who attracts independents, who are the fastest-growing part of the electorate. His refusal to demonize the Republican Party as a right-wing attack machine will appeal to those independents as well as moderate Republicans.
Mr. Obama, it is true, is hardly an experienced Washington hand, which surely explains the freshness of his vision and the power of his life experience. His opponents have hit this issue hard. But as far as experience goes, to those Americans who celebrated finding ourselves with our first M.B.A. president in 2000—we can only advise them to look at the $9 trillion national debt in 2008.
And when George W. Bush was driving a bleary, shocked nation into war with bait-and-switch deceptions in 2003, where was our experienced leadership? Meanwhile, in the west, an Illinois state senator—who has since served three years in the Senate, the same Congressional period that a fellow Midwesterner, Abraham Lincoln, had served when he sought the presidency—rose to exhibit courage and public judgment on that deceptive adventure, stating, “I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”
Now we have paid the price many times over, and there are no clear paths in Baghdad. But there may be one in Washington. Mr. Obama is the emblem of a new America. He has risen too quickly for his opponents’ taste; that fact is nothing less than a recommendation.
His relationship to truth and plain speaking and public transparency is the first step toward reviving democracy in the United States of America.
Barack Obama of Illinois is the future. New York’s Democrats should embrace him.
Since a blog reader just asked me about this very issue, I attach the following from Media Matters, which just busted the Associated Press for MISREPRESENTATION:
Purporting to assess accuracy of Obama ad, AP truncated Obama quote on Iraq
Summary: In its analysis of a televised advertisement stating that Sen. Barack Obama "opposed [the] Iraq war from the start," the Associated Press reported that Obama, when asked by The New York Times in 2004 how he would have voted on the resolution to use force against Iraq, "not[ed] he had not seen intelligence reports that fellow Democrats had seen" and then replied, "What would I have done? I don't know." In fact, Obama's full statement as reported in the Times was: "'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made' "
In a January 17 "analysis" of a televised advertisement from Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) presidential campaign stating that "Obama opposed [the] Iraq war from the start," the Associated Press truncated a quote from Obama reported in a 2004 New York Times article, which the AP cited in assessing the accuracy of the ad. The AP reported: "Obama did speak out against the war in 2002, before he was in the U.S. Senate, and has been a critic of President Bush's policies in Iraq. But asked by the New York Times in 2004 how he would have voted on the use of force resolution, Obama demurred, noting he had not seen intelligence reports that fellow Democrats had seen. 'What would I have done? I don't know,' he replied." In fact, Obama's full statement as reported in the July 26, 2004, New York Times article cited by the AP was: "'But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Mr. Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made' " (emphasis added).
From the AP's January 17 "analysis" of Obama's advertisement:
Iraq: Obama did speak out against the war in 2002, before he was in the U.S. Senate, and has been a critic of President bush's policies in Iraq. But asked by the New York Times in 2004 how he would have voted on the use of force resolution, Obama demurred, noting he had not seen intelligence reports that fellow Democrats had seen. "What would I have done? I don't know," he replied. In 2006, he backed a nonbinding resolution to pull troops out of Iraq, but sided with Republicans and a majority of Democrats in rejecting legislation that would have required the troops to come home by a specific date.
He opposed the war in Iraq, and spoke against it during a rally in Chicago in the fall of 2002. He said then that he saw no evidence that Iraq had unconventional weapons that posed a threat, or of any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.
While Hillary currently (allegedly) leads in California polls, two important local town papers have endorsed Obama. The Santa Barbara Independent (which is Santa Barbara's local paper) and the San Francisco Bay Guardian (less circulation than the S.F. Chronicle, but a very well-read newspaper) have endorsed Obama.
Obama met yesterdeay with the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, Southern California's largest circulation newspaper which is read in Orange County, San Bernardino, and other major Southern California counties. Today, he meets with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle which is the largest circulation newspaper in Northern California. Here's hoping . . . In the meantime, here are the two latest California newspaper endorsements:
From Santa Barbara Independent:
For President: Barack ObamaThursday, January 17, 2008By Marianne Partridge, Editor in ChiefOur country is in serious trouble. We all know the problems. Bogged down in a senseless war of our own making, America is reviled around the world as an impotent bully. Our economy is unraveling, our dollar is in the basement, and our jobs are disappearing. Our medical system is in the hands of corporate giants. Our environment is getting trashed. The list goes on and on. But the worst thing that has happened to us is that as a nation we have lost our way. We have lost faith that Americans can still be the good guys, that we can control greed, forbid torture, help the poor, and protect the Earth. Eight years of the incompetent, ideologically blinded George W. Bush and his dreadful administration have caused incalculable harm. But the time for railing against President Bush is over. Now we must change — not just our president, but ourselves. The primary on February 5 is the first chance Californians will have to help set the nation on the right path. The Independent rarely endorses in party primaries, but this year we endorse with confidence one candidate who is uniquely qualified to be president: Barack Obama. Click to enlarge photo What impresses us most about Obama is his ability to inspire hope in those who’ve learned to dismiss the political process as a cynical joke. And his gift goes beyond speechifying, which he does with uncommon grace. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has charged that he is short on experience. We disagree. He has had more years of legislative experience than Clinton, with three years in the U.S. Senate and eight years in that rough-and-tumble body known as the Illinois Legislature. During those 11 years, he successfully brought together Democrats and Republicans to pass legislation benefitting ordinary people — from tax credits for children to ethics reform in Congress. And what good did Clinton’s experience serve us when she voted to give President Bush a blank check to wage war on Iraq? Few decisions in history have proved so predictably wrong-headed. As the most engaged First Lady in history and as a U.S. Senator, she should have known better. Yet Clinton never even read the National Intelligence Estimates that assessed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as odious but not an imminent threat to the United States. Our own congressmember, Lois Capps, knew better when she voted against the war authorization act. At that time, Obama, who had not yet assumed his U.S. Senate seat — and could not vote — spoke out extensively against the war and predicted many of the horrors that have since come to pass: thousands of American dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead. Escalating terrorism. A staggering drain on the economy. Untold dreams forever deferred.While Clinton is certainly a strong candidate for president, she remains fundamentally a tragic figure in American politics. The victim of one of the most relentlessly vicious and sexist smear campaigns unleashed in recent memory, Clinton retreated into her own interior fortress. We sympathize with her plight, but that’s no reason to give her our vote on February 5. In the next four years, we need to tear down the fortress walls and begin the hard work of rediscovering what it really means to be American. As a nation, we long to regain the courage of our convictions, to renew our faith in American ideals. The groundswell of support for Barack Obama is based on the belief that he has the ability to inspire hope and define our aspirations as a nation in a way that reaches not only Americans, but the world. We believe this as well, and urge you to vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary on February 5.
BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENTJanuary 17, 2007This is now essentially a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, and no matter how it comes down, it's a historic moment: neither of the front-runners for the White House (and by any standard, the Democratic nominee starts off as the front-runner) is a white man. And frankly, the nation could do a lot worse than either President Hillary Clinton or President Barack Obama.But on the issues, and because he's a force for a new generation of political activism, our choice is Obama.Obama's life story is inspirational, and his speeches are the stuff of political legend. He can rouse a crowd and generate excitement like no presidential candidate has in many, many years. He has, almost single-handedly, caused thousands of young people to get involved for the first time in a major political campaign.
