Dear Mr. President.
Hello, may the all mighty watch over and guide you and yours, at the moment i do not envy your position at all. But there is help available 24/7/365+6.
My friend (permission to call you friend ?), you are a father yes, but you have no experience of fathering late teenage kids, i know time will come for that eventually.
But for now lets view in our mind's eye that you have, and one kid is GOP and one DEM, and all they do is consume and advise all day and all night, (all chief and no Indians). And if i remember correctly, as Cesar came to Rome his chariot horses were being guided by many kings he had conquered and on his chariot a slave standing behind him and kept reminding him of his mortality, which of course happened soon by none other than family and friends. Let me be the slave on the chariot behind you, let me carry your back from here.
Let me be your Tylenol and take your headache away, i know you already have many, don't worry,all will work out soon, you're on the right track, i must congratulate your Treasury Sec. Smart, Hansom, Able, Courage Under Fire, thumbs up.
The news media is turning this situation into a some kind of boxing match, put a stop to it immediately, don't drive a wedge between, continue working your administration on both sides of the ail es.
Always remember that there are many who would like nothing better than to see you and us fail. So make the next bill localized and targeted and get the local politicians sell the point to their Senators. (divide and conquer). Take care, god bless.
Raffi
Sarah Palin, A to Z
Abstinence-only education: Palin opposes all other sex education programs.
Bridge to Nowhere: Repeatedly claims to have said “thanks, but no thanks” to Congress. This is not true. Palin supported the bridge boondoggle before Congress said “no thanks,” and still took the earmark from Congress for other projects. Palin has continued to spend earmarked funds on a second Bridge to Nowhere -- Don Young’s Way --named after Alaska’s champion pork-barrel congressman (Young raised funds for Palin’s campaign for Governor).
Censorship: Palin inquired about banning books at the Wasilla public library. Palin prepared to fire the Wasilla librarian, but backed off when the community rallied to the defense of the librarian.
Debt: Palin left Wasilla with $19 million in long-term debt (Wasilla had no debt before she was Mayor).
Earmarks: McCain has repeatedly said that Palin rejected earmarks from Congress. This is not true. Palin requested nearly $200 million in federal earmarks this year alone, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation.
Five Twenty Seven: Palin was a director of a 527 political slush fund organized by indicted Alaska Senator Ted Stevens from 2003-2005. The 527 --“Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.” -- could raise unlimited funds from corporate donors. Stevens actively campaigned for Palin in her 2006 campaign for Governor, before being indicted by a federal grand jury for not disclosing massive home renovation, autos and other “gifts” from Veco, an oil services company.
Global Warming: Palin said in August, 2008 that man-made pollution is not contributing to climate change. Palin changed her position after becoming the Vice Presidential nominee, and now says “it doesn’t really what matter what caused it at this point.”
Hate Crimes: Opposes expansion of hate-crimes laws.
Investigation: The Alaska legislature is investigating claims that Palin fired Alaska’s public safety commissioner for refusing to fire a state trooper who was involved in a custody battle with Palin's sister (Troopergate). Todd Palin has received a subpoena from the Alaska legislature, but is refusing to testify.
John McCain’s Judgment: Impulsively selected Sarah Palin as running mate in his most important campaign decision, placing her Just a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
K St. (Washington, DC lobbyist central): Palin hired a Washington lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for Wasilla totaling $27 million. Lobbyist was former chief of staff for indicted Senator Ted Stevens (see 527 above).
Lies: See Bridge to Nowhere, Earmarks, etc.
More Regulation and Magazines: Asked by Katie Couric to give specific examples in McCain’s 26 years in the U.S. Senate where he pushed for more regulation, Palin said: “I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring `em to ya.”
Newspapers: Couric asked Palin to name newspapers and magazines she regularly reads to stay informed about issues. Palin responded: “All of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.”
Oil Company Supporter: Supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and took contributions from Veco oil company executives in her 2002 campaign for Lieutenant Governor (see 527 above for relationship between indicted Senator Ted Stevens, Veco and Palin; also, see Polar bears).
Polar Bears: Palin sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as a threatened species, over concern that the special protection would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska (see Oil Company Supporter).
Question: “What is it exactly that the Vice President does every day” -- Sarah Palin to Larry Kudlow in CNBC, July, 2008.
Roe V. Wade: Palin would overturn. So would McCain. Palin would make abortion illegal, even in cases of rape and incest. McCain voted against extending Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and infants up of one year of age with incomes below the Federal poverty line; Opposed legislation requiring insurers to provide the same level of coverage for contraceptives as they do for other prescription drugs; Voted against funding for preventive health care services intended to reduce unintended pregnancies.
Supreme Court: When asked by Katie Couric to name even one Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with, Palin drew a blank.
Travel Expenses and Tax Records: Palin bilked Alaska taxpayers for 312 days of travel expenses for nights she slept at home during her first 19 months as Governor. Palin’s husband and daughters charged Alaska taxpayers over $43,000 for travel. The Palin’s have refused to release their tax records until after the election, raising questions about whether they disclosed their taxpayer-funded travel income.
Unprepared: ‘I think she has pretty thoroughly — and probably irretrievably — proven that she is not up to the job of being president of the United States,” -- David Frum, former speechwriter for President George H.W. Bush.
Violence against Women: Victims of rape forced to pay for their own forensic evidence kits in Wasilla while Palin was Mayor. McCain has repeatedly voted in the Senate against funding to confront and prevent domestic violence. McCain opposed a program to aid children who have witnessed domestic violence.
Wolves: Palin strongly supports an aerial hunting program targeting bears and wolves, described as “brutal” by Defenders of Wildlife. The program has killed 800 wolves, including many pups. In March 2007, Palin's administration announced that it would offer $150 for the foreleg of each freshly killed wolf, in order to encourage hunters. Palin spent $400,000 in taxpayer funds to defeat a recent ballot initiative to stop the program.
X: Palin has XX Chromosomes in common with Hillary Clinton, and virtually nothing else.
You Tube: Palin in her own words on foreign policy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg; and as portrayed by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdDqSvJ6aHc
Zero foreign policy experience: “I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq.” -- Palin quoted in the Alaska Business Monthly. Asked by Katie Couric to explain tatements about proximity to Russia giving her foreign policy experience, Palin said: “Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of…... As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.”
Tell the 47 million Americans (including over 9 million children) without health care coverage -- and everyone else paying skyrocketing insurance premiums for less care -- that there is not an urgent health care crisis. We’ve had a national debate for 50 years about joining the rest of the industrialized world in providing health care for all, but what’s the rush?
Explain the need for patience to the parents of the ten million children worldwide who die every year of treatable or preventable diseases.
No doubt the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, their homes, or their retirement savings understand the need to put CEOs first. As do the quarter of U.S. families with children less than six years old who live in poverty.
To all the new mothers in this country who are forced to return to work shortly after giving birth, because the U.S. is one of only four countries in the world (along with Lesotho, Swaziland and Papau New Guinea) that does not provide a paid maternity leave program: I’m sure you understand prioritizing bankers over babies.
We’ve been warned by the world’s top climate scientists that we have just a few short years to stabilize carbon emissions, or face catastrophic climate change, altering life as we know it on the planet. Have you seen an emergency summit in Washington to solve this crisis by chance?
Remember the lightning speed by which the Bush Administration responded to the Katrina calamity? The families that languished in contaminated trailers for years must be eternally grateful for the rapid response to their crisis.
Remember the bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis? There are 77,000 deteriorated bridges and 33,000 deteriorating schools in need of urgent repair. Why worry?
Or what about the national debt? The banker bailout would increase it to 11.3 Trillion, with a T. That we are increasingly dependent on creditors like the Chinese Central Bank so that we can have our wars and tax cuts too is a problem for our kids and grandkids. It’s their crisis.
Then there is the explosion of violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, after 5 years of death and destruction in Iraq, creating 2 million refugees.
I’d like someone to explain to me why all these crises afflicting people and the planet are just the way it is, business as usual, problems to be put off until another year, while Wall Street banks led by CEOs who are still being paid tens of millions per year need to have their losing bets bought back by our tax dollars at inflated prices by this Monday.
It doesn’t have to be this way. It’s time for not just change, but some really big changes. Starting now. Call Congress and tell them what you think about the bank bailout and the crises you want addressed: 202-224-3121. Another world is still possible.
I know a lot of us are exhausted. A lot of us want to catch up on our sleep, our day jobs, and our families. Why are we still in this sprint? Because this is our time. And Change We Can Believe In is also Change We Can Achieve.
Want to know how phone calls, canvassing, and small donations can switch an election's outcome? This site contains the answer: https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html The electoral vote result in past elections would have been different with the switch of the following number of popular votes:
In 2004, 57,787 votes would have given us President Kerry
In 2000, 269 votes would have given us President Gore
In 1996, 575,515 votes would have given us President Dole
In 1992, 284,837 votes would have have made Bush 41 a two termer
In 1988, 537,766 votes would have given us President Dukakis
In 1984, 2,675,811 votes would have given us President Mondale (I know, that result wouldn't have changed based on some phone calls)
In 1980, 731,189 votes would have made Carter a two-termer
In 1976, 9,246 votes would have re-elected President Ford
In 1972, 3,174,786 votes would have elected President McGovern and spared us Watergate
In 1968, 135,284 votes would have elected President Humphry
In 1964, 2,058,258 votes would have elected President Goldwater
In 1960, 11,874 votes would have put Nixon in the White House much earlier
269 votes. 9,246 votes. 11,874 votes. These are all numbers small enough that a mid-sized city like Fresno can provide the field support to switch the outcome ALL ON ITS OWN.
At Camp Obama, Kevin Johnson told us that we need to not just stop at the finish line, but to SPRINT THROUGH the finish line. He's right. We can make those numbers.
If this is a 269, or 9,246, or 11,874 vote election, lets make sure we don't wake up the morning of November 5 and think "we could have been the difference." No, we're going to wake up and think "we WERE the difference." Us. Right here in Fresno. Yes we can!
I've watched with frustration as the nation seems fixated on on anything but issues. As often as Obama tries to bring focus to the things that make our lives better, the McCain campaign distracts and distorts. Indeed, McCain has now taken to distorting a report about how he was distorting the facts. It is now wonder Americans are sick of politics as usual.
Well, I got a huge breath of fresh air today. Literally. I stayed up until the wee hours last night getting my work done so I could take a few hours today to go with my daughter's second grade class to the zoo. As I watched her incredibly hard working and dedicated teacher go about the crucial work of shaping my child's education, I was reminded of how many true heroes we have living in our midst. The people who do the hard work, day in and day out, of shaping a society we are proud of.
The real question in this election is not who said what, or who runs the meanest ads. No. The real question is whose policies will make the lives and work of these heroes easier. Who will help firefighters and police save lives. Who will help teachers shape the next generation.
The answer to that question: Barack Obama.
Barack Obama has run as a change candidate.
Before John McCain's conversion to a doctrinaire Bush clone,McCain called himself a "maverick".
Obama and McCain have a chance to bring maverick change today by agreeing to bring true democracy to our presidential elections for the first time in our nation's history.
As we all remember, George Bush 43 was elected president in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes. In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by a reported 3 million vote margin -- but almost lost the election. Ohio's electoral votes went to Bush based on a 118,775 vote margin. According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 160,000 Kerry votes were lost due to various illegal vote fraud and suppression tactics. But for this illegal activity, the winner of the popular vote by a nearly 3 million vote margin would have lost the election.
The message is clear: Our nation runs an unacceptably enormous risk of electing a president who lost the popular vote.
There is a movement afoot to solve this problem. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ is promoting an agreement between various states where all of their electoral votes would be given to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in any particular state. To avoid "unliateral disarmament" (where for example, blue states agree to give their votes to the nationwide winner, but red states do not, creating a situation where the republican wins if he wins the popular vote or the majority of electoral votes), the agreement only takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes (270) have signed on.
Many states are reluctant to enter into this agreement. It is understandible, given that even a state with three electoral votes will see more campaign spending and attention than California, with its 55 electoral votes. But how about a trial run?
If Barack Obama asks the big blue states to get on board with a trial run for true electoral change, and if John McCain asks the big red states to get on board with a trial run for a maverick trial of true democratic elections, we can have a guarantee that our next president will have the support of a majority of the voters in this nation.
If John McCain or Barack Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by a margin in the millions, this nation will enter an era of civil unrest unprecedented in modern times. Imagine the fury over an unpopular war, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives, extended for four years based on an anachronistic electoral vote system that ignores the popular vote. Imagine the fury over ending that war when a majority of voters cast their lot with the candidate who promised to continue and expand it.
Florida in 2000 was decided by a vote margin in the hundreds. Five states in 2000 were decided by a margin of under one half of one percent. Three states in 2004 were decided by less than one percent, and Ohio's result will be forever questioned. It would be a constitutional crisis, a constitutional disaster, if we wake up on November 5 to the headline "Ohio, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico results too close to call; Candidates challenging voting irregularities in those states." Florida was only settled in 2000 when the Supreme Court stepped in. The potential for a disaster with multiple states in the "Florida posture" is too big to ignore at any time. We must not ignore it at this especially sensitive time, while the nation is at war, fighting terrorism, and struggling for its economic footing.
We need not decide today to scrap the electoral college permanently. But we should at least put in place an interstate compact that assures us that for this election, at this enormonus inflection point in American history, our votes will not be overturned by the electoral college system -- and that a close call in a few states would not cause a crisis if the national results are even slightly decisive.
** Disclaimer: The opinions in this post are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Obama campaign.
As we transition from the primary election to the general election, it is important to remember why the primary was so gripping. Certainly, there were the candidates themselves. However, the overriding thing making the primary exciting (sadly, a thing that is unique to the Democratic Party primary election) was this simple fact: Every vote had a chance to be THE vote that made the difference. Voters in California counted. Voters in Alaska counted. Nobody knew how the superdelegates would vote; there was disagreement on how to count Michigan and Florida; there were questions about whether pledged delegates could defect. Ultimately, perhaps because of that very uncertainty, every voter wondered "what if this came down to me?"
And it could have. It could have been a one-vote delegate majority picking the nominee. That one delegate could have been selected by a paper thin one vote margin. In short, the primary was exciting because every vote had the chance to be THE vote. Moreover, every door I knocked on, every voter I helped through the Voter Protection Program, could have been THE voter.
I live in California. We have the most electoral college votes, yet our state is so solidly Democratic in Presidential elections that many wonder if their votes matter. On a simple level, of course the votes matter. Winning by a narrow electoral vote margin may put Barack Obama into the White House; winning by a broad popular vote margin will give him the influence he needs to really change things for all of us. On an only slightly more complex level, however, our role as citizens is more than just voting. If we can afford to contribute to causes we believe in, we should. If we have time to call other voters (say voters in swing states) and make our case, we should. If we have time to travel, to canvass, to register voters, to participate in voter protection, we should
We each get only one vote. But we also each have three months to participate in our democracy and change the outcome of this election. The primaries were exciting because each of us wondered, "what if my vote picks the delegate who puts my candidate over the top?" In this general election, we can ask: What if those twenty voters I called every day for 100 days, those 2,000 other Americans who I talked with about our democracy, what if those voters give New Mexico and its electoral votes to Barack? And what if those make the difference?
The primary may have seen more exciting. It may have seemed to value our votes more highly. But that is an illusion. In the primary we picked between two candidates who would carry forward much of the same agenda. In the general election, we can pick between war and peace; debt and prosperity; cynicism and hope; McCain and Obama. And we can pick not just with our votes, but with our voices and our time. Nothing is more exciting than that.
The campaign is asking supporters throughout the nation to hold meetings that will be used to write the party platform.
Never before in the history of our nation has a major party candidate been willing to trust the people to do such a task.
Our Constitution starts with the words "We The People". The Constitution was a watershed event, a demarcation point between all that came before and the healthy democracies that have since spread across the globe. But for all of its brilliance and importance, the Constitution was written by a small group of elites -- and as such needed to be amended nearly immediately to provide such basic freedoms as freedom of religion and speech.
In little more than two centuries, the democracy that our Constitution has made possible seems to have reached adulthood. The people have been empowered. We the people have been asked what we think -- and what we think will matter.
So let us begin our platform with the same words that birthed our democracy: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do" embrace and affirm the Constitution of the United States of America, and this platform of the Democratic Party, written by the people and for the people.
Barack Obama is not going negative. He put the nail in that coffin with comments over the weekend. The incredulity of McCain over Obama's "backing out" of an agreement to stick with public funding. The paraplectic response of the Clintonites to the idea that mountains of favors earned are not destiny. These stem from a fundamental truth: The Obama campaign has won already. Not the Presidency, that is yet to come. But the battle to change how voters think about campaigns, and how politicians run them.
It is true that in Obama agreed early on (with some important nuance and limitations that, of course, never get reported) that if the Republican in the general election accepted public financing, so would he. It is also true that he seems reluctant to stick with that agreement. I hope his reluctance sticks, because that agreement came from a fundamental error: Obama may have had the audacity of hope, but when he agreed to public financing, that audacity was not coupled with a belief he could pull it off quickly enough. Somewhere deep inside he was still playing on the old playboard. One where nobody believed the public at large, by the millions, would reach into their pockets to take command of their own destiny. He has, apparently, exceeded his expectations. And when presented with this new information, he must do what any true leader does: Change his actions to conform to the new reality.
The same is true of negative campaigning -- although on this count, he exceeded the fears of the Clintons and the Republican machine, but not his own expectations. From the outset his campaign was about speaking truth and addressing issues. Yes, he is a wonderful speaker. Yes, he is as smart and reliable in his judgment as Bush 43 is not. But few outside the Obama team thought that voters would respond to truth, honesty, and a focus not on the flaws of others but on the failures of their policy. Indeed, he has approached this campaign much as Roger Fisher (a Harvard Law professor during Barack Obama's tenure at Harvard) suggests in Getting to Yes: Be hard on the problem, but soft on the person.
Getting to Yes stresses the importance of examples, and in a strange fit of timing, I have one. I am having work done on my kitchen, and the work started while I was in Pennsylvania for the campaign. Upon my return -- from working on a campaign where the Clintons were using a "throw the kitchen sink" strategy -- my kitchen sink had in fact been removed. In what is a Democratic family dispute about which family member gets the nomination, one of the family members has decided to destroy the family house in the process. I can tell you from personal experience, no matter what benefit you get from removing the kitchen sink, it is messy and very expensive to replace -- and nobody in the family is happy while the sink is gone. The family home becomes non-functional. This is, of course, an object lesson on why we must be hard on the issues without engaging in the kind of fratricidal attacks that injure us all.
In my view, the Obama candidacy is about two very important goals: Helping move America forward from within the White House, and rewriting the rules of how we pick our leaders. While the former goal is ahead of us, we are well on our way to achieving the latter. Already Obama has proven that a campaign can be flush with cash without being flush in political debt owed to lobbyists and special interests. Obama has proven that people will participate in the process -- by the millions -- when that participation is driven from the grassroots. Obama has proven that people can rise about cynicism.
Obama may yet have the nomination stolen from him by superdelegates driven away by a campaign that is hard on the person while ignoring the issues. He may yet lose the general election to the old politics of destruction and distraction. But he has fatally wounded that old system. That system may take a few cycles to die from the wound, but die it will. And the millions of Americans who worked hard to remake America through the Obama campaign can take credit for the inevitable rebirth of American democracy that will follow.
I attended "promote the vote" training at Penn law school today. It took place in a huge classroom, and it was packed with so many lawyers and law students that it was standing room only. Obviously, it was not an event covered by the media, but I wish it had been. Indeed, I wish somebody would "leak" a tape of that meeting, because it would show the world that this campaign is not only hoping to make change by electing Obama, but is actually actively making change even today by changing the way campaigns are run. The overwhelming message to the Obama loyalists on the voter protection team: Our primary job is to facilitate voting. Help every voter count, regardless of who they intend to vote for.
Indeed, the Obama voter protection effort is exactly what the Justice Department should be doing: protecting all voters in a non-partisan way, and ensuring that our elections are truly free and fair. Please, somebody, leak that news on a barely audible audio tape to the press.
Put another way, the Obama campaign could have surely put the hundreds of lawyers to more effective, partisan, yet cynical uses. But for a candidate who believes in democracy and the constitution, protecting the vote is a mission not to be abandoned for partisan gain.
Thank you, Barack Obama, for setting the right tone.
After an exhausting, 21 hour travel day from Fresno (note to self: Never book a tight connection through SFO again), I got into Philadelphia early this morning.
I spent the afternoon going door to door for the campaign. While the polling swings back and forth, I can say that my subjective feeling is that Philadelphia voters are more receptive to the Obama message than were voters in Texas. Perhaps it is a realization that the negative campaigning and media focus on irrelevant issues will continue until the primary is over. Perhaps it is response to the disgraceful debate this week -- where on a day that the Supreme Court lifted a de facto moritorium on capital punishment, the most important issue was flag pins. Perhaps I simply canvassed a neighborhood that leaned his way.
My read of the latest polls, unfortunately, contradicts my on-the-ground experience here in PA. From the polling I've seen (check out http://www.realclearpolitics.com) there is some possible movement toward Clinton. All this means is that the get out the vote effort must be enormous. It will matter in November, and it matters now. The Obama campaign can out-organize anyone. And we need your help.
I would encourage my fellow Californians to join me in campaigning in Pennsylvania. I'm here in person, but phone banking works -- and you can help from California. Go to http://my.barackobama.com/call to get started.
In the meantime, I leave you with a conversation I had with a 55 year old Philadelphia voter today. Paraphrasing, he told me he was registered independent (so he can't vote in the Democratic primary), but if he could vote, he would vote for Clinton. But if Obama gets the nomination, he will vote for Obama. But he would really, really prefer Clinton. And by the way, his kids are probably voting Obama.
I'm not sure what to make of that voter's statement, but this much is clear: Rank and file Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are coming to believe that a continued brutish, negative and destructive primary benefits nobody. And they are reaching out to the campaigns in small ways like this, sending the message to the diehard supporters of their disfavored candidate that ultimately, we are all in this, as Americans, together. Barack Obama gets that message, and has repeatedly refused to attack Clinton in a way that would hand the general election to McCain. This simple truth, the "do unto others" rule, seems lost on Clinton.
I go to voter protection training tomorrow. Please, do some phone banking for us!
-- Gary
I leave on Friday for Philadelphia to work on voter protection. I will travel 2,393 statute miles and it would be great if those of you who cannot travel to Pennsylvania to work on the primary would consider contributing to our campaign.
The easiest way, of course, is to fly there with me in spirit by contributing one penny per mile I travel, or $23.93. My fundraising page (all proceeds go to the Obama campaign, none to me) is at http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/garyshuster
Another very meaningful and effective way to support the campaign is to make some calls to Pennsylvania voters. Please visit http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap/, pick up the phone, and make a few calls. Obama's grassroots support is huge. If each of his supporters can phonebank and convince even a single voter in Pennsylvania to support Obama, we can swing the state into his win column. And hey, if I've inspired you to make some calls, let me know.
I'll see many of you at the CD19 caucus on Sunday, starting at 2:00 pm at the Fresno State Student Union building.
I haven't been this inspired by a candidate since, well, ever. Yes we can!
I just ticketed my flight to Pennsylvania to work on voter protection for April 22nd's primary.
It is a lot of time, and a lot of travel, but entirely worth it. Why? Most importantly, after Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, I don't know how much more voter distrust our democracy can withstand. It is more important than any candidate, any election, that the process be fair, that the rules be followed, and that our democracy grows stronger as it ages.
The other reason? People like Obama when they get to know him. They like his positions. They trust his judgment. And in a fairly administered election, he will win. Anything I can do to ensure that the vote is fair will help the better candidate -- our candidate -- give voice to our hopes.
As you may know, James Carville recently called New Mexico governor Richardson "Judas", adding that given that Mr. Richardson held positions in the Clinton administration, the endorsement constituted an “act of betrayal.
Reality check: Hillary Clinton is not Jesus.
Further reality check: The Presidency of the United States is not something that should be sold, traded for, or obtained via cashing in personal favors. It is not owed to anybody. It must be earned.
Carville's comments fed both anger and disappointment. But the true import of the kind of scorched earth politics, the do anything to get the nomination approach, the willingness in fact to equate Bill Richardson's endorsement of the likely Democratic Nominee over Hillary Clinton to a betrayal of Jesus -- well, that impact hit home for me today.
I have given money in the past to the DSCC. I get their emal solicitations almost every day. I had planned to give again during this cycle. Yet when an email from James Carville appeared in my inbox this morning, I had a shocking reaction. I was revolted that the DSCC should use such a divisive spokesman -- somebody willing to throw fellow democrats under the bus in order to further the political goals of his own personal Jesus -- in order to raise money. Doesn't the DSCC know that Carville now stands for, speaks for, only a small part of the party? A part of the party that favors division over victory?
I promptly unsubscribed from their email list, and called the DSCC and let them know why. I also told them that this cycle's donation will still be made for Democratic Party causes, just not through them.
They should apologize for this big error -- or they should fold up shop. The DSCC should bring us all together to build 60 vote Senate majority -- not remind us of how this Clinton surrogate is ripping us apart.
First, thank you to everybody who donated in support of my trip to Texas. I added at least 6 first time donors (not everybody donated through my fundraising page) as a result of this trip!
If I was not already an Obama supporter, my experience in Texas would have made me one. The instruction to the voter protection team, repeated over and over, was to make sure the process was a fair one. If there was a Clinton voter being denied a provisional ballot, we would protect that voter's right to vote. The message was clear: This is a new kind of campaign, where dirty tricks would not be tolerated, where we would win on the strength of our ideas, not on the creativity of our deceit.
To understand just how remarkable this is, compare it to the instructions the Clinton campaign gave to its voter protection team: Protect the candidate "at all costs". What exactly does that mean, "at all costs"? Well, it means apparently precinct judges telling Republicans "the Republican primary is basically over, why don't you vote the Democratic ticket for Clinton -- its the best way to help Republicans." It means signing people in for Clinton in the caucuses at the time they voted in the primary -- hours before it was legal to do so. It means moving the polling place and telling Clinton supporters, while canvassing, how to find the polling place and letting Obama supporters give up, unable to cast their votes. It means the Clinton precinct chairman telling newly elected Obama delegates that it is "really important that our precinct stand together, at the county convention, that I be able to stand up and say "our precicint casts all of its votes" for Clinton. It means a drunk Clinton supporter (yup, you heard that right -- early in the morning, too) harassing the Obama precinct captain all day while she tried to help voters with problems such as finding their correct precinct. It means precinct judges refusing to issue provisional ballots, even when required to do so by law. Instructing your supporters to win "at all costs" is a guarantee that democracy will be subverted. Shame on the Clinton campaign for doing that.
Honestly, up until I witnessed first hand the chaos in Texas, I always had a serious doubt about whether the Florida race (in 2000) or Ohio (in 2004) could really have been "fixed", because wouldn't all Americans value the integrity of our democratic system over any other consideration? After Texas, sadly, the answer is clearly "no".
But Texas also taught me about Obama's appeal. The campaign office in Corpus Christi was packed with volunteers from as far away as Paris. California was very well represented as well. While I could see lawyers flying in to work voter protection, there were lawyers and other professionals from across the country going door to door talking to voters. I personally knocked on my share of doors. As a side note, it was practically like lunchtime at the Harvard Law Coop at times -- you couldn't turn around without bumping into a Harvard Law grad or student, many (or all?) of them there as unpaid volunteers.
But on to the local faces of the Obama campaign. I went to numerous precincts during the election day, and spent time talking with the various precinct captains making sure that the playing field was level (partisans seeking a level playing field -- truly a new kind of campaign). No two precinct captains were remotely the similar. First I met an elderly African American couple. The woman who was the precinct captain was normally timid, she told me, but I saw none of that. Fiercely resilient as a couple of sunburned white teenagers screamed from their pickup truck "if obama wins, we're leaving the country", she rejoined "so go." Next was the hippy retired schoolteacher, watching the polls (which had moved, surprise surprise, from the prior election) and helping the voters find their polling station. The Obama precinct captain -- a former Hells Angel, looking like an extra from Oz, tatooed in sleeves, taking time to offer the Clinton supporters holding signs near him sodas. The young professional couple taking the day off to hold an Obama sign in front of a school polling place. The woman skipping college classes for the day, instead helping voters despite rauckus interference from a drunk Hillary supporter. The 70 year old Hispanic woman sitting under an umbrella, quietly holding a "Hope" sign. The older white woman who went out of her way to explain how she is a Republican but come hell or high water she wants to make sure she has the chance to vote for Obama in November.
Inspiring. His campaign is truly an American Campaign. The faces of America, the dreams and hopes, varied though they may be, have come together to say "Let our voices be heard". And that, truly, is how I believe Obama will govern. With a government open to input from the grass roots. More accurately, with a government run from the grassroots.
Does he have a plan? Yes. A plan that involves listening, learning, respecting, and ultimately reflecting the very American diversity that seeds his grass roots.
Now that Clinton is basically in a spot where surpassing Obama in pledged delegates is a near-impossibility, Clinton is reduced to arguing that the rules are irrelevant -- her "momentum" should validate her winning the nomination. Momentum, of course, does not a President make. But the better argument, and the achievable goal, is claiming that the popular vote totals should dictate the outcome of the nominating process. However, this argument, too, does not work. Just ask Al Gore.
While many Americans, myself included, pull our hair out at the idea that the winning of the popular vote can lose in the Electoral College, that is the system we have. Al Gore's half a million vote victory in the 2000 election was meaningless to the outcome. So how do we best determine which candidate can put together an electoral vote victory? We use a delegate system.
Granted, the all-or-none delegate system in place in many republican primaries is probably a better test of ability to navigate the Electoral College, but the Democratic system is still useful in determining which candidate can run a campaign that understands the difference between a pyrrhic popular vote victory and a meaningful delegate/electoral vote victory.
Take Texas, for example. The Clinton team seemed to have spent a lot of time worrying about whether they obtained an electorally meaningless slight edge in the popular vote. Nice, but they trail (as of today) by around 10% in the caucus vote. This pattern has been true throughout. Clinton has focused on moving a few percentage points one way or the other in big states, wihle the Obama team has focused on racking up huge margins in smaller primaries and caucuses. Because of the way the proportional allocation system works, a crushing win in the tiny District of Columbia netted Obama 8 delegates. That is two more delegates than Clinton netted in New Mexico (2), the Texas primary (4), and New Hampshire (0) COMBINED. In fact, lets throw in the fact that her "win" in Nevada actually cost her a delegate, netting Obama 1.
The fact is that electoral math and delegate math are both complex, and both require a team of smart, strategic managers and thinkers. Obama has them. Clinton, apparently, does not. If she wins the Democratic nomination by convincing the superdelegates to ignore the results of the pledged delegate race, the superdelegates are not doing the Democratic party any favors. Just like in 2000, it might be fun to imagine a world where the Republicans would say "oh, you won the popular vote, so here, have the Presidency, we'll ignore the Electoral vote". They won't ignore the electoral vote system, and if we ignore our delegate analogue to that system, we do it at our peril.
I know, I know, most of you have already seen this. But it is a terrific video, and it reminds me of how Bill Clinton can be such a compelling speaker. It is a video of Bill Clinton delivering a speech with this text:
"Now one of Clinton's laws of politics is this: If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears, and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you'd better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
Overlaid on that video is the new Clinton fear-based ad, and nice video of Barack Obama.
Of course, that Clinton speech was given in 2004, in support of John Kerry, but it is every bit as powerful as an advocacy piece in favor of Barack Obama. Yes, Bill, you had it right in 2004. Fear is no way to run a campaign. Go Obama!
Here is the link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=G-fkoctaB18
