Hello, all, and welcome to my first OFA blog! My name is Jesse, and I work for the State of Alaska as an Office Assistant. I'm 26, a father, veteran, and a college student, now, as well! Very excited about that, getting my degree, finally, after being deployed twice.
But, enough about me. I've been following the health care debate intently, and it's annoying to listen to our elected (and recently resigned...ugh) officials at "health care town halls" where they do nothing but bash Obama. It's much easier than actually doing something to help those you represent, right, Sen. Murkowski? Easier than coming up with an alternative. If his plan is so awful, what have you got? Of course, they have nothing, which is why we only see negativity and attacks. If they ceased that, they would have nothing at all left to say. My hope is that we can organize here, and press them to cease this cynical "slash and burn" politics. If we let them continue, no one will win, because the only plan they've advanced is continuing the status quo (and their huge campaign contributions from corportate donors and interest groups).
So, my question is, readers, where are our efforts going? Do we have any efforts? I believe we should get a call operation going, a letter writing (handwritten, can't say that's astroturfed!) campaign, something! This issue is too important to cede to lie filled tv ads, politicans more concerned with their coffers than their constitutents, and insurance groups willing to do or say anything to preserve their profits. I feel awful just sitting here doing nothing, because "we're in a red state" or "They're Republicans, they won't listen to me about this." No excuse will hold up for me if I have to look in my son's eyes 10 years from now and explain why he can't be saved because Daddy isn't rich enough to afford his co-pay, or deductible, or premiums, or one of a hundred other things the insurance companies use to make sure they pay as little as possible for the care you supposedly "purchased" through them.
I know every single person that reads this either has some skin in this game, or has someone close to them who's been affected by our current for-profit system. I want to be able to say "Yes, I was there, fighting for what was right!" not "Well, it didn't look like we could do it, so I didn't try...sorry..." People have died because of our current system. More will die if we don't do something about it. We're closer now to real reform than ever before, to make a system where America leads in more than just costs. We have the most expensive care in the world, but 37th in overall health, 25th in wait time (except for that cash cow, cosmetic surgery) and this is just unacceptable! We've got insurance bureaucrats between us and our doctors, not to mention that they only make money when they make sure you DON'T GET CARE! Rationing for profit, and this is the "choice" that the other party wants us to have?
Bullshit. I won't be offered up by a cynical bought off party so some fat cat industry can continue making their 400% increases in profits at the expense of the sick and hurt. I won't stand by and listen to the lies about "rationing" while they deny 18 year olds cancer treatment until it's too late to save them.
What they don't want you to know is that we're winning. That's why the attacks have become so brazen, so filled with mis-information. The truth is on our side, and that scares them witless. We're closer to real, substantiative reform than ever before, and I want to be part of that final push to make this real. We can save lives, people. We can put money back into businesses, into Americans' wallets, instead of into the insurance industries coffers, where they'll happily spend 1.4 million dollars A DAY (yes, a day!) to kill reform, but not to save a person's life. We have the drive, we have the ability. LET'S SHOW THEM WHAT WE CAN DO!!!!
Good afternoon,
I just wanted to get active again with my blog, and I wanted to find out if anyone out there is interested in helping me to learn what is going on in Alaska with Organizing For America. I am pretty sure there are things happening...
I am eager to get involved here again continuing all the great work that we accomplished together.
What's going on where you are?
Please leave me a comment, or send me an email to get.at.jonathan@gmail.com.
Talk to you soon!
Jonathan
The question of the moment is where do we go from here? As Alaskans? As a nation? As my.barackobam.com participants?
For my part, I have updated my profile, dropped some groups, maintained some groups, and altered E-mail settings on some groups. Would like to continue to build alliances among Alaskans and others for a more healthy, just, peaceful, and sustainable planet, peoples, and all our relations.
We've built some invaluable alliances here and it will be interesting to see if this site remains active and influential in the future for building upon the movement of change and mutual support begun here.
What does everyone think about the best ways to move ahead from here? In Alaska and elsewhere?
1%, or 1 vote out of 100There have been 12 Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the entire election would have been different. More than half were decided by less than a 2% margin.
In 2004, 57,787 votes would have given us President Kerry.In 2000, 269 votes would have given us President GoreIn 1996, 575,515 votes would have given us President Dole.
From ABC News:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/09/squeakers.html
=========="Squeakers"Ned PotterABC NewsSeptember 29, 2008How close have Presidential elections been? Closer, perhaps, than we ever guessed. Mike Sheppard, a grad student in statistics at Michigan State, has done a mathematical exercise that shows it.He ran a computer program to answer this question: "What is the smallest number of total votes that need to be switched from one candidate to another, and from which states, to affect the outcome of the election?"The answer: in some years, very, very few. Take a look at his analysis HERE. It shows the powerful interaction between the popular vote and the electoral college.[...]==========
Full article here:http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/09/squeakers.html
Detailed analysis here, including colored maps:https://www.msu.edu/~sheppa28/elections.html-Mike Sheppard
Instead of waiting for others to send you links for letters to the editor of various newspapers across the country, this site lists all U.S. newspapers by state. http://www.50states.com/news/Write a short a letter of why you support Obama/Biden. Comment on McCain/Pain if you wish. Pick your states and pick your newspapers. It sometimes takes a few minutes to find the "Contact Us" link--but it's always there somewhere.Just a few weeks left. Your voice can make a difference. Pick swing states. Pick states where people know you. Pick states that you think your letter will resonate with. If necessary, tailor your comments to specific states.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzc0re_3hQw
If you're sitting down to write a letter to the editor somewhere and weren't sure where to start, I'd like to suggest that you check out my personal blog where I've been giving a reason a week to vote for Barack Obama as President. Aside from the text itself, which you may or may not want to adapt, each entry has links to issue pages and other materials you might find helpful.
To see the "Why Vote Obama" entries, visit:
http://alaskanlibrarian.wordpress.com/category/whyvoteobama/
If you're writing about some issue where you need a particular fact or quote, feel free to e-mail/message me and I'll see if I can find it for you.
10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Former Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee has called vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin a "cocky wacko" and said her selection as John McCain's running mate has energized supporters of Democrat Barack Obama.
Chafee left the Republican Party last year after losing his bid for re-election and now supports Obama. He told an audience Tuesday at the New America Foundation in Washington that the Alaska governor has revived a "lackluster McCain candidacy."
"They've just thrown this firestorm, this tornado, into the whole presidential election," Chafee said in response to an audience member's question about whether the Obama campaign should worry about Palin's presence in the race.
He said her speech at the Republican National Convention had the unintended effect of energizing Democrats and Obama supporters.
"People were coming into my office, phone calls were flooding in, e-mails were coming in, 'I just sent money to Obama, I couldn't sleep last night' — from the left. To see this cocky wacko up there," Chafee said to laughter.
Chafee said in an interview Thursday that he found much of Palin's convention speech objectionable, particularly her "mocking" assertion that Obama was overly concerned with al-Qaida terrorists getting read their rights.
That comment "got to the core of everything wrong with the last eight years," he said.
"I consider that wacky, and certainly her tone was very, very cocky," said Chafee, a visiting fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. "So I thought they were appropriate words."
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26661483/
Page A14
One rap on Sarah Palin's qualifications to be Vice President is that she governs one of our least populated states, with a budget of "only" $12 billion and 16,000 full-time state employees.
On the other hand, it turns out that the Governor's office in Alaska is one of the country's most powerful. For more than two decades Thad Beyle, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina, has maintained an index of "institutional powers" in state offices.
He rates governorships on potential length of service, budgetary and appointment authority, veto power and other factors. Mr. Beyle's findings for 2008 rate Alaska at 4.1 on a scale of 5.
The national average is 3.5. Only four other states -- Maryland, New Jersey, New York and West Virginia -- concentrate as much power in the Governor's office as Alaska does, and only one state (Massachusetts) concentrates more. California may be the nation's most populous state, but its Governor rates as below-average (3.2) in executive authority.
This may account in part for Arnold Schwarzenegger's poor legislative track record. The lowest rating goes to Vermont (2.5), where the Governor (remember Howard Dean) is a figurehead compared to Mrs. Palin. In Alaska, the Governor has line-item veto power over the budget and can only be overridden by a three-quarters majority of the Legislature.
In 1992, the year Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton was elected President, his state budget was $2 billion and among the smallest in the country. Compared to that, Sarah Palin is an executive giant.
COMMENT?
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/31/mccain-camp-didnt-search_n_122823.html) August 31, 2008 05:00 PM
The McCain campaign has gone to great lengths to present the selection of Sarah Palin as one made after a careful, meticulous vetting process. But evidence continues to suggest that the Arizona Republican made his VP choice with surprising haste.
On Saturday, a Democrat tasked with opposition research contactedthe Huffington Post with this nugget. Up until this weekend the McCain campaign had not gone through old newspaper articles from the Valley Frontiersman, Palin's hometown newspaper.
How does he know? The paper's archives are not online, and when he went to research past content, he was told he was the first to inquire. "No one else had requested access before," said the source. "It's unbelievable. We were the only people to do that, which means the McCain camp didn't."
The Frontiersman did not immediately confirm the revelation. And there is no indication from the Democratic source that anything nefarious or problematic will be found in the archives. But officials with the paper did not recall inquiries by the McCain campaign.
"I cannot confirm that information at this time," said publisher Kari Sleight. "I am not aware of the McCain campaign researching our archives, but archive requests do not usually go through me."
If true, the failure of the Arizona Republican to access the newspaper clippings becomes another in a growing list of revelations that calls into question just how and why he made his decision to choose Palin. A rudimentary clip search, such as this, is presidential politics 101 as campaigns not only look for the majority of background information on any high-level appointee, but also try to prepare themselves from future attacks.
It has been previously reported that the McCain campaign did not contact Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan, who Palin pushed to have fired after he refused to remove her sister's former husband from the state's police force. That controversy, an investigation of which will be made public in late October, could cause major headaches for Palin in the days leading up to the election.
In addition, the former Republican House Speaker of Alaska, Gail Phillips, admitted to reporters that she was shocked by McCain's choice of Palin, as "his advance team didn't come to Alaska to check her out."
Even McCain's own aides seemed unprepared by the choice. After Palin's name was announced, spokeswoman Nancy Pfotenhauer was asked about the governor's relationship with the Senator. "You're running flat into the wall of my ignorance here," she said. "I truly have no indication whatsoever the extent of a relationship that exists with the Governor of Alaska."
In light of these reports, the McCain camp has sought to dispel the notion that Palin was un-vetted or chosen out of purely political motives. Even though the presumptive Republican nominee met his now-running mate only once before choosing her, aides have begun arguing, the two are "kindred spirits" and have shared ideological bearings. In a Washington Post piece Sunday, Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said the Palin chose was not a last minute call. The process, he added, was rigorous and involved sifting through financial and other personal data, as well as an FBI background check.
"Nobody was vetted less or more than anyone in the final stages, and John had access to all that information and made the decision," Davis said. "It's really not much more complicated than that."
__________________________
Comments?
from Bill Cameron, Northern California Obama Backers:
Hearsay isn't enough. Then again, I haven't really seen people here just randomly spouting out crap they read on dubious websites.
I do see people doing research into a person they have no clue about and have posted some crazy stuff has come up. Remember, the Inquirer nailed the Edwards scandal. All lot of the websites that have been thrown around about Gov. Palin are legit. Palin and the right love to mention her stellar, highest inthe country approval rating. What they don't tell you is that rating was 6 months into her term and the rating is faaaaaaaallling fast. That is just one example of what is being passed around here. Plus, all of this is a far cry from the "muslim, rev right, william ayers, he's black" campaign that is ALL over the net and being bandied about on our counterparts email blasts. May I also point out that these emails are going out to a partisan crowd? While we need to spread the word, we need to fire up the base too.We can spread hope, respect and love.... And we can get kicked in the teeth by the people in this country that do not trade in those platitudes. Here is the bottom line for me. This election is so important. Its the most important one is maybe 60 years, maybe longer. Several issues here can swing this country into a very scary place. Because of that, I would rather win with just a bit of mud than loose and walk away clean, head down, kicking a can up the street wondering where we went wrong.Somehow, ever since Clinton got into a bit of trouble in the oval office..... we lost our spine. Just my opinion. I have staunch republican "friends" who laugh at how soft we are.Rove bet on that softness and built a blueprint._____________________
from Jacqueline de Floris, Writers for Obama
I would also, say that from a purely political point of view, Willie Brown is right. It's brilliant if all you care about is winning, and you have looked at what you offer and cut your losses and go for the best shot you have, which is also, in this case the very lowest possible. Who was it, in which thread here who said that McCain only cares about himself? That it isn't about any of these issues?What he has done is turn himself into an empty vessel, into which the remaining element of his base, the socially religious conservative right, can pour themselves until he becomes them. That's all that's left, but it might be enough.So, as others elsewhere are saying, we must insure that the time we spend discussing this, reading and blogging, which that element that remains for McCain to rally with Palin as poster girl for the evangelical right is not -- as he said, they are in church, talking with one another and getting themselves as worked up as we can during a speech by Barack --, that we are spending more doing the following:ContributingCallingCanvassingCommunicatingfor Obama/Biden.
------------
On Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Sue Shields <sueshields38@hotmail.com> wrote:
If this is how the Republicans go after their base--what does that say about their base? Are they the Americans without a brain in their heads. They can be wooed by by completely non-intellectual factors? If his ends up to be how we choose our President it will be shameful and the whole world will see it and recognize us as completely irresponsible idiots. There is nothing smart about this at all---and the world is depending on our good judgement.200,000 strong in Germany were applauding Obama--how stupid can we be to let anyone make fun of this? They were not applauding empty rhetoric and we know that. They were telling us "Enough". Enough of discriminaton! Enough of persecution! Enough of not loving your brother! The home of the Holocoust was agreeing and cheering--Tear down those walls! Who knows this best? Hate is not worth it--this is serious! They have learned their lesson the hard way. Why can't we?________________________________Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:33:33 -0400To: WritersforObama@groups.barackobama.comFrom: sftroubl@earthlink.netSubject: [WritersforObama] A very smart Democrat calls Palin pick "brilliant"Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was not my favorite mayor, but he is one of the smartest political minds the Democratic Party has, and he calls Palin "a brilliant pick" in his Sunday SF Chronicle column:http://www.sfgate.com/columns/williesworld/But in the end, it won't be about Denver. It will be about Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.Which is what makes John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate a brilliant play.Palin is an up-by-her-bootstraps woman who used her beauty-queen looks and athletic ability to get to college. She's young, pro-life, pro-gun, she ran her own business, she has won and lost elections. She's from small-town America, and she is tough as nails.Picking a conservative like Palin doesn't bring anything to the table as far as wooing Hillary Rodham Clinton voters, but she will play big with the evangelical Republican base in key states that matter.Besides, the Republicans already have played their "Obama lacks experience" attack. That debate is over.Karl Rove and the guys are playing the only card they can play - go for the base.--------------------------from Texans for Obama:More abuse of power - Palin almost recalled as Mayorhttp://digg.com/politics/Palin_Almost_Recalled_As_Mayor_2--------------------------from Dallas Air America:I just can't see this group, who really don't like women, sitting around and wondering what Hillary's 18 million are doing who are, for the most part, women...and no one has heard from any of the candidates who ran against McCain say one word for or against this woman...and if you look at the body language with McCain/Cindy and Palin, it appears as if she does not know that she might want to stand next to her president to be...they were on opposite sides of the stage except for one slight moment of brushing lips against cheeks, the mccain standing behind her looking her up and down and then "break" and they were off to their respective corners....This gives her exposure to keep doing what she does and stay in an elected office for the republicans and eat moose and have more kids, and mccain to finally achieve a dream...running for the presidency....kinda like a posthumous academy award moment....and i hope it is Biden who poses the questions to her about the Iraqi people - or toss her a bone and lets her expound on all her knowledge about Russia who according to Cindy and the reporters is just one stepping iceberg away from Alaska....---------------from Jim Cory, Secular Humanist:Everything I read about her - and it gets worse and worse - the back-stabbing, lying, paranoia, abuse of power - makes her sound like Nixon's spawn or Lady Macbeth mushing the huskies. ----------------- from PoliticallyNcorrectisok:> What Palin Does> > 1. Steps on the story of Obama's speech (and convention), and possibly> the bounce coming from them, and wipes them off the news cycle. The> Sunday news shows will be all-Palin, all of the time.> > 2. Sends Republicans into their convention on a huge head of steam.> > 3. Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings> back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing,> and the genuine person.> > 4. Revs up the base AND excites independents, which no one else in the> party, or perhaps in the world, could have accomplished.> > 5. Puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets.> > 6. May detach some young people, especially women.> > 7. May attach some women pissed off about Hillary.> > 8. As a pro-life super-achiever, puts feminists in a tizzy.> > 9. Revives some of the double-edged nature of the Democratic primary,> which featured a black vs. a> female trail-blazer, and put both sides on notice on sensitivity> issues. Democrats used to raising charges of racism against Obama's> critics may face charges of sexism and/or condescension if they try to> diss her.> > 10. Steps on Obama's claims to have been a reformer, as he reformed> nothing (much less the corrupt mare's nest of Chicago arrangements)n> while she was a dragon-slayer up in Alaska.> > 11. As a mother of five, one a Down Syndrome baby, helps her side take> on the Democrats on abortion extremism and the Born Alive bill.> > 12. Reignites the deep and unhealed stresses inside the Democrats,> some of whom will now wonder more loudly than ever why they didn't> pick Hillary.> > 13. Counters Michelle in a way Cindy couldn't.> > 14. Counter-intuitively14. Counter-intuitively<WBR>, makes the issue > potent than ever. Her lack of experience is no more than his is. And> he's--to use a term from Alaska, and the Iditarod--their lead dog.---------------------Robyn Russell of San Luis Obispo:McCain is treating this election like some sick game..In all honesty he scares me more than Bush.I cant even begin to tell you how I feel about her.----------------------- from Greg Dempsey, Moderator and Owner of Secular Humanist: SARAH PALIN FLIP-FLOPS ON THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?* Sarah Palin and the Bridge to NowhereOn August 29 (last Friday), Sarah Palin insisted, “I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere. ‘If our state wanted a bridge’, I said, ‘we’d build it ourselves’ But here's what Palin said in 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News (thanks, Sherry):“'People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,' said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth."Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge’".- Ketchikan Daily News, Aug 8, 2006"'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’" Sarah Palin, Ketchikan Daily News September 28, 2006"Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (currently under indictment) and Representative Don Young (currently under investigation)," Brian Montopoli writes, "were the bridge’s two biggest proponents. But they were unable to convince Congress to fund the infamous bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island at the levels it had hoped. Now, instead of Alaska paying $160 million, the cost to Alaska skyrocketed to $349 million."After federal funding had been slashed, Palin was asked if she was still in support of funding the project. She said:"'Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'"Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin______________________________________________From: Jim Nelson <jnsosodef@hotmail.com>Subject: [CollegeStudentsforObama] RE: Please read my 10 hilarious articles on Sarah Palin at mybarackobama.comTo: "College Students for Obama" <CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.com>Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 4:49 PMActually, this choice does not spell doom for the Republicans. I am a Republican that had supported Obama over McCain, until this announcement. After Thursday's convention speech I was ready to punch my ticket for Obama/Biden...thinking McCain would pick some stuffy, lame, Washington insider as his running mate. I was very pleased with his selection and still am today. Many conservatives like myself, who were going to 'suicide vote' for Obama because they were angry at McCain for not being conservative enough (immigration) will go back to McCain. I have spoken to many like me. This move will pay off. Obama should have picked Hillary. He would have won for sure. Not so now. Jim NelsonKalamazoo, Michigan______________________________from Amanda de Zayas <akdezayas@yahoo.com> CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.comI don't want to insult Mr. Nelson or anyone else, but the sad fact is that if you're basing your vote upon being revved up by the conventions, spiting McCain or Obama, or because McCain picked a younger woman as his VP, you're voting more on emotion than actual issues.Personally, I could not stop laughing all day Friday after the McCain VP pick was announced. The McCain camp really showed that Obama was getting to them. One could even argue that Obama has inspired change even before taking office, because this move was clearly made in response to his youth, his change movement, and his representation of those typically not included in the political process. Do you think the Republicans would've picked Sarah Palin otherwise? It's like, "Okay you've got a young black guy, but look, we've got a woman! Hey disgruntled Hillary supporters, come to us!" Meanwhile, she's an anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-gun former beauty queen.I'm a woman and a very strong advocate of women's issues and rights. I was never for Hillary and I'm certainly not for Sarah Palin. I feel that the trailblazers who came before me freed me to make the choice not just for ANY woman, but for the RIGHT woman. I'm not voting for the female candidate, I'm voting for the RIGHT candidate. I'm not some dumb female who's going to vote against my issues or my conscience just because I want to see women in positions once dominated by men. I feel that McCain or his people assuming that picking a female VP would make me do so is insulting and patronizing.I guess my point is: I'm a woman living in America in 2008. Unlike so many before me, I have the right to vote for whomever I please based on the issues, not race or gender. And THAT is progress. I urge others to do the same.OBAMA '08!-----------------Again, from Writers for Obama, from Sue Shields:If this is how the Republicans go after their base--what does that say about their base? Are they the Americans without a brain in their heads. They can be wooed by by completely non-intellectual factors? If this ends up to be how we choose our President it will be shameful and the whole world will see it and recognize us as completely irresponsible idiots. There is nothing smart about this at all---and the world is depending on our good judgement. 200,000 strong in Germany were applauding Obama--how stupid can we be to let anyone make fun of this? They were not applauding empty rhetoric and we know that. They were telling us "Enough". Enough of discriminaton! Enough of persecution! Enough of not loving your brother! The home of the Holocoust was agreeing and cheering--Tear down those walls! Who knows this best? Hate is not worth it--this is serious! They have learned their lesson the hard way. Why can't we? An Ex-Beauty Queen for VP: Political Risk or Political Genius?By Heather Gehlert, AlterNetPosted on August 30, 2008, Printed on August 31, 2008http://www.alternet.org/story/96989/ With no foreign policy experience and a political resume that could fit on my pinky fingernail, Sarah Palin is an absurd choice for vice president. Yet it should come as no surprise to the public -- especially to Democrats -- that John McCain chose her anyway.That's because the very issues that Democrats say make her a political risk -- her newness to the political world stage, her anti-choice stance, her opposition to gay marriage, her support of capital punishment, her disregard for the environment -- matter very little in determining the outcome of elections. Voters -- some of whom dissect policy issues daily, but most of whom don't -- ultimately cast their ballots based on emotion. Not logic. Not knowledge of "the issues."This was supposed to have been the big take-away lesson of 2004. That debate, perhaps more so than any other since the first televised presidential showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, showed that appearance, charisma, personality and likeability matter. Smarts are mostly a bonus and a distant second.In 2004, John Kerry was the champion debater. He was sharp, focused, intelligent. He could call B.S. on George W. Bush and poke holes in nearly any of his arguments. But he was also stiff. He seemed cool and disconnected, not just because of his body language but also because of his words. His policy prescriptions, detailed as they were, didn't connect with his audience. Four years after hearing him speak, I can only recall that, on an intellectual level, I agreed with his points. But I don't remember what he said. His words didn't resonate with me. They didn't stick with me in my gut.Bush, on the other hand, was the dunce. He wore a goofy smile and dodged questions in each debate. But he was the man people could imagine having a beer with. He drew crowds in with his drawl, spoke in a simple, unintimidating way, and so could get away with covering up four years of abysmal domestic and foreign policy. I probably disagreed with 99 percent of what Bush said, but I can at least remember some of his talking points. He said he worked hard and promised to work hard for American families. He said he understood American families. He said he would protect American families.Was that a load of bull? Of course. But it sure was delivered in pretty packaging. And, most importantly, it made a large number of voters feel good.Drew Westen, a clinical, personality and political psychologist who teaches at Emory University, explains this phenomenon in his recent book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. "(T)he vision of mind that has captured the imagination of philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and political scientists since the eighteenth century -- a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions -- bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work," Westen writes. "When campaign strategists start from this vision of mind, their candidates typically lose."Simply put, people don't always vote for the candidate or the policy that serves their own best interests. That concept should be no more surprising in politics than in other parts of people's lives. If individuals always did what was best for them, they would consistently choose broccoli over cake; they would enter into relationships with the good guy (or gal) instead of the charming jerk who never calls; they would stick to purchasing necessities and use credit cards as a last resort -- only when there's not enough money at the end of the month to pay for groceries or utility bills.But we all know people who eat more sweets than they should, date charismatic yet inconsiderate cretins, and shop on impulse. Those behaviors might be unhealthy, but they sure can feel good at the time. That's the campaign strategy Republicans have perfected: manipulating our senses and emotions to make us act in ways that we'll later regret.****** In the short while since the news about McCain's choice for VP broke, we've learned a lot about Sarah Palin. We know that she played point guard on her high school's state champion basketball team. She's worked as a sports reporter. Her favorite food is moose stew. She's outdoorsy and comes from a family of hunters. She rides snowmobiles. She's a mother of five and a member of the PTA. She's a self-described "hockey mom."Sarah Palin is also young. At 44, she's three years younger than Barack Obama. And she's beautiful. In 1984, she was runner-up for Miss Alaska.But as New York Times reporter Timothy Egan writes, "Palin brings a bit of the "Legally Blonde" aspect to the race -- you underestimate her at your peril."It's been barely a day since the media introduced us to Palin, and those are the details that are easily overshadowing -- or at least obscuring -- the more serious news about her regressive politics or the ethics investigation she's under.These basketball-playing, snowmobile-riding details are what could easily give Palin broad appeal. She appeals to men because she doesn't threaten their way of life. She's a former beauty queen who also, according to the media's narrative, knows how to be one of the guys.But what about the questions that female voters, the media and no small number of female bloggers have been asking? McCain almost certainly picked Palin to try to rope in the female vote, a plan that Democrats are arguing won't work. Hillary Clinton may have gotten 18 million votes, but Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.Trouble is, she doesn't have to be. Clinton supporters do not have to cross over and vote for Palin for her to be effective on the Republican ticket. With such a close race between McCain and Obama, Palin may need only to motivate conservative women or independents who weren't sold on McCain or persuade those who hadn't planned on voting to show up at the polls.And Palin is likely to use every emotional ploy possible to bring in more female voters. She's already co-opting Hillary Clinton's remarks on having 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling -- a ceiling that Palin says women can still shatter "once and for all."***** Already a flurry of conservative and independent women have been rallying behind Palin. Policy aside, on a personal level, she represents work-life balance -- something that resonates with women of all political affiliations. She's also popular among blue-collar voters, the Republican party base and Evangelicals, particularly because of her staunch position against abortion. She, like McCain, favors overturning Roe v. Wade.And if Democrats aren't careful, that could easily become their Achilles heel this year. Elections are about emotion, and if there's any topic that's sure to stir emotion, it's abortion.Despite the majority of the public supporting family planning and comprehensive sex education -- both effective ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and despite the fact that Democrats champion federal funding for these programs, the Dems still haven't figured out how to defend a woman's right to choose in a way that voters can identify with on a gut level. If Democrats have historically had trouble defending their abortion position against male candidates, they will have triple the problem doing so against a woman. And Palin is a slick one.Palin vehemently apposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, a fact that the public may miss while she's busy touting membership in Feminists for Life, a group that focuses on alternatives to abortion, particularly for college-age women. The organization works under the guise of providing women choices, as long as abortion isn't one of them.Besides her Feminists for Life affiliation, Palin is herself a mother. In fact, she decided to keep her fifth child even after knowing it would be born with developmental disabilities. Imagine it: debating a female candidate -- a mother -- who can say, "I had a choice, and I chose life." That's the challenge Biden will face. He must defend a woman's right to choose while avoiding coming across as callous or attacking the mother of a disabled child. Simply explaining that Palin is an "anti-woman woman" isn't enough. That kind of message assumes voters will respond with logic and reason. But for those who aren't steeped in gender issues, it risks either sounding loony or being dismissed.***** Democrats are only too eager to argue that this election will be different from the last two, that people have finally had enough of the Bush brand of conservatism. I hope they're right. But Democrats need to be realistic about the challenges they face with a Palin VP, because abortion is just one of them. Having a woman on the GOP side will make it easy, perhaps tempting, for the media to resort to sexist attacks. Then feminists will be forced to walk a line, defending Palin against sexism without looking as though they're supporting an anti-choice candidate. Even women who didn't like Hillary Clinton recoiled at watching her become the target of media-driven sexism. Clinton polled the best when women perceived that she was being treated unfairly. Palin will likely be no different. Worse yet, if Palin gets bullied, McCain will swoop down and protect her, pretending to be women's biggest advocate when he is anything but. The public will see Palin being attacked and will watch as the Republican Party comes to her rescue. And having a young, inexperienced woman on the Republican ticket could do more to underscore people's existing concerns about Obama than it does to undercut their confidence in Palin. How can Democrats, without appearing hypocritical, level serious charges against Palin for being "untested," when that's the word that's still hovering over their own candidate? Palin may not have foreign policy expertise, but she has a son who is a soldier. That's no small detail in a country obsessed with patriotism. And it's one that voters can connect with emotionally.Unlike Obama, Palin is not a change agent. But perception matters in politics, and Palin looks the part. She represents a first for the Republican Party, and her relative youth could dilute Obama's change message -- the very message that, for the first time in many years, has allowed voters to identify in an emotional way with a Democratic presidential candidate.Will Obama be able to keep that emotional connection with voters? His campaign has only two precious months to figure it out. Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.
If this is how the Republicans go after their base--what does that say about their base? Are they the Americans without a brain in their heads. They can be wooed by by completely non-intellectual factors? If his ends up to be how we choose our President it will be shameful and the whole world will see it and recognize us as completely irresponsible idiots. There is nothing smart about this at all---and the world is depending on our good judgement.200,000 strong in Germany were applauding Obama--how stupid can we be to let anyone make fun of this? They were not applauding empty rhetoric and we know that. They were telling us "Enough". Enough of discriminaton! Enough of persecution! Enough of not loving your brother! The home of the Holocoust was agreeing and cheering--Tear down those walls! Who knows this best? Hate is not worth it--this is serious! They have learned their lesson the hard way. Why can't we?________________________________
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:33:33 -0400To: WritersforObama@groups.barackobama.comFrom: sftroubl@earthlink.netSubject: [WritersforObama] A very smart Democrat calls Palin pick "brilliant"
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was not my favorite mayor, but he is one of the smartest political minds the Democratic Party has, and he calls Palin "a brilliant pick" in his Sunday SF Chronicle column:http://www.sfgate.com/columns/williesworld/But in the end, it won't be about Denver. It will be about Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Pennsylvania.Which is what makes John McCain's pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate a brilliant play.Palin is an up-by-her-bootstraps woman who used her beauty-queen looks and athletic ability to get to college. She's young, pro-life, pro-gun, she ran her own business, she has won and lost elections. She's from small-town America, and she is tough as nails.Picking a conservative like Palin doesn't bring anything to the table as far as wooing Hillary Rodham Clinton voters, but she will play big with the evangelical Republican base in key states that matter.Besides, the Republicans already have played their "Obama lacks experience" attack. That debate is over.Karl Rove and the guys are playing the only card they can play - go for the base.--------------------------
http://digg.com/politics/Palin_Almost_Recalled_As_Mayor_2
--------------------------
from Dallas Air America:
I just can't see this group, who really don't like women, sitting around and wondering what Hillary's 18 million are doing who are, for the most part, women...and no one has heard from any of the candidates who ran against McCain say one word for or against this woman...and if you look at the body language with McCain/Cindy and Palin, it appears as if she does not know that she might want to stand next to her president to be...they were on opposite sides of the stage except for one slight moment of brushing lips against cheeks, the mccain standing behind her looking her up and down and then "break" and they were off to their respective corners....
This gives her exposure to keep doing what she does and stay in an elected office for the republicans and eat moose and have more kids, and mccain to finally achieve a dream...running for the presidency....kinda like a posthumous academy award moment....and i hope it is Biden who poses the questions to her about the Iraqi people - or toss her a bone and lets her expound on all her knowledge about Russia who according to Cindy and the reporters is just one stepping iceberg away from Alaska....
---------------
from Jim Cory, Secular Humanist:
Everything I read about her - and it gets worse and worse - the back-stabbing, lying, paranoia, abuse of power - makes her sound like Nixon's spawn or Lady Macbeth mushing the huskies.
-----------------
from PoliticallyNcorrectisok:
> What Palin Does> > 1. Steps on the story of Obama's speech (and convention), and possibly> the bounce coming from them, and wipes them off the news cycle. The> Sunday news shows will be all-Palin, all of the time.> > 2. Sends Republicans into their convention on a huge head of steam.> > 3. Wipes out the image of McCain as the crotchety elder and brings> back that of the fly-boy and gambler, which is much more appealing,> and the genuine person.> > 4. Revs up the base AND excites independents, which no one else in the> party, or perhaps in the world, could have accomplished.> > 5. Puts youth, change, and history on both of the tickets.> > 6. May detach some young people, especially women.> > 7. May attach some women pissed off about Hillary.> > 8. As a pro-life super-achiever, puts feminists in a tizzy.> > 9. Revives some of the double-edged nature of the Democratic primary,> which featured a black vs. a> female trail-blazer, and put both sides on notice on sensitivity> issues. Democrats used to raising charges of racism against Obama's> critics may face charges of sexism and/or condescension if they try to> diss her.> > 10. Steps on Obama's claims to have been a reformer, as he reformed> nothing (much less the corrupt mare's nest of Chicago arrangements)n> while she was a dragon-slayer up in Alaska.> > 11. As a mother of five, one a Down Syndrome baby, helps her side take> on the Democrats on abortion extremism and the Born Alive bill.> > 12. Reignites the deep and unhealed stresses inside the Democrats,> some of whom will now wonder more loudly than ever why they didn't> pick Hillary.> > 13. Counters Michelle in a way Cindy couldn't.> > 14. Counter-intuitively14. Counter-intuitively<WBR>, makes the issue > potent than ever. Her lack of experience is no more than his is. And> he's--to use a term from Alaska, and the Iditarod--their lead dog.
---------------------
Robyn Russell of San Luis Obispo:
SARAH PALIN FLIP-FLOPS ON THE
BRIDGE TO NOWHERE - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*
Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere
On August 29 (last Friday), Sarah Palin insisted, “I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress — I told Congress, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on that Bridge to Nowhere. ‘If our state wanted a bridge’, I said, ‘we’d build it ourselves’
But here's what Palin said in 2006, according to the Ketchikan Daily News (thanks, Sherry):
“'People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,' said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth."Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge’".- Ketchikan Daily News, Aug 8, 2006"'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’" Sarah Palin, Ketchikan Daily News September 28, 2006"Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (currently under indictment) and Representative Don Young (currently under investigation)," Brian Montopoli writes, "were the bridge’s two biggest proponents. But they were unable to convince Congress to fund the infamous bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island at the levels it had hoped. Now, instead of Alaska paying $160 million, the cost to Alaska skyrocketed to $349 million."After federal funding had been slashed, Palin was asked if she was still in support of funding the project. She said:"'Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'"Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin______________________________________________From: Jim Nelson <jnsosodef@hotmail.com>Subject: [CollegeStudentsforObama] RE: Please read my 10 hilarious articles on Sarah Palin at mybarackobama.comTo: "College Students for Obama" <CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.com>Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 4:49 PMActually, this choice does not spell doom for the Republicans. I am a Republican that had supported Obama over McCain, until this announcement. After Thursday's convention speech I was ready to punch my ticket for Obama/Biden...thinking McCain would pick some stuffy, lame, Washington insider as his running mate. I was very pleased with his selection and still am today. Many conservatives like myself, who were going to 'suicide vote' for Obama because they were angry at McCain for not being conservative enough (immigration) will go back to McCain. I have spoken to many like me. This move will pay off. Obama should have picked Hillary. He would have won for sure. Not so now. Jim NelsonKalamazoo, Michigan______________________________from Amanda de Zayas <akdezayas@yahoo.com> CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.comI don't want to insult Mr. Nelson or anyone else, but the sad fact is that if you're basing your vote upon being revved up by the conventions, spiting McCain or Obama, or because McCain picked a younger woman as his VP, you're voting more on emotion than actual issues.Personally, I could not stop laughing all day Friday after the McCain VP pick was announced. The McCain camp really showed that Obama was getting to them. One could even argue that Obama has inspired change even before taking office, because this move was clearly made in response to his youth, his change movement, and his representation of those typically not included in the political process. Do you think the Republicans would've picked Sarah Palin otherwise? It's like, "Okay you've got a young black guy, but look, we've got a woman! Hey disgruntled Hillary supporters, come to us!" Meanwhile, she's an anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-gun former beauty queen.I'm a woman and a very strong advocate of women's issues and rights. I was never for Hillary and I'm certainly not for Sarah Palin. I feel that the trailblazers who came before me freed me to make the choice not just for ANY woman, but for the RIGHT woman. I'm not voting for the female candidate, I'm voting for the RIGHT candidate. I'm not some dumb female who's going to vote against my issues or my conscience just because I want to see women in positions once dominated by men. I feel that McCain or his people assuming that picking a female VP would make me do so is insulting and patronizing.I guess my point is: I'm a woman living in America in 2008. Unlike so many before me, I have the right to vote for whomever I please based on the issues, not race or gender. And THAT is progress. I urge others to do the same.OBAMA '08!-----------------Again, from Writers for Obama, from Sue Shields:If this is how the Republicans go after their base--what does that say about their base? Are they the Americans without a brain in their heads. They can be wooed by by completely non-intellectual factors? If this ends up to be how we choose our President it will be shameful and the whole world will see it and recognize us as completely irresponsible idiots. There is nothing smart about this at all---and the world is depending on our good judgement. 200,000 strong in Germany were applauding Obama--how stupid can we be to let anyone make fun of this? They were not applauding empty rhetoric and we know that. They were telling us "Enough". Enough of discriminaton! Enough of persecution! Enough of not loving your brother! The home of the Holocoust was agreeing and cheering--Tear down those walls! Who knows this best? Hate is not worth it--this is serious! They have learned their lesson the hard way. Why can't we? An Ex-Beauty Queen for VP: Political Risk or Political Genius?By Heather Gehlert, AlterNetPosted on August 30, 2008, Printed on August 31, 2008http://www.alternet.org/story/96989/ With no foreign policy experience and a political resume that could fit on my pinky fingernail, Sarah Palin is an absurd choice for vice president. Yet it should come as no surprise to the public -- especially to Democrats -- that John McCain chose her anyway.That's because the very issues that Democrats say make her a political risk -- her newness to the political world stage, her anti-choice stance, her opposition to gay marriage, her support of capital punishment, her disregard for the environment -- matter very little in determining the outcome of elections. Voters -- some of whom dissect policy issues daily, but most of whom don't -- ultimately cast their ballots based on emotion. Not logic. Not knowledge of "the issues."This was supposed to have been the big take-away lesson of 2004. That debate, perhaps more so than any other since the first televised presidential showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, showed that appearance, charisma, personality and likeability matter. Smarts are mostly a bonus and a distant second.In 2004, John Kerry was the champion debater. He was sharp, focused, intelligent. He could call B.S. on George W. Bush and poke holes in nearly any of his arguments. But he was also stiff. He seemed cool and disconnected, not just because of his body language but also because of his words. His policy prescriptions, detailed as they were, didn't connect with his audience. Four years after hearing him speak, I can only recall that, on an intellectual level, I agreed with his points. But I don't remember what he said. His words didn't resonate with me. They didn't stick with me in my gut.Bush, on the other hand, was the dunce. He wore a goofy smile and dodged questions in each debate. But he was the man people could imagine having a beer with. He drew crowds in with his drawl, spoke in a simple, unintimidating way, and so could get away with covering up four years of abysmal domestic and foreign policy. I probably disagreed with 99 percent of what Bush said, but I can at least remember some of his talking points. He said he worked hard and promised to work hard for American families. He said he understood American families. He said he would protect American families.Was that a load of bull? Of course. But it sure was delivered in pretty packaging. And, most importantly, it made a large number of voters feel good.Drew Westen, a clinical, personality and political psychologist who teaches at Emory University, explains this phenomenon in his recent book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. "(T)he vision of mind that has captured the imagination of philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and political scientists since the eighteenth century -- a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions -- bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work," Westen writes. "When campaign strategists start from this vision of mind, their candidates typically lose."Simply put, people don't always vote for the candidate or the policy that serves their own best interests. That concept should be no more surprising in politics than in other parts of people's lives. If individuals always did what was best for them, they would consistently choose broccoli over cake; they would enter into relationships with the good guy (or gal) instead of the charming jerk who never calls; they would stick to purchasing necessities and use credit cards as a last resort -- only when there's not enough money at the end of the month to pay for groceries or utility bills.But we all know people who eat more sweets than they should, date charismatic yet inconsiderate cretins, and shop on impulse. Those behaviors might be unhealthy, but they sure can feel good at the time. That's the campaign strategy Republicans have perfected: manipulating our senses and emotions to make us act in ways that we'll later regret.****** In the short while since the news about McCain's choice for VP broke, we've learned a lot about Sarah Palin. We know that she played point guard on her high school's state champion basketball team. She's worked as a sports reporter. Her favorite food is moose stew. She's outdoorsy and comes from a family of hunters. She rides snowmobiles. She's a mother of five and a member of the PTA. She's a self-described "hockey mom."Sarah Palin is also young. At 44, she's three years younger than Barack Obama. And she's beautiful. In 1984, she was runner-up for Miss Alaska.But as New York Times reporter Timothy Egan writes, "Palin brings a bit of the "Legally Blonde" aspect to the race -- you underestimate her at your peril."It's been barely a day since the media introduced us to Palin, and those are the details that are easily overshadowing -- or at least obscuring -- the more serious news about her regressive politics or the ethics investigation she's under.These basketball-playing, snowmobile-riding details are what could easily give Palin broad appeal. She appeals to men because she doesn't threaten their way of life. She's a former beauty queen who also, according to the media's narrative, knows how to be one of the guys.But what about the questions that female voters, the media and no small number of female bloggers have been asking? McCain almost certainly picked Palin to try to rope in the female vote, a plan that Democrats are arguing won't work. Hillary Clinton may have gotten 18 million votes, but Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.Trouble is, she doesn't have to be. Clinton supporters do not have to cross over and vote for Palin for her to be effective on the Republican ticket. With such a close race between McCain and Obama, Palin may need only to motivate conservative women or independents who weren't sold on McCain or persuade those who hadn't planned on voting to show up at the polls.And Palin is likely to use every emotional ploy possible to bring in more female voters. She's already co-opting Hillary Clinton's remarks on having 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling -- a ceiling that Palin says women can still shatter "once and for all."***** Already a flurry of conservative and independent women have been rallying behind Palin. Policy aside, on a personal level, she represents work-life balance -- something that resonates with women of all political affiliations. She's also popular among blue-collar voters, the Republican party base and Evangelicals, particularly because of her staunch position against abortion. She, like McCain, favors overturning Roe v. Wade.And if Democrats aren't careful, that could easily become their Achilles heel this year. Elections are about emotion, and if there's any topic that's sure to stir emotion, it's abortion.Despite the majority of the public supporting family planning and comprehensive sex education -- both effective ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and despite the fact that Democrats champion federal funding for these programs, the Dems still haven't figured out how to defend a woman's right to choose in a way that voters can identify with on a gut level. If Democrats have historically had trouble defending their abortion position against male candidates, they will have triple the problem doing so against a woman. And Palin is a slick one.Palin vehemently apposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, a fact that the public may miss while she's busy touting membership in Feminists for Life, a group that focuses on alternatives to abortion, particularly for college-age women. The organization works under the guise of providing women choices, as long as abortion isn't one of them.Besides her Feminists for Life affiliation, Palin is herself a mother. In fact, she decided to keep her fifth child even after knowing it would be born with developmental disabilities. Imagine it: debating a female candidate -- a mother -- who can say, "I had a choice, and I chose life." That's the challenge Biden will face. He must defend a woman's right to choose while avoiding coming across as callous or attacking the mother of a disabled child. Simply explaining that Palin is an "anti-woman woman" isn't enough. That kind of message assumes voters will respond with logic and reason. But for those who aren't steeped in gender issues, it risks either sounding loony or being dismissed.***** Democrats are only too eager to argue that this election will be different from the last two, that people have finally had enough of the Bush brand of conservatism. I hope they're right. But Democrats need to be realistic about the challenges they face with a Palin VP, because abortion is just one of them. Having a woman on the GOP side will make it easy, perhaps tempting, for the media to resort to sexist attacks. Then feminists will be forced to walk a line, defending Palin against sexism without looking as though they're supporting an anti-choice candidate. Even women who didn't like Hillary Clinton recoiled at watching her become the target of media-driven sexism. Clinton polled the best when women perceived that she was being treated unfairly. Palin will likely be no different. Worse yet, if Palin gets bullied, McCain will swoop down and protect her, pretending to be women's biggest advocate when he is anything but. The public will see Palin being attacked and will watch as the Republican Party comes to her rescue. And having a young, inexperienced woman on the Republican ticket could do more to underscore people's existing concerns about Obama than it does to undercut their confidence in Palin. How can Democrats, without appearing hypocritical, level serious charges against Palin for being "untested," when that's the word that's still hovering over their own candidate? Palin may not have foreign policy expertise, but she has a son who is a soldier. That's no small detail in a country obsessed with patriotism. And it's one that voters can connect with emotionally.Unlike Obama, Palin is not a change agent. But perception matters in politics, and Palin looks the part. She represents a first for the Republican Party, and her relative youth could dilute Obama's change message -- the very message that, for the first time in many years, has allowed voters to identify in an emotional way with a Democratic presidential candidate.Will Obama be able to keep that emotional connection with voters? His campaign has only two precious months to figure it out. Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.
“'People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,' said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth.
"Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge’".- Ketchikan Daily News, Aug 8, 2006
"'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’" Sarah Palin, Ketchikan Daily News September 28, 2006
"Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (currently under indictment) and Representative Don Young (currently under investigation)," Brian Montopoli writes, "were the bridge’s two biggest proponents. But they were unable to convince Congress to fund the infamous bridge from Ketchikan to Gravina Island at the levels it had hoped. Now, instead of Alaska paying $160 million, the cost to Alaska skyrocketed to $349 million.
"After federal funding had been slashed, Palin was asked if she was still in support of funding the project. She said:
"'Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'"Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin______________________________________________
"'Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now–while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.'"
Ted Stevens, Sarah Palin
______________________________________________
From: Jim Nelson <jnsosodef@hotmail.com>Subject: [CollegeStudentsforObama] RE: Please read my 10 hilarious articles on Sarah Palin at mybarackobama.comTo: "College Students for Obama" <CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.com>Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 4:49 PMActually, this choice does not spell doom for the Republicans. I am a Republican that had supported Obama over McCain, until this announcement. After Thursday's convention speech I was ready to punch my ticket for Obama/Biden...thinking McCain would pick some stuffy, lame, Washington insider as his running mate. I was very pleased with his selection and still am today. Many conservatives like myself, who were going to 'suicide vote' for Obama because they were angry at McCain for not being conservative enough (immigration) will go back to McCain. I have spoken to many like me. This move will pay off. Obama should have picked Hillary. He would have won for sure. Not so now. Jim NelsonKalamazoo, Michigan______________________________from Amanda de Zayas <akdezayas@yahoo.com> CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.comI don't want to insult Mr. Nelson or anyone else, but the sad fact is that if you're basing your vote upon being revved up by the conventions, spiting McCain or Obama, or because McCain picked a younger woman as his VP, you're voting more on emotion than actual issues.Personally, I could not stop laughing all day Friday after the McCain VP pick was announced. The McCain camp really showed that Obama was getting to them. One could even argue that Obama has inspired change even before taking office, because this move was clearly made in response to his youth, his change movement, and his representation of those typically not included in the political process. Do you think the Republicans would've picked Sarah Palin otherwise? It's like, "Okay you've got a young black guy, but look, we've got a woman! Hey disgruntled Hillary supporters, come to us!" Meanwhile, she's an anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-gun former beauty queen.I'm a woman and a very strong advocate of women's issues and rights. I was never for Hillary and I'm certainly not for Sarah Palin. I feel that the trailblazers who came before me freed me to make the choice not just for ANY woman, but for the RIGHT woman. I'm not voting for the female candidate, I'm voting for the RIGHT candidate. I'm not some dumb female who's going to vote against my issues or my conscience just because I want to see women in positions once dominated by men. I feel that McCain or his people assuming that picking a female VP would make me do so is insulting and patronizing.I guess my point is: I'm a woman living in America in 2008. Unlike so many before me, I have the right to vote for whomever I please based on the issues, not race or gender. And THAT is progress. I urge others to do the same.OBAMA '08!-----------------Again, from Writers for Obama, from Sue Shields:If this is how the Republicans go after their base--what does that say about their base? Are they the Americans without a brain in their heads. They can be wooed by by completely non-intellectual factors? If this ends up to be how we choose our President it will be shameful and the whole world will see it and recognize us as completely irresponsible idiots. There is nothing smart about this at all---and the world is depending on our good judgement. 200,000 strong in Germany were applauding Obama--how stupid can we be to let anyone make fun of this? They were not applauding empty rhetoric and we know that. They were telling us "Enough". Enough of discriminaton! Enough of persecution! Enough of not loving your brother! The home of the Holocoust was agreeing and cheering--Tear down those walls! Who knows this best? Hate is not worth it--this is serious! They have learned their lesson the hard way. Why can't we? An Ex-Beauty Queen for VP: Political Risk or Political Genius?By Heather Gehlert, AlterNetPosted on August 30, 2008, Printed on August 31, 2008http://www.alternet.org/story/96989/ With no foreign policy experience and a political resume that could fit on my pinky fingernail, Sarah Palin is an absurd choice for vice president. Yet it should come as no surprise to the public -- especially to Democrats -- that John McCain chose her anyway.That's because the very issues that Democrats say make her a political risk -- her newness to the political world stage, her anti-choice stance, her opposition to gay marriage, her support of capital punishment, her disregard for the environment -- matter very little in determining the outcome of elections. Voters -- some of whom dissect policy issues daily, but most of whom don't -- ultimately cast their ballots based on emotion. Not logic. Not knowledge of "the issues."This was supposed to have been the big take-away lesson of 2004. That debate, perhaps more so than any other since the first televised presidential showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, showed that appearance, charisma, personality and likeability matter. Smarts are mostly a bonus and a distant second.In 2004, John Kerry was the champion debater. He was sharp, focused, intelligent. He could call B.S. on George W. Bush and poke holes in nearly any of his arguments. But he was also stiff. He seemed cool and disconnected, not just because of his body language but also because of his words. His policy prescriptions, detailed as they were, didn't connect with his audience. Four years after hearing him speak, I can only recall that, on an intellectual level, I agreed with his points. But I don't remember what he said. His words didn't resonate with me. They didn't stick with me in my gut.Bush, on the other hand, was the dunce. He wore a goofy smile and dodged questions in each debate. But he was the man people could imagine having a beer with. He drew crowds in with his drawl, spoke in a simple, unintimidating way, and so could get away with covering up four years of abysmal domestic and foreign policy. I probably disagreed with 99 percent of what Bush said, but I can at least remember some of his talking points. He said he worked hard and promised to work hard for American families. He said he understood American families. He said he would protect American families.Was that a load of bull? Of course. But it sure was delivered in pretty packaging. And, most importantly, it made a large number of voters feel good.Drew Westen, a clinical, personality and political psychologist who teaches at Emory University, explains this phenomenon in his recent book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. "(T)he vision of mind that has captured the imagination of philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and political scientists since the eighteenth century -- a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions -- bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work," Westen writes. "When campaign strategists start from this vision of mind, their candidates typically lose."Simply put, people don't always vote for the candidate or the policy that serves their own best interests. That concept should be no more surprising in politics than in other parts of people's lives. If individuals always did what was best for them, they would consistently choose broccoli over cake; they would enter into relationships with the good guy (or gal) instead of the charming jerk who never calls; they would stick to purchasing necessities and use credit cards as a last resort -- only when there's not enough money at the end of the month to pay for groceries or utility bills.But we all know people who eat more sweets than they should, date charismatic yet inconsiderate cretins, and shop on impulse. Those behaviors might be unhealthy, but they sure can feel good at the time. That's the campaign strategy Republicans have perfected: manipulating our senses and emotions to make us act in ways that we'll later regret.****** In the short while since the news about McCain's choice for VP broke, we've learned a lot about Sarah Palin. We know that she played point guard on her high school's state champion basketball team. She's worked as a sports reporter. Her favorite food is moose stew. She's outdoorsy and comes from a family of hunters. She rides snowmobiles. She's a mother of five and a member of the PTA. She's a self-described "hockey mom."Sarah Palin is also young. At 44, she's three years younger than Barack Obama. And she's beautiful. In 1984, she was runner-up for Miss Alaska.But as New York Times reporter Timothy Egan writes, "Palin brings a bit of the "Legally Blonde" aspect to the race -- you underestimate her at your peril."It's been barely a day since the media introduced us to Palin, and those are the details that are easily overshadowing -- or at least obscuring -- the more serious news about her regressive politics or the ethics investigation she's under.These basketball-playing, snowmobile-riding details are what could easily give Palin broad appeal. She appeals to men because she doesn't threaten their way of life. She's a former beauty queen who also, according to the media's narrative, knows how to be one of the guys.But what about the questions that female voters, the media and no small number of female bloggers have been asking? McCain almost certainly picked Palin to try to rope in the female vote, a plan that Democrats are arguing won't work. Hillary Clinton may have gotten 18 million votes, but Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.Trouble is, she doesn't have to be. Clinton supporters do not have to cross over and vote for Palin for her to be effective on the Republican ticket. With such a close race between McCain and Obama, Palin may need only to motivate conservative women or independents who weren't sold on McCain or persuade those who hadn't planned on voting to show up at the polls.And Palin is likely to use every emotional ploy possible to bring in more female voters. She's already co-opting Hillary Clinton's remarks on having 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling -- a ceiling that Palin says women can still shatter "once and for all."***** Already a flurry of conservative and independent women have been rallying behind Palin. Policy aside, on a personal level, she represents work-life balance -- something that resonates with women of all political affiliations. She's also popular among blue-collar voters, the Republican party base and Evangelicals, particularly because of her staunch position against abortion. She, like McCain, favors overturning Roe v. Wade.And if Democrats aren't careful, that could easily become their Achilles heel this year. Elections are about emotion, and if there's any topic that's sure to stir emotion, it's abortion.Despite the majority of the public supporting family planning and comprehensive sex education -- both effective ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and despite the fact that Democrats champion federal funding for these programs, the Dems still haven't figured out how to defend a woman's right to choose in a way that voters can identify with on a gut level. If Democrats have historically had trouble defending their abortion position against male candidates, they will have triple the problem doing so against a woman. And Palin is a slick one.Palin vehemently apposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, a fact that the public may miss while she's busy touting membership in Feminists for Life, a group that focuses on alternatives to abortion, particularly for college-age women. The organization works under the guise of providing women choices, as long as abortion isn't one of them.Besides her Feminists for Life affiliation, Palin is herself a mother. In fact, she decided to keep her fifth child even after knowing it would be born with developmental disabilities. Imagine it: debating a female candidate -- a mother -- who can say, "I had a choice, and I chose life." That's the challenge Biden will face. He must defend a woman's right to choose while avoiding coming across as callous or attacking the mother of a disabled child. Simply explaining that Palin is an "anti-woman woman" isn't enough. That kind of message assumes voters will respond with logic and reason. But for those who aren't steeped in gender issues, it risks either sounding loony or being dismissed.***** Democrats are only too eager to argue that this election will be different from the last two, that people have finally had enough of the Bush brand of conservatism. I hope they're right. But Democrats need to be realistic about the challenges they face with a Palin VP, because abortion is just one of them. Having a woman on the GOP side will make it easy, perhaps tempting, for the media to resort to sexist attacks. Then feminists will be forced to walk a line, defending Palin against sexism without looking as though they're supporting an anti-choice candidate. Even women who didn't like Hillary Clinton recoiled at watching her become the target of media-driven sexism. Clinton polled the best when women perceived that she was being treated unfairly. Palin will likely be no different. Worse yet, if Palin gets bullied, McCain will swoop down and protect her, pretending to be women's biggest advocate when he is anything but. The public will see Palin being attacked and will watch as the Republican Party comes to her rescue. And having a young, inexperienced woman on the Republican ticket could do more to underscore people's existing concerns about Obama than it does to undercut their confidence in Palin. How can Democrats, without appearing hypocritical, level serious charges against Palin for being "untested," when that's the word that's still hovering over their own candidate? Palin may not have foreign policy expertise, but she has a son who is a soldier. That's no small detail in a country obsessed with patriotism. And it's one that voters can connect with emotionally.Unlike Obama, Palin is not a change agent. But perception matters in politics, and Palin looks the part. She represents a first for the Republican Party, and her relative youth could dilute Obama's change message -- the very message that, for the first time in many years, has allowed voters to identify in an emotional way with a Democratic presidential candidate.Will Obama be able to keep that emotional connection with voters? His campaign has only two precious months to figure it out. Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.
From: Jim Nelson <jnsosodef@hotmail.com>Subject: [CollegeStudentsforObama] RE: Please read my 10 hilarious articles on Sarah Palin at mybarackobama.comTo: "College Students for Obama" <CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.com>Date: Sunday, August 31, 2008, 4:49 PMActually, this choice does not spell doom for the Republicans. I am a Republican that had supported Obama over McCain, until this announcement. After Thursday's convention speech I was ready to punch my ticket for Obama/Biden...thinking McCain would pick some stuffy, lame, Washington insider as his running mate. I was very pleased with his selection and still am today. Many conservatives like myself, who were going to 'suicide vote' for Obama because they were angry at McCain for not being conservative enough (immigration) will go back to McCain. I have spoken to many like me. This move will pay off. Obama should have picked Hillary. He would have won for sure. Not so now. Jim NelsonKalamazoo, Michigan______________________________from Amanda de Zayas <akdezayas@yahoo.com> CollegeStudentsforObama@groups.barackobama.com
I don't want to insult Mr. Nelson or anyone else, but the sad fact is that if you're basing your vote upon being revved up by the conventions, spiting McCain or Obama, or because McCain picked a younger woman as his VP, you're voting more on emotion than actual issues.Personally, I could not stop laughing all day Friday after the McCain VP pick was announced. The McCain camp really showed that Obama was getting to them. One could even argue that Obama has inspired change even before taking office, because this move was clearly made in response to his youth, his change movement, and his representation of those typically not included in the political process. Do you think the Republicans would've picked Sarah Palin otherwise? It's like, "Okay you've got a young black guy, but look, we've got a woman! Hey disgruntled Hillary supporters, come to us!"
Meanwhile, she's an anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-gun former beauty queen.I'm a woman and a very strong advocate of women's issues and rights. I was never for Hillary and I'm certainly not for Sarah Palin. I feel that the trailblazers who came before me freed me to make the choice not just for ANY woman, but for the RIGHT woman. I'm not voting for the female candidate, I'm voting for the RIGHT candidate. I'm not some dumb female who's going to vote against my issues or my conscience just because I want to see women in positions once dominated by men. I feel that McCain or his people assuming that picking a female VP would make me do so is insulting and patronizing.I guess my point is: I'm a woman living in America in 2008. Unlike so many before me, I have the right to vote for whomever I please based on the issues, not race or gender. And THAT is progress. I urge others to do the same.OBAMA '08!
-----------------Again, from Writers for Obama, from Sue Shields:If this is how the Republicans go after their base--what does that say about their base? Are they the Americans without a brain in their heads. They can be wooed by by completely non-intellectual factors? If this ends up to be how we choose our President it will be shameful and the whole world will see it and recognize us as completely irresponsible idiots. There is nothing smart about this at all---and the world is depending on our good judgement. 200,000 strong in Germany were applauding Obama--how stupid can we be to let anyone make fun of this? They were not applauding empty rhetoric and we know that. They were telling us "Enough". Enough of discriminaton! Enough of persecution! Enough of not loving your brother! The home of the Holocoust was agreeing and cheering--Tear down those walls! Who knows this best? Hate is not worth it--this is serious! They have learned their lesson the hard way. Why can't we?
With no foreign policy experience and a political resume that could fit on my pinky fingernail, Sarah Palin is an absurd choice for vice president. Yet it should come as no surprise to the public -- especially to Democrats -- that John McCain chose her anyway.
That's because the very issues that Democrats say make her a political risk -- her newness to the political world stage, her anti-choice stance, her opposition to gay marriage, her support of capital punishment, her disregard for the environment -- matter very little in determining the outcome of elections. Voters -- some of whom dissect policy issues daily, but most of whom don't -- ultimately cast their ballots based on emotion. Not logic. Not knowledge of "the issues."
This was supposed to have been the big take-away lesson of 2004. That debate, perhaps more so than any other since the first televised presidential showdown between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, showed that appearance, charisma, personality and likeability matter. Smarts are mostly a bonus and a distant second.
In 2004, John Kerry was the champion debater. He was sharp, focused, intelligent. He could call B.S. on George W. Bush and poke holes in nearly any of his arguments. But he was also stiff. He seemed cool and disconnected, not just because of his body language but also because of his words. His policy prescriptions, detailed as they were, didn't connect with his audience. Four years after hearing him speak, I can only recall that, on an intellectual level, I agreed with his points. But I don't remember what he said. His words didn't resonate with me. They didn't stick with me in my gut.
Bush, on the other hand, was the dunce. He wore a goofy smile and dodged questions in each debate. But he was the man people could imagine having a beer with. He drew crowds in with his drawl, spoke in a simple, unintimidating way, and so could get away with covering up four years of abysmal domestic and foreign policy. I probably disagreed with 99 percent of what Bush said, but I can at least remember some of his talking points. He said he worked hard and promised to work hard for American families. He said he understood American families. He said he would protect American families.
Was that a load of bull? Of course. But it sure was delivered in pretty packaging. And, most importantly, it made a large number of voters feel good.
Drew Westen, a clinical, personality and political psychologist who teaches at Emory University, explains this phenomenon in his recent book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. "(T)he vision of mind that has captured the imagination of philosophers, cognitive scientists, economists, and political scientists since the eighteenth century -- a dispassionate mind that makes decisions by weighing the evidence and reasoning to the most valid conclusions -- bears no relation to how the mind and brain actually work," Westen writes. "When campaign strategists start from this vision of mind, their candidates typically lose."
Simply put, people don't always vote for the candidate or the policy that serves their own best interests. That concept should be no more surprising in politics than in other parts of people's lives. If individuals always did what was best for them, they would consistently choose broccoli over cake; they would enter into relationships with the good guy (or gal) instead of the charming jerk who never calls; they would stick to purchasing necessities and use credit cards as a last resort -- only when there's not enough money at the end of the month to pay for groceries or utility bills.
But we all know people who eat more sweets than they should, date charismatic yet inconsiderate cretins, and shop on impulse. Those behaviors might be unhealthy, but they sure can feel good at the time. That's the campaign strategy Republicans have perfected: manipulating our senses and emotions to make us act in ways that we'll later regret.
In the short while since the news about McCain's choice for VP broke, we've learned a lot about Sarah Palin. We know that she played point guard on her high school's state champion basketball team. She's worked as a sports reporter. Her favorite food is moose stew. She's outdoorsy and comes from a family of hunters. She rides snowmobiles. She's a mother of five and a member of the PTA. She's a self-described "hockey mom."
Sarah Palin is also young. At 44, she's three years younger than Barack Obama. And she's beautiful. In 1984, she was runner-up for Miss Alaska.
But as New York Times reporter Timothy Egan writes, "Palin brings a bit of the "Legally Blonde" aspect to the race -- you underestimate her at your peril."
It's been barely a day since the media introduced us to Palin, and those are the details that are easily overshadowing -- or at least obscuring -- the more serious news about her regressive politics or the ethics investigation she's under.
These basketball-playing, snowmobile-riding details are what could easily give Palin broad appeal. She appeals to men because she doesn't threaten their way of life. She's a former beauty queen who also, according to the media's narrative, knows how to be one of the guys.
But what about the questions that female voters, the media and no small number of female bloggers have been asking? McCain almost certainly picked Palin to try to rope in the female vote, a plan that Democrats are arguing won't work. Hillary Clinton may have gotten 18 million votes, but Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton.
Trouble is, she doesn't have to be. Clinton supporters do not have to cross over and vote for Palin for her to be effective on the Republican ticket. With such a close race between McCain and Obama, Palin may need only to motivate conservative women or independents who weren't sold on McCain or persuade those who hadn't planned on voting to show up at the polls.
And Palin is likely to use every emotional ploy possible to bring in more female voters. She's already co-opting Hillary Clinton's remarks on having 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling -- a ceiling that Palin says women can still shatter "once and for all."
Already a flurry of conservative and independent women have been rallying behind Palin. Policy aside, on a personal level, she represents work-life balance -- something that resonates with women of all political affiliations. She's also popular among blue-collar voters, the Republican party base and Evangelicals, particularly because of her staunch position against abortion. She, like McCain, favors overturning Roe v. Wade.
And if Democrats aren't careful, that could easily become their Achilles heel this year. Elections are about emotion, and if there's any topic that's sure to stir emotion, it's abortion.
Despite the majority of the public supporting family planning and comprehensive sex education -- both effective ways to reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and despite the fact that Democrats champion federal funding for these programs, the Dems still haven't figured out how to defend a woman's right to choose in a way that voters can identify with on a gut level. If Democrats have historically had trouble defending their abortion position against male candidates, they will have triple the problem doing so against a woman. And Palin is a slick one.
Palin vehemently apposes abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, a fact that the public may miss while she's busy touting membership in Feminists for Life, a group that focuses on alternatives to abortion, particularly for college-age women. The organization works under the guise of providing women choices, as long as abortion isn't one of them.
Besides her Feminists for Life affiliation, Palin is herself a mother. In fact, she decided to keep her fifth child even after knowing it would be born with developmental disabilities. Imagine it: debating a female candidate -- a mother -- who can say, "I had a choice, and I chose life." That's the challenge Biden will face. He must defend a woman's right to choose while avoiding coming across as callous or attacking the mother of a disabled child. Simply explaining that Palin is an "anti-woman woman" isn't enough. That kind of message assumes voters will respond with logic and reason. But for those who aren't steeped in gender issues, it risks either sounding loony or being dismissed.
Democrats are only too eager to argue that this election will be different from the last two, that people have finally had enough of the Bush brand of conservatism. I hope they're right. But Democrats need to be realistic about the challenges they face with a Palin VP, because abortion is just one of them.
Having a woman on the GOP side will make it easy, perhaps tempting, for the media to resort to sexist attacks. Then feminists will be forced to walk a line, defending Palin against sexism without looking as though they're supporting an anti-choice candidate. Even women who didn't like Hillary Clinton recoiled at watching her become the target of media-driven sexism. Clinton polled the best when women perceived that she was being treated unfairly. Palin will likely be no different. Worse yet, if Palin gets bullied, McCain will swoop down and protect her, pretending to be women's biggest advocate when he is anything but. The public will see Palin being attacked and will watch as the Republican Party comes to her rescue.
And having a young, inexperienced woman on the Republican ticket could do more to underscore people's existing concerns about Obama than it does to undercut their confidence in Palin. How can Democrats, without appearing hypocritical, level serious charges against Palin for being "untested," when that's the word that's still hovering over their own candidate? Palin may not have foreign policy expertise, but she has a son who is a soldier. That's no small detail in a country obsessed with patriotism. And it's one that voters can connect with emotionally.
Unlike Obama, Palin is not a change agent. But perception matters in politics, and Palin looks the part. She represents a first for the Republican Party, and her relative youth could dilute Obama's change message -- the very message that, for the first time in many years, has allowed voters to identify in an emotional way with a Democratic presidential candidate.
Will Obama be able to keep that emotional connection with voters? His campaign has only two precious months to figure it out.
Heather Gehlert is a managing editor at AlterNet.
As an Alaskan, I am well informed of Palin's poor politics and treatment of Alaskans. Any Alaskan can tell you,
"there's nothing new but the packaging!"
McCain obviously chose Palin due to her gender. Her record isn't even long enough to even begin to predict how she'll vote as a Vice President. Those are all the credentials of someone who needs to be TOLD how to vote. Does McCain believe that Hilary supporters will stand with him? Palin does NOT stand for the same things Hilary does--she doesn't even respect a woman's right to choose. She is the same, old, tired politics wrapped into an attractive an alluring package set to draw people in by promising "change"; counter balancing his age (72!) with her youth and inexperience. Of course there will be change with the McCain administration: instead of all the benefits going directly to the Bush Administration, it will go to the McCain administration first!
Her contraversial "Troopergate"--her firing a well-known hero cop of Alaska because he wouldn't fire her "ex"-brother-in-law while he goes through a custody battle with her sister--and costly "Road to Nowhere" in her short political history show that she clearly is no Hilary Clinton and is headed on the same track that most other corrupt politicians are. FORGET PARTY LINES! It's time for change. It's time for unity. It's time for America. It's time for Barack Obama!
Looks like it's going to be the year of the B's for Alaska. Buzz. Buzz. Buzz.
Barack
Biden
Begich
Benson
Berkowitz
Vote in the Primary, Tuesday, August 26.
Please remember to vote in the primary election, Tuesday, August 26th.
A number of excellent candidates on the Democratic side are running for U.S. Senate (Ted Steven's seat) and U.S. House of Representatives (Don Young's seat).
There are also four citizen-based initiatives on the ballot. I support Initiatives 2, 3, and 4.
Initiative #2 places places reasonable limits on airborne hunting of wolves, bears, and wolverines.
Initiative #3 (Clean Elections) provides for public funding of candidates willing to meet certain requirements and reduces the influence of corporate funding and lobbying in the political process. It is modeled after the successful programs initiated in several other states.
Initiative #4 (Clean Water) supports healthy clean water in Alaska, healthy food (salmon) for Alaskans, and protects the jobs of fishermen.Regards, Kathleen Menke, Haines
Support yourself and your economic advancement by voting for Barack Obama who supports tax credits for individuals and families and tax changes that force the wealthiest Americans to pay a bit more of their share.
The alternative, with McCain, is more tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and an increase in payroll taxes for the working person.
Trickle up or trickle down? You decide what works best for you.
Hundreds of Alaska Campaign for Change volunteers came out in force today to knock on thousands of doors across the Last Frontier!The unprecedented statewide canvass involved about 30 locations in 16 cities, including Anchorage, Eagle River, Fairbanks, Homer, Juneau, Kodiak, Palmer, Sitka, Soldotna, Talkeetna, Wasilla, Willow and more. Volunteers went through a brief training at their meet up locations and then headed out to spread Barack's message of change to fellow Alaskans.Here are a few photos from the field. Keep them coming!
Want to get involved with our next big event? On Thursday, August 28th Alaskans across the state will be gathering to watch Barack's speech at the Democratic National Convention. Find a party near you or sign up to host your own!
Attempting to bring together networking among Southeast Alaska communities--so join these groups to stay in touch with each other.
Ketchikan for Obama
Sitkans for Obama
Juneau for Obama
Haines-zanians (Haines, Alaska) for Obama
Southeast Alaskans for Obama
Alaskans from House District 5 for Obama (rural communities extending from SE to Kenai Peninsula)
Alaskans for Obama
Alaska Action Team
