The California Democratic Council is offering a free workshop covering a variety of different topics that activists should learn about if they want to become more involved with the party.
Whether you are a candidate or a volunteer, these topics will help prepare you for rising in the ranks of the Democratic Party.
The next workshop is on March 21, 2009 and will be held in Folsom, CA.
For full details, check out the event listing:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gptp5l
Please not that you must register here: http://www.cdc-ca.org/Training/
Don't miss out!
For all of us Obama supporters:
This is a link to a great article which will inform and supply facts to those who ask about Ayers and the "radical" education foundation.
Arm yourselves with this objective third party information:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/790/
Craig Scharton
Fresno, CA
Another debate, another location. This time its at the Sante Fe Basque restaurant on Shields and Moaroa. We have access to two large areas to watch the debate. Enjoy great food and fellow supporters. Please sign up and attend event.
So far these events have made an impact on the local area. With a strong showing, local Obama supporters know we are out here and fighting for change. More local support equal more volunteers and contributions to the campaign.
At the debate on Friday night, I said the next debate would be at Santa Fe Basque restaurant. I was right, the next presidential debate on Oct. 7th. See the play of words, you too can learn how never to be wrong by Bush 101.
The VP debate will be at the Smokehouse Restaurant in downtown Fresno on Oct 2nd. Now if anyone ask how I made the mixup. "I don't recall."
Barack Obama has run as a change candidate.
Before John McCain's conversion to a doctrinaire Bush clone,McCain called himself a "maverick".
Obama and McCain have a chance to bring maverick change today by agreeing to bring true democracy to our presidential elections for the first time in our nation's history.
As we all remember, George Bush 43 was elected president in 2000 even though he lost the popular vote by more than half a million votes. In 2004, Bush won the popular vote by a reported 3 million vote margin -- but almost lost the election. Ohio's electoral votes went to Bush based on a 118,775 vote margin. According to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., 160,000 Kerry votes were lost due to various illegal vote fraud and suppression tactics. But for this illegal activity, the winner of the popular vote by a nearly 3 million vote margin would have lost the election.
The message is clear: Our nation runs an unacceptably enormous risk of electing a president who lost the popular vote.
There is a movement afoot to solve this problem. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ is promoting an agreement between various states where all of their electoral votes would be given to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the outcome in any particular state. To avoid "unliateral disarmament" (where for example, blue states agree to give their votes to the nationwide winner, but red states do not, creating a situation where the republican wins if he wins the popular vote or the majority of electoral votes), the agreement only takes effect when states representing a majority of electoral votes (270) have signed on.
Many states are reluctant to enter into this agreement. It is understandible, given that even a state with three electoral votes will see more campaign spending and attention than California, with its 55 electoral votes. But how about a trial run?
If Barack Obama asks the big blue states to get on board with a trial run for true electoral change, and if John McCain asks the big red states to get on board with a trial run for a maverick trial of true democratic elections, we can have a guarantee that our next president will have the support of a majority of the voters in this nation.
If John McCain or Barack Obama wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote by a margin in the millions, this nation will enter an era of civil unrest unprecedented in modern times. Imagine the fury over an unpopular war, costing billions of dollars and thousands of lives, extended for four years based on an anachronistic electoral vote system that ignores the popular vote. Imagine the fury over ending that war when a majority of voters cast their lot with the candidate who promised to continue and expand it.
Florida in 2000 was decided by a vote margin in the hundreds. Five states in 2000 were decided by a margin of under one half of one percent. Three states in 2004 were decided by less than one percent, and Ohio's result will be forever questioned. It would be a constitutional crisis, a constitutional disaster, if we wake up on November 5 to the headline "Ohio, Florida, Nevada and New Mexico results too close to call; Candidates challenging voting irregularities in those states." Florida was only settled in 2000 when the Supreme Court stepped in. The potential for a disaster with multiple states in the "Florida posture" is too big to ignore at any time. We must not ignore it at this especially sensitive time, while the nation is at war, fighting terrorism, and struggling for its economic footing.
We need not decide today to scrap the electoral college permanently. But we should at least put in place an interstate compact that assures us that for this election, at this enormonus inflection point in American history, our votes will not be overturned by the electoral college system -- and that a close call in a few states would not cause a crisis if the national results are even slightly decisive.
** Disclaimer: The opinions in this post are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Obama campaign.
As we transition from the primary election to the general election, it is important to remember why the primary was so gripping. Certainly, there were the candidates themselves. However, the overriding thing making the primary exciting (sadly, a thing that is unique to the Democratic Party primary election) was this simple fact: Every vote had a chance to be THE vote that made the difference. Voters in California counted. Voters in Alaska counted. Nobody knew how the superdelegates would vote; there was disagreement on how to count Michigan and Florida; there were questions about whether pledged delegates could defect. Ultimately, perhaps because of that very uncertainty, every voter wondered "what if this came down to me?"
And it could have. It could have been a one-vote delegate majority picking the nominee. That one delegate could have been selected by a paper thin one vote margin. In short, the primary was exciting because every vote had the chance to be THE vote. Moreover, every door I knocked on, every voter I helped through the Voter Protection Program, could have been THE voter.
I live in California. We have the most electoral college votes, yet our state is so solidly Democratic in Presidential elections that many wonder if their votes matter. On a simple level, of course the votes matter. Winning by a narrow electoral vote margin may put Barack Obama into the White House; winning by a broad popular vote margin will give him the influence he needs to really change things for all of us. On an only slightly more complex level, however, our role as citizens is more than just voting. If we can afford to contribute to causes we believe in, we should. If we have time to call other voters (say voters in swing states) and make our case, we should. If we have time to travel, to canvass, to register voters, to participate in voter protection, we should
We each get only one vote. But we also each have three months to participate in our democracy and change the outcome of this election. The primaries were exciting because each of us wondered, "what if my vote picks the delegate who puts my candidate over the top?" In this general election, we can ask: What if those twenty voters I called every day for 100 days, those 2,000 other Americans who I talked with about our democracy, what if those voters give New Mexico and its electoral votes to Barack? And what if those make the difference?
The primary may have seen more exciting. It may have seemed to value our votes more highly. But that is an illusion. In the primary we picked between two candidates who would carry forward much of the same agenda. In the general election, we can pick between war and peace; debt and prosperity; cynicism and hope; McCain and Obama. And we can pick not just with our votes, but with our voices and our time. Nothing is more exciting than that.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080705/POLITICS01/807050354
Source: Detroit News
Author: Gregg Krupa
Dr. Abdul Raheman Nakadar, a retired cardiologist and political activist, says he finds a particular aspect of the 2008 campaign for the U.S. presidency curious.
Why, Nakadar asks, are the campaigns of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain not reaching out to Muslim leaders in Metro Detroit, like campaigns in elections past, to arrange for public meetings and campaign appearances?
"Any candidate should address the issues of American society, not a particular religion," said Nakadar, the publisher of The Muslim Observer, who has worked to get local Muslim voters to polls in past elections. "But when you ask a certain group for support, then you must. I would have expected both of them to reach out."
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080605/METRO/806050384&imw=Y
This is a news article about Major Lance Waldorf, an army officer who served two tours in Afghanistan. You may have seen this story already on Dailykos. This is the reason it's important to get out of iraq. There are good men like this who are part of the armed forces, and many of them are at the breaking point. Major Waldorf was in the reserves, not the active army. He shouldn't have had to go into combat two times with a third time coming around, especially after being diagnosed with PTSD. I think it's a shame that this story will probably be overlooked by most in the media. This is something that needs to be brought up. I dunno about anyone else in here, but I think Obama should speak up and tell McCain, THIS IS WHY ITS IMPORTANT TO WITHDRAWL FROM IRAQ. The stress and strain placed on our military is causing casualties here in the US.
I think that Sen. Obama should base his economic mesaage on two things: espousing an ideal/value of economic justice and a value of rebuilding American cities, regardless of their size.
Too much of the economic message is about individuals and about business. both of these are important of course, but a national effort to build healthy cities which can foster healthy business climates, healthy places to live and raise quality of life issues for our citizens would be very appealing. this would also be a very popular message because cities are going to be in bad shape as a reslut of the current economic collapse.
A healthy national economy can be best achieved by being a nation of healthy cities.
Dear Senator Obama and Campaign Strategists,
I was just thinking about the campaign, and couldn't quite fall asleep. I read Jann Wenner's endorsement in Rolling Stone a few hours ago. Here are my thoughts and suggestions:
Hillary Clinton's only hope was to try to dampen the campaign of hope. Even though this means that she would reduce our democratic optimism, it was her only chance for victory (why someone would choose a negative path for victory is another blog topic). She dragged you, and us into the sewer with her, knowing that was the most likely place for her to have a chance of victory. Frankly, it's working. My hope and interest in the campaign has dimmed. The media opinion makers have become ringside spectators at a bloody fight. She has now had an opportunity to play on historic human doubts and fears. You know all of this.
How to overcome this is the question I was pondering. Organize a press event, much as a president would do. Not a press conference, but a talk to the American people. Schedule it during prime time. Buy the time if you have to. Let all of us know when it will be held so that we can spread the word. Bring the campaign back to your core messages. Tell people that your opponents campaign has managed to distract the public from the core issues. Tell them that you will not allow yourself to be sucked into the gutter. This campaign is about moving beyond race. This campaign is about moving beyond partisan bickering. This campaign is about moving beyond fear and war. This campaign is about moving beyond special interests. You got into this campaign because you believed that America was ready to rise to our collective challenges: economy, peace, environment...without these things the rest is petty and meaningless. Tell people that I am a Chistian, but so what if I wasn't. Tell people that we need to get over these prejudices, that they distract us from the real challenges that lie ahead. Social Security and Medicare need real leadership to remain viable. Tell people that you support a balanced budget amendment, so that no future politicians can mortgage our childrens futures. Tell people that overzealous campaigners from all campaigns will say regretable things, but that these are distractions from a real campaign, running becasue of real issues, offering real solutions. Old pastors will say some crazy things. Many religions have had some regretable behavior from past leaders. But we still go to church. (I can't believe that Hannity brought this issue up about your pastor, he's a Catholic for crying out loud, talk about living in a glass house!).
Don't play prevent defense. Life is too short. Give it to the American people straight up. This is why I jumped into your presidential campaign like I never have before in my life. Don't run the clock out. Use your skills. Get in front of people. Don't let Hillary dim the lights on this movement! This is her only, desperate strategy. Your strategy should be to get out in front and to lead! If she says she wants a debate every week, answer: I'll debate you every day...I have confidence in my record, positions and ablity to reach people. If she says she wants new primaries in Florida and Michigan, say Great...I'm willing to go to voters anywhere anytime. Don't play the old game. Your willingness and confidence will throw her, and the media, and the skeptics off balance.
Your enthusiatic supporter,
Craig
Stay on the release of Hilarry and Bill's income taxes and the contributors to the Clinton Library. This is indefensible! How can she say that she's fully vetted? How can releasing them after the primary hold up to scrutiny? Be a broken record. Answer every question with the same answer: where are their tax returns? Show the clip of her answer in the MSNBC debate.
Be relentless on this point!
There is a huge shift happening. The decision hasn't been clearly articulated, but has brimming underneath the choices for president that are in front of us. Hillary Clinton brought this difference to us very clearly over the past week. Fighting has been the way that change used to happen. She is a fighter and this tactic is all that she and others of her generation, and the generations preceding her have ever known.
Senator Obama is calling for and relying on a different way. He is a collaborator. He espouses a message that we can believe in our ideals and has the strength of belief that bringing people together will bring us more success and more results than by getting locked in battles.
For example, Hillary fights for health care. This fight locks opposition into their positions. She did not include others, even from her own party, in the efforts to get health care in the 1990's. She still believes that fighting for this issue will yield results, when in truth, it will solidify opposing positions. Obama has shown his ability to work across party lines in Illinois to actually put together a solution that yields results and respects the perspectives of other people.
This issue is also clearly demonstrated in Obama's willingness to speak with leaders of other nations, whether they are friends or not. Listening to and understanding the perspectives of others, whether of not we agree with them, is a sign of self-assurance and respect. A great deal can be learned from behaving toward others this way. Bridges can be built and progress can be made toward common goals. This will also allow us to use the American ideals of freedom as a way to draw the world's people toward our priority issues. It is the difference between using police to solve the problems of society or building healthy communities to combat issues of crime.
Sen. Obama seems to inherently understand that we can solve our issues by working toward common, positive goals. Business is moving in this direction. Community-building efforts are moving in this direction. National and international efforts will benefit greatly when we have leaders who understand the power of working together and respecting each other's perspectives. This is true especially when it comes to efforts like human rights and our planet's environment.
