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!
As I made calls today and heard of all the others who have called and were visiting the homes I'd reached, I was in awe of the power of many of us working together for change.
So often during this campaign, I'd think -- oh, I have so little money to give, I can only make a few calls and I'd wonder if it made a difference. But I'd always think about the fact that there were many, many people just like me doing what they could and so I'd go ahead, figuring it would all add up. Today I realized that it has. We don't know for sure if we'll win, but we have found out how much power there is in many people working together.
May we continue to work together in the days ahead and create an unstoppable force for change!
by Christopher Buckley
The son of William F. Buckley has decided—shock!—to vote for a Democrat.
Let me be the latest conservative/libertarian/whatever to leap onto the Barack Obama bandwagon. It’s a good thing my dear old mum and pup are no longer alive. They’d cut off my allowance.
Or would they? But let’s get that part out of the way. The only reason my vote would be of any interest to anyone is that my last name happens to be Buckley—a name I inherited. So in the event anyone notices or cares, the headline will be: “William F. Buckley’s Son Says He Is Pro-Obama.” I know, I know: It lacks the throw-weight of “Ron Reagan Jr. to Address Democratic Convention,” but it’ll have to do.
Dear Pup once said to me, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.”
I am—drum roll, please, cue trumpets—making this announcement in the cyberpages of The Daily Beast (what joy to be writing for a publication so named!) rather than in the pages of National Review, where I write the back-page column. For a reason: My colleague, the superb and very dishy Kathleen Parker, recently wrote in National Review Online a column stating what John Cleese as Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious”: namely, that Sarah Palin is an embarrassment, and a dangerous one at that. She’s not exactly alone. New York Times columnist David Brooks, who began his career at NR, just called Governor Palin “a cancer on the Republican Party.”
As for Kathleen, she has to date received 12,000 (quite literally) foam-at-the-mouth hate-emails. One correspondent, if that’s quite the right word, suggested that Kathleen’s mother should have aborted her and tossed the fetus into a Dumpster. There’s Socratic dialogue for you. Dear Pup once said to me sighfully after a right-winger who fancied himself a WFB protégé had said something transcendently and provocatively cretinous, “You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks.” Well, the dear man did his best. At any rate, I don’t have the kidney at the moment for 12,000 emails saying how good it is he’s no longer alive to see his Judas of a son endorse for the presidency a covert Muslim who pals around with the Weather Underground. So, you’re reading it here first.
As to the particulars, assuming anyone gives a fig, here goes:
I have known John McCain personally since 1982. I wrote a well-received speech for him. Earlier this year, I wrote in The New York Times—I’m beginning to sound like Paul Krugman, who cannot begin a column without saying, “As I warned the world in my last column...”—a highly favorable Op-Ed about McCain, taking Rush Limbaugh and the others in the Right Wing Sanhedrin to task for going after McCain for being insufficiently conservative. I don’t—still—doubt that McCain’s instincts remain fundamentally conservative. But the problem is otherwise.
McCain rose to power on his personality and biography. He was authentic. He spoke truth to power. He told the media they were “jerks” (a sure sign of authenticity, to say nothing of good taste; we are jerks). He was real. He was unconventional. He embraced former anti-war leaders. He brought resolution to the awful missing-POW business. He brought about normalization with Vietnam—his former torturers! Yes, he erred in accepting plane rides and vacations from Charles Keating, but then, having been cleared on technicalities, groveled in apology before the nation. He told me across a lunch table, “The Keating business was much worse than my five and a half years in Hanoi, because I at least walked away from that with my honor.” Your heart went out to the guy. I thought at the time, God, this guy should be president someday.
A year ago, when everyone, including the man I’m about to endorse, was caterwauling to get out of Iraq on the next available flight, John McCain, practically alone, said no, no—bad move. Surge. It seemed a suicidal position to take, an act of political bravery of the kind you don’t see a whole lot of anymore.
But that was—sigh—then. John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?
All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.
As for Senator Obama: He has exhibited throughout a “first-class temperament,”pace Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.’s famous comment about FDR. As for his intellect, well, he’s a Harvard man, though that’s sure as heck no guarantee of anything, these days. Vietnam was brought to you by Harvard and (one or two) Yale men. As for our current adventure in Mesopotamia, consider this lustrous alumni roster. Bush 43: Yale. Rumsfeld: Princeton. Paul Bremer: Yale and Harvard. What do they all have in common? Andover! The best and the brightest.
I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.
Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.
So, I wish him all the best. We are all in this together. Necessity is the mother of bipartisanship. And so, for the first time in my life, I’ll be pulling the Democratic lever in November. As the saying goes, God save the United States of America.
I am not sure what happened to last message, anyway this is the video link......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg
I know this is not new, but it bears repetition as the RNC and McCain ramp up their scurrilous campaign rhetoric in the last month of this incredible campaign.
Come on AMERICA, It is not who is more LIKEABLE, but much more importantly, it is who is more qualified. I think the answer was clear during the VP debate. I prefer SUBSTANCE in my candidates, not just a pretty smile!!! WHO IS JOE SIX-PACK, by the way?
Looking forward to seeing more of OBAMA and McSAIN communicate about the real issues!
A quick note! My mother-in-law brought this up to me. After the debate, she was channel surfing to hear different pionts of view about the debate. When she passed by FOX news, she saw that the picture of Obama and McCain on the stage was switched around. So it looked like McCain was actually looking over to Obama, and it looked like Obama was looking away from McCain. Those guys at FOX news will do anything they can to make McCain look better to the Conservative Idiots that watch that, SO CALLED news channel.
Last but not least, for anyone who still thinks Barack Obama is a Musilm, GET A LIFE, or just the facts please.
This world and our country have gotten much worse over the last eight years. We need change and it will not come from McSAIN in the membrane!!!
Let's keep up the good fight. Power to the Peaceful!
This is a wikipedia on the KEATING FIVE. It was part of the 1989 Savings & Loan scandal which cost taxpayers, BILLIONSSSSS!!! Guess who was involved? And he was criticized for "poor judgment".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
Enjoy!
Following is my letter to the editor, printed in the Sonoma Index-Tribune on September 9.
Regarding McCain’s selection of Palin as his running mate, I must question his sanity. How does being mayor of a town of less than 10,000 people, and governor of a state with a population the size of the city of San Francisco qualify Palin to be vice president? More importantly, this in no way qualifies her to be one (72-year- old) heartbeat away from being president. The only reason I can come up with for McCain choosing Palin as his running mate is so he has someone else to blame when he loses the election. While the speech was well practiced and well delivered and Palin was charming, I also found her to be sarcastic, snide and sniping. The speech had little substance. She failed to address the issues of education, the economy, the housing crisis, and said nothing at all about the middle class, which makes up the vast majority of the country (and whom, by the way, McCain defines as anyone earning less than $3 million a year, indicating how out of touch he is with reality). When a candidate lacks fresh ideas and positive solutions to the issues, he or she resorts to attacking the opponent. This is what McCain has done throughout his campaign, and he’s taught Palin this lesson right from the start. It is no more attractive in her than it is in him. And not only do McCain and Palin attack their opponent, they do so with outright lies – Obama’s record, taxes, offshore drilling and numerous others. Apparently neither McCain nor Palin realize that attacking and belittling their opponent says far more about their own character (or lack thereof) than it does of their opponent. This behavior is indicative of small, closed, unimaginative minds, incapable of fresh or original thought. Had I been predisposed to vote for McCain/ Palin, this blatant lying and attacking clearly indicates they sorely lack the ethics and qualities I want in our nation’s leadership. It comes down to a single question: is the country and its people better off today than eight years ago? Not just yourself, but your neighbors locally and across the country? How is four more years of the same, as promised by McCain, going to improve conditions in our country? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results! Mikayla DeRosier
I just got this in my email, Hope you like it, PEACE!!!
Jonathan FreedlandWednesday September 10 2008The Guardian The feeling is familiar. I had it four years ago and four years before that: a sinking feeling in the stomach. It's a kind of physical pessimism which says: 'It's happening again. The Democrats are about to lose an election they should win - and it could not matter more.' In my head, I'm not as anxious for Barack Obama's chances as I was for John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000. He is a better candidate than both put together, and all the empirical evidence says this year favours Democrats more than any since 1976. But still, I can't shake off the gloom. Look at yesterday's opinion polls, which have John McCain either in a dead heat with Obama or narrowly ahead. Given the well-documented tendency of African-American candidates to perform better in polls than in elections - thanks to people who say they will vote for a black man but don't - this suggests Obama is now trailing badly. More troubling was the ABC News-Washington Post survey which found McCain ahead among white women by 53% to 41%. Two weeks ago, Obama had a 15% lead among women. There is only one explanation for that turnaround, and it was not McCain's tranquilliser of a convention speech: Obama's lead has been crushed by the Palin bounce. So you can understand my pessimism. But it's now combined with a rising frustration. I watch as the Democrats stumble, uncertain how to take on Sarah Palin. Fight too hard, and the Republican machine, echoed by the ditto-heads in the conservative commentariat on talk radio and cable TV, will brand Democrats sexist, elitist snobs, patronising a small-town woman. Do nothing, and Palin's rise will continue unchecked, her novelty making even Obama look stale, her star power energising and motivating the Republican base. So somehow Palin slips out of reach, no revelation - no matter how jaw-dropping or career-ending were it applied to a normal candidate - doing sufficient damage to slow her apparent march to power, dragging the charisma-deprived McCain behind her. We know one of Palin's first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a 'rhetorical' question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m 'Bridge to Nowhere' project in Alaska - in fact, she campaigned for it - but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough - but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state. She claims to be a fiscal conservative, but left Wasilla saddled with debts it had never had before. She even seems to have claimed 'per diem' allowances - taxpayers' money meant for out-of-town travel - when she was staying in her own house. Yet somehow none of this is yet leaving a dent. The result is that a politician who conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan calls a 'Christianist' - seeking to politicise Christianity the way Islamists politicise Islam - could soon be a heartbeat away from the presidency. Remember, this is a woman who once addressed a church congregation, saying of her work as governor - transport, policing and education - 'really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God'. If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama - with all his conspicuous gifts - could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president. But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11. Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was 'Drill, baby, drill!', as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs. If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift. Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that 'the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race'.Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, 'historical decline'. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is 'not about the issues.'Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the 'candidate of Europe' and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it. Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2008
It sure feels good to register new voters. They are all ages, all races, all genders, and all religions. The look on their faces show that getting involved is the most fundemental act of our democracy. We have to take back this country and change our future. Together we can do this!
The future of our country and the future of the world is in our hands!!!
"In the face of impossible odds people who love their country can change it."Barack Obama
Here is some common sense I needed to help talk to those on the fence. I hope the readers of this find it useful.
Power to the Peaceful!!! by Michael Franti (Musician)
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this> straight.....(hope I'm not offending anyone)> > * If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents,> you're "exotic, different."> * If you grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, you're> a > quintessential American story.> > * If your name is Barack, you're a radical, unpatriotic> Muslim.> * If you name your kids Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig and Track, you're> a maverick.> > * If you graduate from Harvard law School, you are> unstable.> * If you attend 5 different small colleges before> graduating, you're> well grounded.> > * If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer,> become the> first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a> voter> registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend> 12 years> as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State> Senator> representing a district with over 750,000 people, become> chairman of> the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee,> spend 4 years> in the United States Senate representing a state of 13> million people> while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign> Affairs,> Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs> committees, you> don't have any real leadership experience.> * If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on> the city> council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than> 7,000> people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only> 650,000> people, then you're qualified to become the> country's second highest> ranking executive.> > * If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years> while> raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant> churches, you're> not a real Christian.> * If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress,> and left> your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next> month, you're a> Christian.> > * If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education,> including> the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber> of society.> * If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence> only, with no> other option in sex education in your state's school> system, while> your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant , you're very> responsible.> > * If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a> position in> a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her> inner city> community, then gave that up to raise a family, your> family's values> don't represent America's.> * If you're husband is nicknamed "First> Dude", with at least one DWI> conviction and no college education, who didn't> register to vote> until age 25 and once was a member of a group that> advocated the> secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely> admirable.> > OK, *much* clearer now.
I hope who ever reads this, can use it to make themselves understand the fight we are in, Power to the Peaceful!!!
Subject: Deepok Chopra on Obama and the Palin EffectThis is short and insightful. It addresses why so many of us have been disturbed and eerily repulsed by Palin. Here is a smiling, young, attractive Mother who is anti-nature, anti-women's rights, anti-intellectual and anti-global in her views without a shred of compassion. It's really easy to be off balance by the message and the messenger.Sometimes politics has the uncanny effect of mirroring the national psyche even when nobody intended to do that. This is perfectly illustrated by the rousing effect that Gov. Sarah Palin had on the Republican convention in Minneapolis this week. On the surface, she outdoes former Vice President Dan Quayle as an unlikely choice, given her negligent parochial expertise in the complex affairs of governing. Her state of Alaska has less than 700,000 residents, which reduces the job of governor to the scale of running one-tenth of New York City. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani is a towering international figure.Palin' s pluck has been admired, and her forthrightness, but her real appeal goes deeper.She is the reverse of Barack Obama, in essence his shadow, deriding his idealism and exhorting people to obey their worst impulses. In psychological terms the shadow is that part of the psyche that hides out of sight, countering our aspirations, virtue, and vision with qualities we are ashamed to face: anger, fear, revenge, violence, selfishness, and suspicion of 'the other.'Obama is calling for us to reach for our higher selves, and frankly, that stirs up hidden reactions of an unsavory kind. (Just to be perfectly clear, I am not making a verbal play out of the fact that Sen. Obama is black. The shadow is a metaphor widely in use before his arrival on the scene.) I recognize that psychological analysis of politics is usually not welcome by the public, but I believe such a perspective can be helpful here to understand Palin's message.In her acceptance speech Gov. Palin sent a rousing call to those who want to celebrate their resistance to change and a higher vision. Look at what she stands for: --Small town values -- a denial of America 's global role, a return to petty, small-minded parochialism. --Ignorance of world affairs -- a repudiation of the need to repair America 's image abroad. --Family values -- a code for walling out anybody who makes a claim for social justice. Such strangers, being outside the family, don't need to be heeded. --Rigid stands on guns and abortion -- a scornful repudiation that these issues can be negotiated with those who disagree. --Patriotism -- the usual fallback in a failed war. --'Reform' -- an italicized term, since in addition to cleaning out corruption and excessive spending, one also throws out anyone who doesn't fit your ideology.Palin reinforces the overall message of the reactionary right, which has been in play since 1980, that social justice is liberal-radical, that minorities and immigrants, being different from 'us' pure American types, can be ignored, that progressivism takes too much effort and globalism is a foreign threat.The radical right marches under the banners of 'I'm all right, Jack,' and 'Why change? Everything's OK as it is.' The irony, of course, is that Gov. Palin is a woman and a reactionary at the same time. She can add mom to apple pie on her resume, while blithely reversing forty years of feminist progress. The irony is superficial; there are millions of women who stand on the side of conservatism, however obviously they are voting against their own good. The Republicans have won multiple national elections by raising shadow issues based on fear, rejection, hostility to change, and narrow-mindedness.Obama's call for higher ideals in politics can't be seen in a vacuum.The shadow is real; it was bound to respond. Not just conservatives possess a shadow -- we all do. So what comes next is a contest between the two forces of progress and inertia. Will the shadow win again, or has its furtive appeal become exhausted? No one can predict.>The best thing about Gov. Palin is that she brought this conflict to light, which makes the upcoming debate honest. It would be a shame to elect another Reagan, whose smiling persona was a stalking horse for the reactionary forces that have brought us to the demoralized state we are in. We deserve to see what we are getting, without disguise.
Read and share - with everyone! The truth will set us all free!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
I have begun to email and call business associates. I have never mixed my business and politics before, but this is the time to come out of my comfort zone. The thought of 4 or 8 more years of the same political system, makes me want to consider moving north in Canada. Not sure if I would do that, but it is an option friends of mine have taken.
The response from open communication about politics has been really interesting. Most have been receptive to open dialogue about the really issues that affect ALL Americans. Dems have been easier to communicate with than Reps. It seems as if Reps are a bit brain-washed and their answers are right off of conservative radio or from the corporate media. I answer them with facts and websites for them to do their own research. I can changed the minds of some of the Reps I have spoken to, but others have to do more research to be convinced about the things I have said about Obama and Biden, and negatives about McCain and Palin.
So, I have been willing to open the doors of communication with business associates, and I recommend that others do the same. Please step out of your comfort zone and let others know how you feel about the really issues that affect ALL Americans.
The truth has to prevail, let the facts speak for themselves. Though, we need to speak the facts to help truth prevail.
Please read and circulate widely. This is information that we need to be using as we go about canvassing and tabling. If Politico is questioning McCain's pick, we know something's up.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Scholars_question_Palin_credentials
He's busy pandering to Hillary supporters, as if they are too ignorant to see what he is trying to pull. They should be made aware of this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/29/palin-hillary-clintons-wh_n_122504.html
"Worst VO Pick in U. S. History": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-j-elisberg/the-worst-vice-presidenti_b_122491.html
Ted Stevens promoted her during her gubernatorial run http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/palin_ad_starring_ted_stevens.php
He knew nothing about her before putting her within rech of the presidency: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/mccain-didnt-know-palin-before.html
There's plenty more where this came from, but you get the idea. She makes Barack look like Thomas Jefferson in the experience realm!
Received this evening from the Sierra Club. Note that her husband works for BP. That's not mentioned in the transcript of her speech.
Shocking Choice by John McCain
WASHINGTON-- Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. To follow is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.“Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.“Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science. Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration. “This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.”
So, no one knows who she is, he met her once, she's to the right of right...
Is McCain campaigning for Barack, or what?
