CA CD 31 - California 31st Congressional District

Neighbor to Neighbor Calling

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:58:15 EDT

Hi guys I am having a phonebank/ desert potluck at my house tomorrow to collect health care stories to help the 47 million americans without insurance, and the rest of americans. my number 323-712-5681, and address 127 S. aVE 52 L.A 90042 at 6-8 P.M.

Volunteers

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:41:01 EDT

I am looking for volunteers who live in Congressional District 31 California. I work for Organizing For America. Send me an email at marenco.darwin@gmail.com n my name is Darwin Marenco.

Uninsured L.A Planning Meeting-health reform

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:39:58 EDT

Monday June 22 from 7:00 P.M-8:00 P.M

235 HILL ST. SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 IT'S A CHURCH

AT THE CONER OF HILL AND 2ND PARKING THE CHURCH LOT ON HILL

COME OUT N JOIN ORGANIZING FOR AMERICA IN SHOWING SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENETS OBAMA HEALTH CARE PUBLIC OPTION

Health & Welness Fair June 27th

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:34:37 EDT

Were going to have a health & wealness fair from 10-2 P.M in Inglewood at 8480 S. Figueroa St. (N. of Manchester). please go to 30barack.com/healthfair for more information

Xavier Becerra

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:46:30 EDT

Today I went to go have coffee with Xavier Becerra at Glassel Park Council man Erick Garcetti office. It was great, and I loved-it. I am the Field Organizer for Congressional District 31, but not because I am big on politics. I have tons of grassroots experience, which Organizing For America is. I love the energy from every side of all the issues. It was kind scary, but fun.

Xavier Becerra stand for support for Presidents Obama's Public Option, but he has also has submitted his own health care plan into congress. His plan is a little different, but not so much.

health stories

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:46:33 EDT

i am looking for health stories meaning have you lost your health insurance? u never had health insurance? health insurance cost too much? I would love any stories that are about health care. Please contact me by sending me a message. Thank you

First Fundraiser

OFA-SOCAL-CD31-DARWIN — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:22:08 EDT

I just put up my first fundraiser up, and I hope people donate. Organizing For America is non-profit, and I need to educate California Congressional District 31, which is 40 miles of urban areas. How excited I am about this great opportunity, I don't get paid for this. I am asking for help, and any little change you might have would go a long way. Please help me to educate the American people about the public option. Thank you for time, and for reading my blog =)

Don't Hand Us Over to the Dem Party

Alberto — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:48:35 EST

Regarding the recent article in the L.A. Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-transition14-2008nov14,0,1793844.story on what to do with all of us supporters now that President Elect Obama is in, I'd like to toss in my two cents by stating that the Democrats have, for much too long now, let me down and, as inspired as I am by Obama and as committed I am to he and some other leaders on the Hill, I am not inspired by Reid or Pelosi.

Obama ran on a campaign for change but handing us over to the Dem Party would isolate too many of us and, I fear, over time, make us jaded.

Rather, run messages to us from Obama and his administration and establish satelite offices to communicate local Dem issues we should pay special attention to... but don't throw us in with the group who may do little more than point the way to where/whom we're to attack. We want to build something - Do Something - and don't want to hear more about capitualation or cries to help fund the next local campaign. Locally, I'll be fighting to repeal Prop 8 - I still can't grasp how it even made it on the ballot in the first place or who, exactly, ran the initial No campaign against it.

Rushing this out from work - sorry it's such a mess.

Thanks.

Let's Get FIRED UP!

CraigMc — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:56:44 EDT

Hi all-- It's energizing to see the great new ad the Obama campaign is putting out to attack McCain's gutter tactics. Well written, well put together... I fear it might be dismissed as more liberal media pandering since they don't have a quote in there from more conservative media, but nonetheless, I think he's striking back well.

I also think it's pretty fascinating that Karl Rove is even speaking out against McCain's tactics: Karl Rove: McCain's Ads Have Gone Too Far

Mitt Romney also had some harsh words for the Senator.

Colin Powell, while still playing coy on the candidate he's backing, is calling for the campaigns -- cough, McCain, cough-- to return to the issues.

So.. What does this mean?

Dunno. I'm happy that there seems to be some pushback on the dumbing down and trivializing of this campaign so hopefully we can get back to the issues, an area where Obama/Biden seem to really have some strength and can finally undo this co-opting of the message of change and unseat these mavericks from their Ivorique tower-- I presume one of the late night shopping channels has some kind of weird Ivory substitute with an equally "my stripper name" nomenclature.

While all this news is coming in, I did have one additional thought. I know that our man, Barack, seems to have been rocked a bit by the inane yet damaging squeelings and rantings the McCain camp has presented as their campaign platform. Could be that since Obama (wisely) freed himself from the public campaign financing, he might just be biding his time, letting McCain's tantrums (and finances) dwindle. Like in boxing, letting your opponent tire themselves out with superficial blows before you wade in and finish them. Or like letting a 4 year old tire themselves out in a tantrum before you come in and explain things.

I don't know that it's a proven strategy. I don't know if it's actually Barack's strategy. But it certainly does kinda feel that way and explain why he's been so disciplined about dismissing these stupid attacks and pressing on the issues. He's given himself a lot of ammo for the debates. And hopefully it's this last sprint that's really going to seal the deal for him and get him into the White House.

Am I wrong? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee... anyone.... Bueller?

A Letter from Anne Kilkenny

Antoine — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:16:41 EDT

Just thought that this was interesting and that I should post it.

An interesting analysis of Sarah Palin by someone who actually knows her from her town of Wasilla. The letter has been checked out by snopes.com and was found to be attributed to the correct person Anne Kilkenny and she admits to have written it. Apparently Palin is not quite the maverick/reformer she is being advertised to be.
Here's the link
http://www.snopes.com/politics/info/kilkenny.asp

Amazing Crowd Packs SoCal Headquarters

Jeremy D. Thompson — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:10:15 EDT

Boosted by Barack’s powerful speech in Denver, and girded against continuing baseless attacks from St. Paul; grassroots activists and community organizers arrived in awe inspiring numbers at the opening of the Southern California headquarters of the Obama/Biden campaign.

With the office packed to capacity and supporters lined up for blocks down the street; the program, stage and crowd moved to the parking lot to accommodate not only the size but also the energy of a California campaign not content to win just one state, but dedicated to delivering victories across the West.

The bottom up coalition that grew from organic groups to a well-trained, well-oiled machine capable of making hundreds of thousands of volunteer calls each day never rested between Super Tuesday and now. In the months since February 5, Barack’s supporters have continued to train and organize new voices committed to bringing California (and America) the change it needs.

Those voices - old and new - cheered along with rousing speeches from early Obama supporters Maria Elena Durazo, Eric Garcetti, Mark Ridley Thomas and Rocky Delgadillo before Field Director Mary Jane Stevenson jumped in to give marching orders on how Californians can continue to make a difference in the Golden State and beyond.

While there is much to do to assure success up and down the ballot here, another huge part of our effort will be to effect change in neighboring Nevada. Nevada is a crucial battleground for November, and Barack needs support not just from all Nevadans, but also their neighbors - especially from California. To that end, the California campaign is recreating its “Drive for Change” program that was so successful during the Nevada caucuses in January.

Eventually, the excitement of the event had to end and the work needed to resume. For those who couldn’t attend, here’s how to jump in on the action:

First - if you haven’t already - sign up to be a part of the California team at http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/casignup.

Then, head to http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/CampObamaCA to enroll in an upcoming Camp Obama, where you can develop your skills as an organizer.

Most importantly, volunteers can participate in the Drive for Change program into Nevada at http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/nvdfcsept12. If you’re a student, consider a Nevada internship with the campaign (http://my.barackobama.com/nvoosintern).

The other party can mock Barack’s time as a community organizer. They can scoff at the dedication of volunteers committed to creating change in America. But come election day, it will be the voices of this overflow crowd in a Culver City parking lot, and millions more across this nation whose familiar chant of “Yes, we can!” will ring out in a resounding “Yes, we did!”

Make this America the one you want to see.

SoCal Obama supporters can help in Nevada - travel 8-22 to 8-24

DJ — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:59:38 EDT

Even though we may be ahead in the polls in California, we still need to be sure we register new voters and get them all to the polls November 4th.

In addition, we can reach out and help our brothers and sisters in Nevada. The polls say Nevada is close and some of us can travel there to help register voters and canvass.

The Nevada team would appreciate our help. We are coordinating with supporters in Nevada.

It's the Obama Wild West Weekend in Las Vegas!

Join our SoCal posse as we stampede into Clark County and round up all the unregistered voters for Obama!

It's August 22-24. We're organizing caravans and carpools to Las Vegas.
Limited supporter housing is available. Cheap hotel rooms are plentiful. Let's make Nevada Obama country.

Yippee!!!

Interested? Contact Dave Crocker, Out-of-State Travel Coordinator for Obamawood/North CD33, at DJCroc@yahoo.com.

Provide your name, email address and phone number. You'll be notified of all the details of when and where to meet.

(prior to Friday night 8-22-08). The event signup is also located at: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gpgkjr

PLEASE, forward this information to any people or groups who can help. Let's get well over 100 people to Vegas.

Thanks.

LET'S WIN THIS ELECTION!

Dave Crocker (DJcroc@yahoo.com)

Racist T-shirts on EBAY

XOXOXO — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:53:38 EDT

It seems that the dixietradingcompany is selling those infamous Curious George t-shirts on Ebay. If you hate racism ACT NOW! Got to Report this item and let them know how you feel. Ebay cannot be allowed to make money off of racist material (it is also part of their auction rules.) Go to http://ebay-us.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/ebay_us.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php and send them a firm email to be more effective.

If you have an Ebay account, I urge you to log in and send a complaint.

Listing Violations > Prohibited (banned items) > Offensive and potentially offensive
items > Hateful, discriminatory or racial language in an item description

Item number(s):
130229302589
130229365261
130229365318
190228325687

Thank,

Mike Jenkins Shasta Co. West Area Leader

PS - Thanks Madeline for the heads-up!!

Abraham Lincoln, former Republican

Jared Hardy — Mon, 26 May 2008 22:32:10 EDT

The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

West Virginia Needs Phone Help!!

XOXOXO — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:54:40 EDT

According to our West Virginia bretheren, Obama is down 30 points. We urgently need to close this gap! California doing the phone Indiana program was a great help in almost winning that state. We need an all out effort to help bring West Virginia around. The more we call the more West Virginians can focus on the ground game. Round up the troops and lets get going!!

West Virginia Ground Game

XOXOXO — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:59:44 EDT

After monitoring many an email form West Virginia Obama volunteers the seem to feel that our best chance to defeat Hillary is in the urban areas of the state. This make alot of sense given Obama's popular demographics in similar states. It may be prudent to focus the ground game as the West Virgina folks suggest. Not that West Virginia rural areas need to be foresaken by the campaign effort in total. As far as the California phone call effort goes we should probably look at area codes and prefixes for urban areas as a primary concern. As with Indiana, concentrating on maximizing known pro-Obama areas seems to be a winning (or at least defeat minimizing) formula at least in the Primary season.

It is Now Time to Focus on the Message!

XOXOXO — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:48:43 EDT

It ain't over until its over, but with Indiana being basically a split and North Carolina a solid win it is time to get back on track with Barack Obama's political message of change and healing. The handwriting is on the wall and the super delegates and campaign donations should be trickeling in and see us through the rest of the primary season. It is time that we, as basically surrogates for Obama, follow his lead and focus on the message. We have to not only heal the wounds of our party due to the intensity of the primary, but define our candidate before the Republicans can get their "swiftboat" hands on him. As shown in North Carolina and Northwestern Indiana, Obama has overcome the Rev. Wright issue as the conservatives ran it into the ground. Now is the time to define Obama by his message. We have this unique opportunity to positively bring our candidate to the forefront based upon issues rather than "gotcha." Yes, change is truly at hand, even now!

West Virginia: It's Your Turn!!

XOXOXO — Tue, 06 May 2008 19:49:25 EDT

Hey West Virginia! We Californios are ready to help deliver your state into the Obama column. We offer our combined staffs to be at your beckon call to help anyway that we can!

Just another proud Obama volunteer!

Hillary Required to Testify in FEC Fraud Case

XOXOXO — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:50:54 EDT

This is very disturbing news for the Hillary Campaign

In the landmark civil fraud case against Bill Clinton in Los Angeles, where the former President is charged with defrauding a Hollywood dot com millionaire to help Hillary Clinton obtain more than $1.2 million from him for her 2000 Senate campaign, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz ruled on Friday, April 25 that Hillary Clinton would not be required to testify in a sworn deposition as a material witness in the case until AFTER the November election!

Hillary, Bill and FALN - Their Pardon of Terrorists watch!

XOXOXO — Sun, 04 May 2008 16:22:13 EDT

Watch this damning video before the Hillary campaign takes it off of You Tube. If this got into the mainstream media it would be game over!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XET4gxCiJjg&feature=related

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Hillary_Bill_and_FALN_Their_Pardon_of_Terrorists

Magnaquence Message for Indiana

XOXOXO — Sun, 04 May 2008 10:57:07 EDT

There are several articles concerning Hillary's lies about the Magnaquence and her husband's involvement. Everyone in Indiana and NC need to hear about this issue. Since mainstream national media isn't paying any attention, the best way to get out the message is to flood the Drudge Report, yeah that's right, the Drudge Report. He will have to take notice, then so goes the mainstream media! I've sent my message how about you???

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Articles to send Matt Drudge

http://www.nwi.com/articles/2008/05/03/news/top_news/docff55bfdb8b298a198625743e0001b719.txt
http://digg.com/politics/Clinton_s_Magnequench_ad_hypocritical_critic_says
http://www.howeypolitics.com/2008/05/01/ticker-tape-11/print/
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/BAYH_COMPLAINED_CLINTON_APPROVED_MAGNEQUENCH_SALE_TO_CHINA

Transformational Leadership and Rev. Wright

Antoine — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:43:50 EDT

After listening to THE WHOLE NAACP 'A Change is gonna come' speech by Rev. Wright I was reminded of my childhood and teenage years when I was inspired at church to go out and be my brothers and sisters keeper. I was reminded of high school when I went to a conference in Washington DC in 1988 where I was inspired to go out into the world and 'GO M.A.D." (Go Make A Difference). I was reminded of my college days when I was inspired by a candidate that also talked about 'a place called HOPE.' And I realized that every generation we ARE faced with the call to turn the page and to CHANGE ourselves and the world around us for the better. I realize that I am inspired again by Senator Obama not because of the speeches he gives or the excitement of the crowd where ever he goes or even by his history and historical run for the presidency. I am inspired because I see the possibility of a true transformational leader. What does that mean?

From Wikipedia:

Transformational leadership is a leadership when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. The term was used by James V. Downton in 1973 in Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process.[1]

James MacGregor Burns (1978) first introduced the concepts of transformational and transactional leadership in his treatment of political leadership, but this term is now used in organizational psychology as well. According to Burns, the difference between transformational and transactional leadership is what leaders and followers offer one another. "Transforming leadership... occurs when one or more persons engage with others in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out as separate but related, as in the case of transactional leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counterweights but as mutual support for common purpose. The relationship can be moralistic, of course. But transforming leadership ultimately becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both leader and led, and thus it has a transforming effect on both." (p. 20)

Transformational leaders offer a purpose that transcends short-term goals and focuses on higher order intrinsic needs. This results in followers identifying with the needs of the leader. The four dimensions of transformational leadership are idealized influence (or charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration.

Charisma or idealized influence

The degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways that cause followers to identify with the leader. Charismatic leaders display convictions, take stands and appeal to followers on an emotional level. This is about the leader having a clear set of values and demonstrating them in every action, providing a role model for their followers.

Inspirational motivation

The degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders with inspirationalmotivation challenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about future goals, and provide meaning for the task at hand. Followers need to have a strong sense of purpose if they are to be motivated to act. Purpose and meaning provide the energy that drives a group forward. It is also important that this visionary aspect of leadership be supported by communication skills that allow the leader to articulate his or her vision with precision and power in a compelling and persuasive way.

Intellectual stimulation

The degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, takes risks and solicits followers' ideas. Leaders with this trait stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers.

Individualized consideration or individualized attention

The degree to which the leader attends to each follower's needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower and listens to the follower's concerns and needs. This also encompasses the need to respect and celebrate the individual contribution that each follower can make to the team (it is the diversity of the team that gives it its true strength).

Senator Obama embodies all these points and I appreciate the fact that he surrounds himself with other people who also display the same quailities, including Reverend Wright. From watching the NAACP speech I found Reverend Wright to be brilliant and inspiring, he was DIFFERENT from Senator Obama but certainly NOT DEFICIENT. I believe that if we weren't in a political frame of mind that Reverend Wright's speech was the part 2 of Senator Obamas 'more perfect union' speech. Part one was the context and asking for conversation and healing and Part 2 was the actual conversation and commitment to change. I would hope that in some form or another the campaign can express this idea to the rest of the public but because the media and the public are so focused on the 'traffic accident mentality' and the 'knife fight,' 'horse race' that is the nominating process we might have to wait until the White House. A change is gonna come. We can Do it. Yes We Can.

Be Careful of Character Assassination.

Antoine — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:36:35 EDT

At the beginning of the campaign many in my circle of influence who support Senator Obama feared that he would have the threat of assassination because of the fact that we all viewed him as a "transformative leader." (definition and sidebar: interesting and wonderful essay on "Transformative Educational Leadership" by I believe M. Dantley check it out http://www.units.muohio.edu/eduleadership/FACULTY/DANTLEY/DOCUMENTS/prophetic_spirituality.pdf)

And I remember Barack reassuring us on Tavis Smiley's show not to keep that fear in our hearts. But we should actively combat the 'character assassination' that is still continuing and not only towards Senator Obama but also any and every possible 'controversial' person that he may have associated with in the past.There are two sides to every story and regardless of whether one thinks that certain phrases or sentences a person may say is controversial or that many people find it offensive does not merit destroying a persons character or life.

Remember: (article from http://www.everything2.com/e2node/character%2520assassination)

Character assassination is used to discredit a person (usually a public figure) to further the agenda of an opposing party. Often employed in modern politics, it is accomplished by the distortion of truths, and the dissemination of outright falsehoods.

Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbels, believed that the bigger the lie, the more convincing. Machiavelli taught that the ends justify the means. This epitomises character assassination.

The particular methods employed in character assassination are varied - it's a skill, not a science. But for it to be successful, it is important to spread the material and repeat it. For example1, Al Gore's supposed invention of the Internet was both a distortion and an exaggeration. It is still popular because, in this case, the distortion is simpler and funnier than the truth, and therefore gains more mind-share.

"PR 101 is define your opponent before he tries to define himself"

Character assassination is clearly organized along those principles.

Today the most important method by far for disseminating allegations is of course the Media. Therefore, having the media (deliberately or unwittingly) participating in a campaign of misinformation is an essential element.

Maybe one of the most famous (attempted) victims of character assassination was Martin Luther King. As part of the "war" on the Civil Rights movement, The FBI, among others, made several attempts to disgrace him in the eyes of the nation. One such attempt involved leaking details of an alleged affair to the media.

Notable figures who were on the receiving end of similar treatment included Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt.

Just remember that even though the 'media' or folks who post things on youtube would like you to believe that they are just reporting 'facts' or 'news', they have an agenda. Always consider the source and remember that Hitler's propaganda guy espoused the idea that the bigger the lie the more convincing.

For today I encourage you to read Dantley's essay and see how it translates to Senator Obama...he is a transformative educational leader. I remain hopeful.

Hope = desire with expectation

It's My Birthday and Here's my Donation

Antoine — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:05:07 EDT

March 19: Today is my birthday and I am celebrating by donating another $100 to the campaign. After a whole week of the constant repetition of the controversial remarks of Rev. Wright, I was ecstatic that Senator Obama gave his "A More Perfect Union" speech. I emailed the video to friends and added this note.

'The beauty of our country is that it was built on contradictions. But even with such a challenge we have survived and continued to flourish. However, with every generation of Americans we have faced the choice of coming together for the good of all or splinter to separate factions and go on a cycle of bickering, cynicism and self-indulgence. Now, normally, my politics is just that, mine. It is a private choice which I may share with some but not necessarily everyone. I choose to voice my politics now because it is a rare moment in our history where we can 'turn the page' on the status quo of how this country runs it's business. This speech is just another proof of the long-visioned, courageous and authentic humanity of Barack Obama. I ask you to listen to the whole thing. Hopefully you will gain an understanding of who this person really is and choose to support him as well. As Oprah said, "I support him because he is BRILLIANT!" I agree. America needs a visionary, coalition building, 'bring us together to work together' leader and that leader is Barack Obama.'

If you would like to celebrate with me....click and donate. Every little bit helps.

I have seen the enemy, and it is us.

Jared Hardy — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:34:10 EST

I just watched one of the most effective documentaries that I've ever seen, called "Iraq for Sale" by Robert Greenwald, independently distributed via Brave New Films. This is the official web site:

http://iraqforsale.org/

Ignore some of the more sensationalist computer overlay effects. This is all about the journalistic content.

The majority of the interviews are not with academics, "liberal" journalists, nor politicians, on any side of any fence. Most of the content is television news footage, and interviews with people directly involved in the Iraq war -- contractors, soldiers, and their families. Most of them are traditionally Republican voters.

Got irritated with Smug Chris Matthews

Antoine — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:22:20 EST

Here's the context for this blog: Saw MSNBC coverage of Wisconsin win and Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann were doing their regular entertaining analysis when Chris had 2 guest on, sorry don't remember names, a politician from Ohio for HRC and a politician from Texas for Barack. Anyway, was just irritated with the smugness of Chris after the segment so I decided to write a comment on his blog but then I found this blog of his and decided to add this to my need to vent. http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/14/666102.aspx My comment: Wow! Mr. Matthews, (disclaimer: sarcasm and stream of consciousness writing coming your way) Why don't you just come out and endorse the Clintons? Originally I just wanted to respond to tonight's questioning of the Obama supporter from Texas in asking "List the legislative accomplishments of Senator Obama." And since that supporter was obviously not prepared to answer you I figured I'll give you a couple of answers to your question. (but I'm sure that you already had a list since you do your own research, oh wait, but you just ask the questions right?) I'm just glad that Keith was there to put you in your place in showing your lack of preparation as well with some obscure question. (that's why I respect you folks at MSNBC more than Fox NOISE because at least you all are truly FAIR and BALANCED and funny) Anyway, here's a list: (taken from his Blueprint for Change pg 5 regarding Ethics since I don't want to be charged with plagiarism) OBAMA’S RECORD -Federal Ethics Reform Obama and Senator Feingold (D-WI) took on both parties and proposed ethics legislation that was described as the “gold standard” for reform. It was because of their leadership that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists’ bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips became part of the final ethics bill that was signed into law. The Washington Post wrote in an editorial, “The final package is the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet.” -Google for Government Americans have the right to know how their tax dollars are spent, but that information has been hidden from public view for too long. That’s why Barack Obama and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow regular people to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote, “It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It’s a brilliant idea.” -Illinois Reform In 1998, Obama joined forces with former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL) to pass the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Before the law was passed, one organization ranked Illinois worst among 50 states for its campaign finance regulations. -A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees. There are 64 pages total of 'specifics' that I'm sure you all have researched as well so anytime you want to say that the Senator is all rhetoric just look up the substance www.barackobama.com and look up the issues column. Yes, I know what you are saying, not much of a list but come on he's only been in the Senate a couple of years. But notice how his reforms are 'Big Idea' items. Ethics reform is not a fluff piece of legislation. You gotta give the Senator points for that. And I guess that is why you are seeing such a movement. Because folks are recognizing that there is substance in the brilliant mind of Senator Obama. And yes he is not speaking these specifics on the campaign trail but the point is (and you all seem to forget this point) that the Senator is not widely known in the whole country (everybody does not have the time to watch cable news channels all day long). Therefore, we want to hear the 'big picture' first. We want the whole country to hear his HOPES for the people of this country first. I know that your job is to look at every minuscule piece of this campaign and create drama where common (regular guy) sense says there are none. I guess I was just irritated at the smug look on your face when you questioned the politician from Texas but didn't press the politician from Ohio. Hillary might be a 'great politician' and McCain might be an American Hero and I guess they are more specific right now. But who's to say that they can really accomplish their rhetoric. It looks like both Senator Clinton and McCain can't even authentically get their party's base without the voters holding their noses as they vote. I want a leader that inspires me to see the potential of what I can give to this country. Anyway, I'm still going to continue watching Hardball because frankly you are more entertaining than Hannity (snooze-fest) and Glenn Beck (snore) or I might switch now and then with CNN since they have 'the best political analysis team in the country.' Thanks for letting me vent, Antoine from Los Angeles, CA

Children Are Forty Percent of Cluster Bomb Casualties

Matthew G — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 21:41:18 EST

No more War Please! Obama can end it!

BY TV 3 News (New Zealand)

Four out of every ten people killed or injured by cluster bombs are children, delegates at a major conference on cluster munitions being held in Wellington were told today.

About 560 delegates from 122 countries have converged on Wellington for the conference which aims to draft a treaty text, to be negotiated in Dublin, Ireland, in May.

The attempt to achieve a treaty, known as the Oslo Process, was started last year by New Zealand and six other countries.

Opening the conference, Disarmament Minister Phil Goff said a strong declaration on cluster bombs at the conference would mark a pivotal step in getting the weapons banned.

More than half of the 76 states in the world that stockpile cluster munitions are taking part in the negotiations, along with a majority of the weapon producers.

However, major producers such as the US, Russia, China and Pakistan have not joined the process and have no observers at the conference.

Cluster bombs are built to explode above the ground, releasing thousands of bomblets primed to detonate on impact. But combat statistics show between 10 percent and 40 percent fail to go off and lie primed in the target area to kill and injure civilians.

UNICEF deputy executive director Hilde Frafjord Johnson, speaking on behalf of 14 United Nations entities that form the United Nations Mine Action Team, said the UN wanted cluster bombs banned.

She said the weapons had a horrendous humanitarian, development and human rights impact.

Ms Johnson said the extensive use of cluster munitions in southern Lebanon in 2006 was a tragic reminder of how they caused death and serious injury of civilians.

“Sometimes, the presence of unexploded sub-munitions forced populations out of their homes and prevented those already displaced from returning home to rebuild their lives and communities.”

Ms Johnson spoke of 12-year-old Hassan Hemadi, who in 2006 picked up an object outside his home in southern Lebanon while he was watering the family garden.

“‘I saw a metal object,”‘ Johnson said, quoting Hemadi.

“‘I did not know what it was and so I picked it up. I started playing with the ribbon on the end, twirling it around. Then I don’t know what happened, it exploded. Now I have lost the fingers on my hand.”

Mr Goff urged delegates to tackle difficult areas to come up with a declaration that provided a “solid foundation” for the May negotiations.

“It is now time to put the fence at the top of the cliff, and not simply be the ambulance at the bottom.”

“We need to eliminate the use of cluster munitions where they have an unacceptable effect on civilian populations,” Mr Goff said.

But Amnesty International spokeswoman Margaret Taylor said any declaration that fell short of calling for a complete ban on the destructive weapons would be a failure.

Ms Taylor said cluster bombs, which could be fired, launched or dropped by aircraft or artillery, were more lethal than landmines yet there was no international treaty on their use.

Amnesty opposed the manufacture, stockpiling, transfer and use of cluster munitions.

Hillary'08 supporters deluded about upcoming McCain battle

Jared Hardy — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:43:41 EST

I believe in looking at both sides of any argument, and looking at all available facts. So I was researching why Hillary thought she might be able to beat McCain in November, and found this Blog post link on her campaign's front page:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=33969

The arguments here amount to Hillary beating the dead (or at least nearly dead) horse of "experience" claims, which obviously won't fly against a candidate with deep government experience like McCain -- especially if you count his long military service record, on top of his public service. They also discounted the polls that are now showing Obama to be the only consistent winner against McCain, in national polls. The only evidence they attempt to cite is "margin of error." Their blog comments are full of the same self-congratulatory crud such heavily moderated (read: censored) sites are prone to. I tried to comment on the article myself, with the top 3 links from Google below, but I kept hitting this error page:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/_base/error/?aspxerrorpath=/blog/view/Default.aspx

I'm Pissed

Uigei — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:35:31 EST

Look, I don't know about y'all, but I am pissed. We have worked way to hard here in Cali for us not to take this state. From all the canvassing, and phone calls to all the house parties, and donations, We should have won !

We should have, but the reality is some people are a certain way. They go with name recognition, or they go with their gut feelings, and some read the issues, and make the choice that is best for them. Why didn't they choose Senator Obama? I honestly don't believe that it was about race. Isn't that a great thing ? Did this campaign do that ? Did we transcend race ? If so, then hey....We got it goin' on ! That right there is a big deal.

Yeah ok, let's get past the warm and fuzzy and get down to it. What the heck is going on with our voting system. What do you mean that a polling place on the West Side didn't get its proper set-up until after 12 noon....Do you know how many people came, and had to be turned away ? Then, the people were told to fill-in their sample ballots...WTF.....You have got to be kidding me ! I'm thinkin' now, that my ballot maybe wasn't correct. My ballot had the bubble to be filled in up top...Non-Part., and Democrat......Now yes, I and we did bubble Democrat.......but is that the ballot we should have received ? was there more than one ballot......WHY WEREN'T MY POLL WORKERS SURE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON ? WHY DIDN'T THEY KNOW THAT A DECLINE TO STATE INDIVIDUAL COULD REQUEST AND CAST A DEMOCRATIC BALLOT ? WHY DID MY POLLSTERS NOT KNOW TO CHECK THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST FOR PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES WERE NOT ON THE ORIGINAL ROSTER ?

Now let's get down to our own responsibility....because we are working this campaign, we had a little heads up, but according to some of the emails, maybe some of us really did not know what was going on all that well. WE HAVE TO TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOME OF THESE ERRORS OURSELVES. NUF SAID ON THAT !

I say we have to call our Secretary of State and make sure that she knows that we are not pleased and that with all the years of elections going on, we should not have these issues. We need to demand that anyone working the polls should be trained properly, and that means more than 8 hours of training. We need to know who the deputies are and how they got picked for their positions...I'm sorry, but something just ain't right !

Our Secretary of States name is Debra Bowen, and she is in Sacramento. Her website is www.sos.ca.gov . There must be election reform !

How We Do It In The O.C.

Jeremy D. Thompson — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:34:38 EST

Just as Senator Obama brings new people to politics, and re-invigorates those who've lost faith, so do his supporters in Orange County.

Often written-off as an impregnable bastion of Republicanism, Orange County is actually chalk-full of Democrats.

Just ask county party Chairman Frank Barbaro.

Welcoming the Obama campaign to The O.C., Barbaro reminds us that 1 out of every 100 Americans lives in Orange County - which is second only to Los Angeles for the number of residents who are registered Democrats.

Working to organize and mobilize those Dems are the team members of the Obama office in Santa Ana - the heart of Orange County.

From their HQ at 214 N. Broadway in Santa Ana, staff and volunteers are reaching out to those voters too often left out by other campaigns; reminding us that - while there are no red counties and blue counties - there is Orange County.

And the Obama campaign is there.

Did you know......?

Uigei — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 01:40:53 EST

Family did you know that Senator Obama sits on these committees. So When someone tells you he lacks experience, give them some wisdom.

Obama, Barack (D-IL)

Committee on Foreign Relations
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee on Veterans' Affairs

This is Senator Obama's address in DC:

713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510(202) 224-2854

Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/

Do you know what a class is ?

class - Article I, section 3 of the Constitution requires the Senate to be divided into three classes for purposes of elections. Senators are elected to six-year terms, and every two years the members of one class—approximately one-third of the Senators—face election or reelection. Terms for Senators in Class I expire in 2013, Class II in 2009, and Class III in 2011.

Senator Obama is in class III...His term for the Senate will expire in 2011

Let me leave you with this.....do you know that Dick Cheney is the President of the Senate?

We are going to win !

Blessings

Watch List

Uigei — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 21:17:01 EST

Take a few hours to watch these movies.

Farenheit 911

Bowling for Columbine

Sicko

Mishael Clayton

The Good Shepard

These movies will get you thinking !

Blessings

Thank You

Uigei — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:54:18 EST

I have had some good times, and I have had some hills to climb, but family I'm still here ! I woke up this morning and breathed God's air and just emphatically said " Thank You ". I have been blessed with another day, another moment in time, at this place, on this earth. I'm still here !

What a time right now. We are in fact a part of the making of history. As you speak to friends and family and they somehow are not on the same page with you in regards to Senator Obama, think to yourself "You are chosen". All your efforts are not for naught. The Senator values you. Your not just doing this for him, your doing it for us. The phone calls, the distribution of literature, the door knocking (canvassing), the donations, the viewing of the debates, is not in vain. Our efforts will pay off.

God has chosen us to be intercessors for Senator Obama. We can get this man to the Presidents seat !

Think, one day we will look back on history and tell the future generations that we had a stake in this election, we worked side by side and hand in hand to get Senator Barack Obama to the White House.

I'm grateful and thankful for this day. I'm thankful that The Creator has given me another day.

Peace be with you all.

Uigei (ooh ee zhay)

Portrait of Obama !

Uigei — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:01:01 EST

A young lady by the name of Anne sent this very beautiful inspirational video of Senator Obama to me....Please watch it and send it to all other supporters....

Remember family, the primary is February 5th, 2008....If any of you haven't yet volunteered, there is still time....We need you now, more than ever..

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Blessings (Barack)

Uigei

The Senator does an awesome job in San Francisco

Uigei — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:23:51 EST

Obama stirs up S.F. crowdThe Sacramento Bee | November 15, 2007

By Peter Hecht

SAN FRANCISCO - Before more than 5,000 people in a raucous, late-night rally, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a passionate call Wednesday to end the war in Iraq, stop the U.S. practice of torture and advance racial equality and gay rights in America.

Introduced by author Alice Walker as a man who will bring "compassion and decent leadership" to the world, Obama said that as president he would enact policies to reverse the course of "a nation at war" and "a planet in peril."

To thunderous cheers, he evoked the late Martin Luther King Jr.'s cry of "the fierce urgency of now," saying: "As president I will end the war in Iraq. I will bring the troops home. They will be home in 16 months. ... America, San Francisco. Our moment is now. You can't wait any longer. Our moment to bring about change is now."

The rally followed a town hall meeting before some 1,500 people at Google headquarters in Mountain View. There, Obama called for suspending military aid to Pakistan until the U.S. ally in the war on terror ends its state of emergency and embraces a return to democratic rule. Meanwhile, he said as president he would create a high-tech agenda to bring openness and transparency to American democracy after seven years of "one of the most secretive administrations in our history."

Meanwhile, he called for internal diplomacy in Iraq and regional diplomacy to end the conflict there and stop neighboring Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He charged that the Bush administration's stance that "not talking to leaders we don't like makes us look tough is fundamentally wrong."

He criticized Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for suspending civil liberties and jailing political foes, calling it a mistake to "latch onto authoritarian, non-democratic rule" in the belief that it can combat "Islamic extremism."

The Illinois senator's appearance followed previous Google town halls for New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Arizona Sen. John McCain. The Illinois senator said he would appoint a "chief technology officer" to open up America's government by giving citizens heightened access to information.

With stern criticism of President Bush, Obama called for creating "a 21st century standard" that would give average citizens "real-time" access to seek information and question governmental officials.

Obama appeared later Wednesday at an upscale fundraiser at the Menlo Park home of former eBay executive and 2006 gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly. The 300 guests included actress Michelle Pfeiffer and former 49ers football star Ronnie Lott.

Later, thousands crowded into the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium for a rally costing $15 to $30 a person. The event drew a bus full of Obama supporters from Sacramento, including local organizer Dustin Schwindt. "Some people are excited because he is a popular figure," Schwindt said. "But more and more I notice he's backing up that image with substance."

Obama's campaign swing came on the eve of today's Democratic candidates' debate in Las Vegas. It also followed his campaign's release Tuesday night of a pointed strategy memo, in which campaign manager David Plouffe openly questioned whether two other top Democrats â€“ Clinton and Edwards â€“ were too divisive to get elected.

Plouffe argued Obama is gaining strength "at Sen. Clinton's expense" as voters tune into the Democratic race in early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire. "Clinton is likely to unite the GOP against her candidacy as well as her presidency," he wrote.

Clinton's California campaign spokesman Luis Vizcaino answered back: "Perhaps if the Obama campaign spent more time explaining what he would do as president than attacking fellow Democrats, his campaign will be doing a bit better in the polls," he said.

Read the full article from The Sacramento Bee

Paid for by Obama for America

The Senator is a "Safe Alternative to Clinton"

Uigei — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:19:33 EST

Democratic Debate: Winners and Losers

Last night was a tale of two debates.

The first 15 minutes of the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas featured clashes between the top three candidates -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- over Social Security, Iran and telling the truth.

The next hour and 45 minutes were, well, slower. All seven candidates got into the act, offering bits of their stump speeches and trying to cajole CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer into giving them a little more speaking time.

Anyone who reads the Fix regularly (Fixistas unite!) knows which part of the debate we liked better.

Below you'll find the night's winners and losers (according to The Fix). Ranking the candidates' performances is an inherently subjective exercise so remember this is just one man's opinion. Disagree? Or -- fingers crossed -- agree? Sound off in the comments section.

WINNERS

Hillary Rodham Clinton: Clinton's performance in tonight's debate will quiet (if not totally silence) talk that her campaign is struggling. Clinton set the tone early on by pushing back aggressively against Obama and Edwards and, in our mind, got the best of both exchanges. She was clearly aided by a sympathetic crowd who decided early on that they weren't interested in watching the candidates fight. As a result, Clinton largely got a pass on her three biggest weaknesses: her equivocation on driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, her vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and her vote in favor of the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq. On a question about playing the gender card -- another potential problem area -- Clinton was clearly prepared and delivered her line of the night: "People are not attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking me because I am ahead."

Barack Obama: Yes, we know he fumbled the same question (driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants) that Clinton muffed in the last debate. And, yes, of course he should have known that sort of question was coming and been better prepared to answer it cleanly. But, put that flub aside and Obama offered himself as a credible and -- more importantly -- safe alternative to Clinton in last night's debate. The first 15 minutes were dominated by a back and forth between him and Clinton (a good thing for a campaign trying to turn this into a two-person race) and for much of the rest of the debate Obama offered his "we can do more" vision succinctly and forcefully. "Don't keep on assuming we can't do something," Obama scolded Blitzer at one point. "I am running for president because I think we can do it."

Joe Biden: We can't help it, we like the guy. Biden is regularly the life of these debates -- launching self deprecating one-liners one minute and riffing on how he was introducing legislation before some of the candidates on the stage were even born the next. Biden is at his best when talking foreign policy and he got plenty of opportunities to do that last night. He spoke eloquently about the dangers posed by Iran and scored points on Pakistan by noting that he had spoken to both President Pervez Musharraf and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto before President Bush had.

LOSERS

John Edwards: For those pushing the idea that Clinton's decision to directly respond to Edwards was a sign that the race is now officially a three-way contest, we say hogwash. Clinton effectively shot Edwards down in their first exchange and when Edwards tried to again go at Clinton later in the debate he was all but booed down by the audience. Make no mistake: Edwards is an able debater who clearly knows what he believes and says it. But, for most of last night's debate it felt as though he were extraneous to the proceedings and when he did get his speaking time he seemed slightly too keyed up for the audience.

Chris Dodd: Despite his new haircut (we like it), Dodd had trouble standing out. His best moment was his impromptu Spanish outburst -- he was in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, he helpfully added -- but it wasn't enough to truly get him noticed. Dodd's problem in the debates is symptomatic of his larger problem in the race: he doesn't fit any niche. And, without a niche, he winds up falling through the cracks (humor us; it's been a long week.)

Debate Fairness Complaints: Going into these events, everyone knows the deal: the candidates at the top of state and national polls are going to get the most questions directed at them and the majority of the speaking time. If you aren't in that top tier, you have to find your own way to stand out (see Biden, Joe). Politics ain't beanbag.

By Chris Cillizza | November 16, 2007; 8:00 AM ET | Category: Eye on 2008
Previous: Hillary Hits Back | Next: The Line: Even for Senate GOP, Every Cloud Has a Silver Lining

Posted by: pcpatterson | November 16, 2007 11:33 AM

The only relevant and intelligent questions came from the audience. Wolf Blizter & the CNN reporters were a joke. They sounded like gossip spreaders " Edwards said this about you Hillary, Hillary said that about you Barack,and on and on." I was hoping someone would tell Wolf & crew to just shut up and let the audience ask the questions. Watching these "debates" one may as well be looking at Jerry Springer or Mauray .

Posted by: mazd273 | November 16, 2007 11:39 AM

"The first 15 minutes were dominated by a back and forth between he and Clinton"

Don't you have an editor - or a grammar book?

Posted by: JEANNEKCC | November 16, 2007 11:39 AM

Some Democrats have a short memory when it comes to Joe Biden. Remember, please, that he was the facilitator that pushed Clarence Thomas through the Senate for confirmation to the Supreme Court. Biden? No thank you, at least until he explains his connection to Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: stockelh | November 16, 2007 11:40 AM

when will americans realise that politians are all liers, anyone please can you say you trust anyone in congress to do anything for americans, only if it has money in it for them.

americans better look at the only one in congress that has the american people at heart with no string attached. none only does what the people wants. thats kinrich is the only TRUE AMERICAN TRYING TO SAVE AMERICA..PLEASE LOOK FOR YOUR SELVES AND READ THIS.

clinton helped make it law( why) lets ask her (WHY)

TO ALL AMERICA YES, CONGRESS HAS AGAIN SLAP AMERICANS RIGHT IN THE FACE WITH THIS, PLEASE DONT BELEIVE ME THAN GO AND READ THE LAW BUSH SIGN INTO LAW. ITS CALL THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT 2006, AND HIDDEN IN FINE PRINT CONGRESS HAS GIVEN THEMSELFS AND ANYONE WORKING IN THE GOVERNEMNT IMMUNEITY ON ANY THING THAT HAS HAPPEN IN THE WAKE OF THE WAR,OR ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN FIND. THIS IS THE BEST PART, THEY BACK DATED IT TO ( 1997) why????? why would they need to back date this all the way before 2001???? because they have been ease dropping on america way back then...think about it america, and you better think about this, cheney/bush/rumsfeld/rove/rice started this war on all lies on top of lies, and remember 18 out of 19 involved in 2001 was saudi araibans you know the king and bush hold hands walking in the woods??? and this is why bush said he doesn''''t care about finding bin laddan because bin is part of the royal family that bush loves.. so if you look at the hole law, hillary help get it into law, why why why sounds funning because her husband bill was president at that time in 1997..so what are they all hideing in washington??????????????? david a belanger,veteran,us army, 978-618-3105,for-america@hotmail.com so how can americans fight this,and get this change????

Posted by: wethepeople1 | November 16, 2007 11:40 AM

'So we continue with the jaw-dropping dumbing down of America...'

And so it is. Although the lack of real news and discussion on TV should no longer surprise anyone. I threw out my TV 3 years ago and switched to satellite radio. C-SPAN, BBC, and the internet give me more freedom and insights than any TV show.

Posted by: frankauer | November 16, 2007 11:40 AM

It seems to me that the top 3 candidates were politics as usual. Are we voting for someone whom we connect with as a person and like? OR someone based on what they have done NOT what they said what they are going to do! Talk is cheap and there was lots of that last night. I am new to this but it seems that Dennis Kucinich was the only straight shooter! Please help me out here. I don't want another me to or idiot president like we have now!

Posted by: ccc23e | November 16, 2007 11:43 AM

'They sounded like gossip spreaders " Edwards said this about you Hillary, Hillary said that about you Barack,and on and on." '

Blitzer's news program is based on that. he brings guests in and has them listen to what someone else said about them to get their reaction. It's all too depressing these days.

Posted by: frankauer | November 16, 2007 11:44 AM

Now that I had had a chance to sleep overnight, reassess the debate and review other columnists' assessments about the debate. I came to three conclusions: a) I agree with Chris Cillizza's assessments; b) The most annoying aspect of the debate was the simplistic questions posed by the hosts and the simple answers they demanded from the candidates; 3)Most of the thoughtful answers came from the second-tier candidates despite numerous attempts by the hosts to cut them off. I gained little insight from the debate aside from the theatrics of a TV broadcast.

Posted by: tzchu | November 16, 2007 11:44 AM

'Be patient, when the one on one debates start your comments will make some sence. I haven't read a one of the above that does'..

Thanks EdA.

In the meantime, try to find a dictionary or learn how to use spellcheck.

Posted by: frankauer | November 16, 2007 11:47 AM

I don't vote Democrat but if I were forced to after following these so called debates. I truly believe the most qualified genuine candidate would have to be Joe Biden, hands down.

Posted by: cdemar | November 16, 2007 11:48 AM

Things are looking up for the United States.

ALL of the candidaes of both parties are
better than George W. Bush.

Posted by: janye1 | November 16, 2007 11:50 AM

Hillary sounded shrill and defensive in her attack on Edwards and Obama. Like Edwards said, this ain't personal. She reminded me of a petulant GWBush, more than anyone.

While Obama was not as fluid as I would have liked to see him, he made more sense than anyone else in responding to stupid "gotcha" questions that were designed to make all dems look bad (hint: immigration is NOT a democratic issue, since Repubs are simply driving Hispanics over the the Dem side; they have absolutely no incentive to disrupt that stampede, at least during the primaries). Liked how he pushed back at Blitz on his negative premises.

Biden has taken Gravel's place as the cranky uncle. He will not, and can not make it to the first tier because, aside from his propensity to stick his foot in his mouth, he's a plagiarist, an unwitting racist, and comes across as an arrogant p***k. That, and, two sets of two words: HAIR PLUGS and FAKE TV TEETH.

EVERYONE looked bad under CNN's lighting, especially Hillary and Bill Richardson, who looked like his face was about to explode, spraying cheese all over the auditorium.

Who were those Hillary plants in the audience? Those folks seem incapable of playing fair. If nominated, she will lose.

Posted by: ched | November 16, 2007 11:52 AM

CNN seems to be distorting the news these days even more than Fox. Blitzer placed Clinton and Obama right in the middle of the stage, with Edwards over to the extreme right, out of the way. In the other two CNN Democratic debates I saw, Blitzer and Cooper asked Clinton and Obama about eighty percent of the questions, with not even a hint of trying to be fair with the other candidates. Last night, surpisingly, Blitzer got the other candidates more involved in the debate, but after the debate was over, about 95 percent of the CNN analysis that followed was devoted to discussing Clinton and Obama. Quite obviously, fairly reporting the news means nothing to CNN anymore. They are now simply another version of Fox "News."

Clinton accused Edwards of "mud-slinging" after he mentioned how she had flip-flopped on an issue in the span of a few days. That is a far cry from being mud-slinging, but how many of the CNN analysts picked up on that and discussed it? Absolutely none. What else can we expect from CNN anymore?

Amazing.

Posted by: Nammackjames | November 16, 2007 11:53 AM

If last night was a win for Obama, I would HATE to see what a loss would look like!

Posted by: JosephPalla | November 16, 2007 11:54 AM

HELP HELP HELP

Also, why do we settle for scripted events?

Posted by: ccc23e | November 16, 2007 11:56 AM

I enjoy the commentary, but such phrases as
"dominated by a back and forth between he and Clinton" are not English. Should be "between him and Clinton". Otherwise, great.

Posted by: skutay | November 16, 2007 11:57 AM

If Chris Clizzard had a brain, he might realize that ANYONE CAN EFFECTIVELY SHOOT DOWN AN ARGUMENT if the moderator refuses to let Edwards respond to it like he let everyone else do.

All John Edwards would have said, is "SHE'S THE ONE ACTING LIKE BUSH, BY PLANTING QUESTIONS IN THE AUDIENCE."

Blitzer knew it. Didn't let Edwards respond, even though he let every other candidate respond to a direct charge.

This whole debate was a set up, and for the corporate-owned media to keep trying to legitimize it further delegitimizes you.

Posted by: framecop | November 16, 2007 11:57 AM

One thing seems clear: the person who should be President won't be and that person is Joe Biden, the only authentic candidate on the stage last night (and at every other debate). The media started with Clinton and Edwards as the frontrunners last year, then decided that Obama was the story. Polls are a function of media coverage, not the other way around. After scoring point after point, Biden's post-convention coverage was nonexistent. Thank you Chris for at least putting him up front as a winner in your list. I'll keep praying for a miracle. The ticket I want to see is Biden-Obama.

Posted by: actorney | November 16, 2007 11:59 AM

I was waiting for HRC to answer a question last night. Her fallback position of "The American People Know Where I Stand" was used too many times to count.

After last night, I would definitely vote for Joe Biden over RG. Scary, huh?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | November 16, 2007 12:01 PM

""PLEASE YOUTUBE"" THE IRAN VOTE AND IRAQ WAR VET CLAPPING AGAINST ATTACKING IRAN WITH HIS MOM

Hillary also stated that she thought the american education system served us well ?? NOT ! !

AND THE TAX CAP

Hillary votes no to win votes but she won't speak the truth. Barack has the courage to speak the truth. Citizens need everybody to have drivers liscense so they can be monitored for insurance and accidents and alcohol related deaths. He also pointed out the need to PASS an imigration bill to get those people on a path to citizenship. They will be needed to feel like americans so they can keep our social secuirty system fluid.

Hillary also got BUSTED on her statement about not RAISING THE CAP on social secuirty because she says the tax increase will hurt the middle class!

Barack stated that the 6% getting paid 97,000.00 a year is NOT THE MIDDLE CLASS !

Hillary also stated that she thought the american education system served us well ?? NOT ! !

Hillary also got BUSTED on her vote for the kyle Lieberman and the mother and the Iraq war veteran son who clapped when the rest of the candidates pointed out they were AGAINST the Kyle Lieberman bill to make the Iranian guard a terrorist organization and how the bill also allows for Bush to keep troops in iraq !!

Yes Hillary got busted BIG TIME the truth always comes out.

Thank God we have a candidate like Barack Obama who speaks the truth and doesn't shift back and forth trying to get votes. Hillarys thinking people won't catch her shifting her point of view from one location (town) to another as she lies lies lies trying to sway the american voters !!

Posted by: PaProgressiveDem | November 16, 2007 12:03 PM

Why should I pay any attention to a Post analyst yet who can say (under Barack Obama--top of story) "between he and Clinton." Where is basic grammar?

Mary Ann Sullivan

Posted by: masullivan | November 16, 2007 12:04 PM

Wolf Blitzer and John Roberts put the lie to those who say FOX NEWS is the only conservative network.

Too bad there are so many of these things. This one was the one to watch.

It was actually funny and a pitched battle, if only at the beginning. I gave up before the real folks offered questions after the CNN journalists with their set but heard I didn't miss anything.

Clinton - easily won and looked like she had spent a fortune on her face and hair. Looked tough and presidential and slugged and stabbed the boys repeatedly while smiling and looking charming.

Obama - big loser. I wonder if he is really the candidate trying for VP or practicing for his next run. Totally flubbed the illegal immigrants with driver's license question which he should have been well-prepared for. After getting on to Clinton for waffling a minute earlier showed a bigger longer example and was called on it.

Wolf Blitzer was another big loser - made clear that FOX NEWS isn't the only conservative network.

Biden was good, loose and biting and ignored.

Dodd, who I had previously liked, was very dull and moved to the right.

Edwards tried to take it to Hillary and then realized he was only making himself look bad. As a lawyer he may have also been responding to the audience, majority for Clinton. That itself is a very troubling sign for his race - Nevada was supposed to be his state.

Richardson was typical in demonstrating how he is an expert on everything and continued auditioning for VP.

Kucinich must have been seething with the contempt and deliberate ignoring the journalists showed. He will not resign, his motive is to move the party to the left by getting his supporters to state conventions from caucuses.

Gravel must not have been able to afford a plane ticket but wasn't missed.

Prediction: by early February Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Gravel will be out of the race.

If Obama and Edwards don't stop Hillary in Iowa and New Hampshire by holding her to third it will be a very short race.

About my bias, my preferred candidates in order are Edwards, Biden, Obama, Richardson. Biden moved up tonight - Obama and Dodd down.

Posted by: gary_ | November 16, 2007 12:05 PM

The mood of the audience is immaterial to what a debater should say or do. John Edwards made a direct criticism of Hillary Clinton, and it was accurate. Don't hate him for that. In fact praise him!

Finally we are having debates where candidates are really arguing the issues and being forced to clarify where they stand on an issue, and not just their opinion, but also where they prioritize the particular issue in their presidency.

I compliment both CNN and MSNBC for doing what they could to create scenarios where the candidates would be open and candid about their views. This is all you can ask of a debate organizer.... to get candidates off their stump speeches and engaged into the arguments at hand.

Good Debate!

Posted by: mfischer | November 16, 2007 12:05 PM

For God's sake, you're a journalist, yet you write "between he and Clinton".

Posted by: serenasutton | November 16, 2007 12:05 PM

My two cents-
I think the notion can now be dispelled that clinton will not win the nomination. those clintons have a way of saying what people want to hear and adapting quickly and effectively to criticism. gone is the cackeling, the waffling. but now the answer to every question is "I'll start a panel, I'll begin a discussion, I'll ask everyone I know". why didn't I think of that?

Obama still looks juvenile and halting. he was flummoxed by a rube in the audience. he is toast. He equivocates worse than hillary now.

edwards looks meaner and angrier than ever. I guess that is what the left has become, but it is not telegenic. His shelf life is long past.

dodd makes sense but is boring.
Kucinich is still simply am amusement.
biden is the best on paper and I am not sure why he doesn't rise up more.
richardson is going to spend every cent we have for the next 100 years. Every time he opens his mouth the treasury empties.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 16, 2007 12:06 PM

Biden is certainly the most Presidential of the group. As for HRC stacking the audience you must realize that she is the heavy favorite in LAs Vegas area, and that percentage of the audience was equal. If they put equal numbers for each candidate in audience, then it would not have reflected that area. Kucinich doesn't look Presidential, but I admire his thinking. Team him with Biden and you have something. He certainly looks more "Vice Presidential" than Cheney!

Posted by: mmccloud1 | November 16, 2007 12:06 PM

Why the fuss about diamonds and pearls? It seemed obviously a planted question to get a few laughs and signal that time was up and the debate was over. Weren't you ready for it to end? Lighten up, everyone.

Posted by: crobins16 | November 16, 2007 12:08 PM

I agree with dmarble's comments about Hillary Clinton. The last thing we need is another extremely divisive president. While I think she might be more likely to win the election than dmarble does, I do believe that it would be a 51 to 49 victory at best and would definitely hurt down-ticket Democrats in swing states.

Posted by: jimd52 | November 16, 2007 12:08 PM

If Iowa Democrats and the Democratic Party in general allows the media to MANIPULATE THEM into nominating Hillary "CORPORATE LAWYER" Clinton, the Democratic Party can rot in Hell in 2008 as far as I am concerned.

No vote.
No MONEY from me.

The Democratic Party is the party of the people, not the CORPORATE LAWYER.

Posted by: framecop | November 16, 2007 12:08 PM

This so-called "debate" typfies how corporate media conspire to limit the scope of discourse. We were almost one half hour into this exercise before Mr. Kucinich was given a bone of a narrowly conscripted and unimportant question. The so-called "moderators" carefully avoided him when the issue of health care was discussed, and with solid, corporatist reason for doing so. Had he been allowed to address the topic, the American public would have been afforded the opportunity to compare the Conyers/Kucinich single payer plan which eliminates the unnecessary middle men that account for 31% of our spiraling healthcare costs to the variations on the same insurance industry subsidy schemes offered by Obama/Clinton/Edwards sham "universal coverage" proposals.

When it turned to audience questioning, the "moderators" adroitly evaded Kucinich on issues of Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran, especially after Biden's comment that invading Iran would lead to impeachment. This would have been the logical time to allow Kucinich to argue that we can't wait until "after" Cheney launches another war and that the time to impeach is now. When Kucinich tried to raise it, during the brief moments he was permitted to address an unrelated question, Blitzer cut him off, though not quickly enough to prevent a sustained applause.

The only way Americans will ever see a real "debate" on issues is to have one conducted on PBS by Bill Moyers with perhaps Democracy Now's Amy Goodman as a co-moderator. The only way to flesh out substance is to have an honest debate run by those who are not afraid to speak truth to power.

Posted by: cann4ing | November 16, 2007 12:10 PM

Another comment - CNN looked like the high school television lab, shooting people's feet, dead air, miscues, looking in the wrong camera, etc. One of the girls had the same color dress as the carpet, giving the floating head effect. It was really pronounced in the after debate show.

It must be very frustrating to work for a bozo outfit like that. no wonder the ratings are so low.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 16, 2007 12:10 PM

everyone that is complaining about the audience being pro-clinton needs to wake up and smell the polling.

you realize clinton is polling around 50% in nevada, right?

wouldn't that tell you if the audience is an accurate slice of the population there (i'm not saying that is is, but play along here) - that she's going to have more supporters?

it's tough when you're popular... people cheer for you.

i know that must be disheartening for obama and edwards fans - but reality can be painful. but don't expect to walk into a hall where half the resident population likes the leading candidate, and expect everyone to cheer you attacking her.

Posted by: priusdriver | November 16, 2007 12:11 PM

Who cares what kind of jewellery Clinton wants. Who cares who lied, all politicians lie when it saves them from being exposed as the ones who have no idea about the common man in America. I thought they all spoke like members of the Mickey Mouse club and I thought this was a debate. What was debated, other than generalities and even at that they did poorly, debates are about issues, and in presidental candidates debates, the issues should be about the issues the public has,not about what the candidates think about each other. And the audience acted as if they were watching one of those inane reality shows, choosing their favorite character by things that don't apply to who is the best candidate to become president.

Posted by: alcambell_9 | November 16, 2007 12:12 PM

I am a Hillary Clinton fan for a number of reasons, but I am no less a Joe Biden fan. And during every debate, I wonder why it is that Dems don't embrace him more than they do -- why Obama and Edwards raise more money than he does -- when clearly, if foreign policy is the issue that matters most right now (and it should be), all Dems should be backing Joe. If Hillary gets the nod, I now think Joe would be her best bet for a VP. It would be a formidable team.

I have yet to be impressed by Obama in any of the Dem debates. His halting speech makes me uncomfortable; he comes across as unsure and searching for words. Where is the Obama that delivered the eloquent, moving address at the 2004 convention?

And Edwards is the only viable Dem candidate for whom I could never cast a vote. I have as visceral a dislike for him as people do for Hillary. Edwards has gone so far left that, besides Kucinich, is the most unelectable of the Dems in a general election.

Posted by: femalenick | November 16, 2007 12:16 PM

As a right-leaning centerist and first time poster I'd like to give a few thoughts.

1. Joe Biden is great! If the Dems want to unit the country and take the presidency, they will ignore the far left and find a way to move him to the top tier.
2. A great analogy above that CNN turned the debate into a WWE Vince McMahon event. Did you all see the beginning when the candidates were introduced? I half expected The Allen Parson's Project/Bulls entrance music to be played in the background.
3. Is it that hard to ask the audience to not make outbursts (positive or negative) until the debate is over? That really turned me off.
4. As pissed off as a lot of you are with CNN's handling of this debate and the "got you" questions, and you should be, most of you will love it when they do to the same thing with the republicans later this month.

Posted by: frei0087 | November 16, 2007 12:17 PM

There is no "NEWS" in this country, on the major networks.

It's all "VIEWS." It's all commentary.

Blitzer's opinion.
Chris Clizzard's opinion.
Chris Matthews' opinion.
Jack Cafferty's opinion.
Lou Dobbs' spin.

The only place you may find some real news is on Jim Leher, DemocracyNow, and the BBC.

Otherwise, it's all COMMENTARY, and their opinion is no more important than yours or mine.

Always remember that.

This post talking about "Winners and Losers"? I'm sure other people posting here have journalistic or political science degrees, as well.

Who cares who this blogger thinks won? I can see for myself, and Clinton sucked. She didn't answer the questions, and she had supporters in the audience cheering her on from the beginning like that tool that asked about the "diamonds or pearls" who was clapping hard for Hillary all night.

Your opinion means as much as anyone's on CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News, because it's all "VIEWS." That's all they are giving you.

Tell all of your friends and family, LOL.

Posted by: framecop | November 16, 2007 12:17 PM

Winners:

Biden - see comments above. If the my fellow Dems are truly interested in getting a candidate who has experience, can deliver the needed change, and can WIN against any of the Republicans - Biden is far and away the best choice.

Clinton - she held her own and demonstrated exactly why she is a formidable candidate.

Richardson/Dodd/Kucinich - if given fair and balanced opportunities they would have come off much worse than they actually did. I think by being slighted by Wolfe Blitzer, they came off as sympathetic figures being largely ignored by an arrogant and dismissive press corps.

Losers:

Obama - so clearly out of his league, so clearly unprepared, so clearly fawned over by the press corps. The worst performance on the stage, and he is put in the winners column - the American people don't buy it - I don't care how much money Hollywood and the Chicago machine raise for him.

Edwards - A pit bull masquerading as a populist? Doesn't work.

CNN - I am so sick of the arrogant, self indulgent, sanctimonious network with entertainment reporters like Blitzer and Copper posing as informed moderators all while wearing Prada and talking down to everyone, candidates and the American people included. I'll take Tim Russert any day of the week over these lightweights.

Posted by: clawrence35 | November 16, 2007 12:17 PM

Joe Biden says more in a few seconds than the rest of the other talking heads, combined. No one comes close to his decisiveness and insight on the weightiest issues of foreign policy, civil liberties, Patriot Act, judiciary, etc. Will we see Biden become the next Cheney? Anyone smart enough to get him to join their ticket would get my vote.

Posted by: TeddyRoosevelt | November 16, 2007 12:19 PM

First off they are all losers. Not one single candidate cares about the United States of America or its citizens. This is an ego trip for all of them. Hillary Rotten Clinton is banking on going down in history as the first woman to break through the highest glass ceiling (she said that and the old women want to see her break through the ceiling) What kind of qualification is that for the office of President? She gets the vote because the women want to see her beat the boys. Are they really wanting to see her win so bad that they are willing to allow her to totally destroy the United States of America??

Posted by: marvin1 | November 16, 2007 12:21 PM

Cut and paste this somewhere to read again in November 2008 --

After reading the above comments I can draw only one conclusion:

ROMNEY WINS IN LANDSLIDE

Posted by: dan4u20878 | November 16, 2007 12:21 PM

I am always astonished when I read these comments about how "smart" Hillary or Obama or Edwards or Biden are. The one question that Dennis Kucinich keeps asking that none of the "top tier" candidates can answer is: why did you vote for the 2002 Iraq war resolution, with all the facts available to you clearly showing that there was no threat, and why do you continue to reinforce that disastrous vote by voting to give Bush everything he wants for his illegal wars?" This guy actually took the time to read the NIE about Iraq, cover to cover, analyze it, and come to a conclusion based on the facts. Then, he has each time voted against continuing to fund the ongoing war crimes. Why is it that so-called Democrats here studiously ignore the glaring weakness of the other candidates on that issue, and on "free trade" and on real universal health care, just because the Dems are so anxious for a "winner"??? Do you understand that, if any of the candidates I mentioned above are actually elected, we will only, at best, get change at the margins? Please wake up, people, and think about the disastrous direction this country is headed in, and who is most capable of actually leading it in another, significantly different and better direction!

Posted by: hawkwtchr | November 16, 2007 12:25 PM

The biggest looser coming out of this debate is CNN thanks to Wolf Blitzer. I've watched every single presidential debate and this is BY FAR the worst one.

It's the most unprofessional & unorganized to date, THANKS of course to Wolf Blitzer. A moderator is supposed to be in charge in controlling the situation in the room (how f***ing ironic) and Wolf did anything BUT. Allowing audiences to boo candidates while they're answering questions, him cutting the candidates off in the middle of their answers, not to mention he couldn't even conceal his "bias"ness & let it splashed all over the TV screen, is just plain - what's the word? - EMBARRASSING!!

A presidential debate in itself with 30 seconds to 1.5 minute answers has already become A BIG JOKE! But Wolf Blitzer took it to a whole new level last night, he sucessfully turned a PRESIDENTIAL debate into A 7 RING CIRCUS!! Congratulation CNN!!

Posted by: mmccunney | November 16, 2007 12:25 PM

Sorry, people, if you make over $97,000, you ARE upper class. As Obama said, you are in the top 6% of income in this country. Maybe you still have trouble paying your bills, but you probably have a nicer house in a nicer community than most people do. If you can't admit that you are among the fortunate few income-wise, there is something missing in your perspective. We can't ALL be middle-class!

Posted by: dn1021 | November 16, 2007 12:25 PM

I came away believing the fix was in. It looked to me like the questions might have been planted in the group of 100. Did anyone notice how that one woman asked the question. She kept trying to ask the question the way she had memorized it. Look at the tape. It was awful. Lou D. should have been the host. Wolf just simply sucked at being the host. CNN I believe stacked the deck, period.

Still it was a good night Joe Biden. He was articulate, honest and straight forward with his answers. He showed he had the experience. When you cut through all the crap; he won. To bad he wont win.

Posted by: rgtalam | November 16, 2007 12:27 PM

I disagree with part of Cillizza's analysis of the debate. Here are my winners and losers

Winners
1) Hillary Clinton:
She did well countering Edwards and Obama in the beginning of the debate. Also, her answer to the question regarding human rights vs. national security was well done. And her answer to the gender question was brilliant. She denied using gender as an advantage and came back to using gender to her advantage later in the answer without anybody noticing. Finally, CNN's impartiality for Clinton showed i.e. up angle camera shot (power shot) of Clinton during the debate, and the post-debate analysis.

Joe Biden:
He has yet to disappoint in a debate and is finally getting recognition. Biden has aptly been able to play two roles during the debates; the serious, authoritative, straightfoward policy guru and the funny, self-deprecating, charismatic leader (as CC pointed out). Again and first to do so, I argue the Rocky analogy. Biden is commonly thought of as an over-the-hill politician who already squandered his best chance to reaching higher office. The scenario is akin to Rocky -- an over-the-hill boxer who missed his prime -- and we all know what happened in that story. Look for Biden to do better than expected in Iowa

Chris Dodd:
This is one place where I disagree with CC. Dodd stood out last night for thoughtful and responsible answers. Juxtapose Dodd's answers to Edwards', Kucinich's, and Richardson's and he stands out even more. The Spanish was a nice touch too.

Losers:

Barack Obama:
Clinton beat him up in the first 15 min and Obama never really made it back. He did well the rest of the debate, but it did not redeem his performance in the first 15.

John Edwards:
When you have Kucinich pointing out your inconsistent statements and positions it does not bold well. In addition, Clinton and the crowd clobbered hiim. His performance last night only reinforces what I have always said about Edwards. He will do and say anything to get elected. And that is not very genuine.

Bill Richardson:
He had a better performance then his previous debates. But, Richardson had so much to improve on that a slightly good debate makes him a loser here.

Dennis Kucinich:
Lately, Kucinich has been garnering praise on the internet and blogs for his principled and alleged truthful positions. The idea that Kucinich is telling the truth is confounding. I used to ignore the praise for Kucinich but cannot anymore. Kucinich blatantly misleads on almost every answer. For example, his position that preemptive military action violates international law. This argument cannot be further from the truth. The doctrine of preemeption is 1) codified by the UN, and 2) has been legally acceptable through past precedent. Notice how when Kucinich gets on his soap box he never explains why and how something is illegal. He consistently fails to give stark details or proof for his assertions. If Kucinich was being truthful a better argument would be that the Bush Administration's Iraq invasion was not preemption but prevention and therefore violative of international law. This is only one of many examples of Kucinich misleading voters.

CNN:
Pathetic debate coverage.

Posted by: Pscoots14 | November 16, 2007 12:30 PM

I stopped watching when Blitzer kept cutting people off in mid-sentence. Sure there needs to be some control, but it was very uneven and I wasn't there to watch the Wolfman. He clearly favors Lou Dobbs for president based on his framing of questions, and repeatedly cut out Edwards. Please no more Wolf.
For me, an undecided, Hillary was the big loser because of her claim that removing the caps would hurt the middle class. Hah! She's voted and sounded like a republican too many times.
I don't think I'll vote for any of the front runners, but Obama is still in the running. After last night, I'm leaning toward Kucinich, Richardson, Biden or Dodd, in that order.
My main reaction is disgust at Blitzer. He wasn't supposed to be the show but seems stuck in infotainment as a superstar who can't get out of the way.

Posted by: buenperico | November 16, 2007 12:31 PM

Choreographed booing won't help Her Royal Clintoness in general election debates, and neither will avoiding tough questions now that will re-appear in the fall by playing damsel in distress.

Posted by: akononchuk | November 16, 2007 12:32 PM

The program was so stupid I turned it off before it was over. The candidates are running for President, a Federal office. Our Federal Govt does not issue driver's licenses; the states do that. Blitzer was a silly moderator and wasted too much time on the drivers license question. None of the candidates looked great, but none was as ridiculous as poor Blitzer. He reminded me of a dopey little kid trying to get some big kids into a fight.
Helen Lane

Posted by: Joel_M_Lane | November 16, 2007 12:36 PM

Posted by: Joel_M_Lane | November 16, 2007 12:38 PM

We must ask ourselves, at what cost will we allow Hillary Rodham Clinton achieve this career goal of hers?

It amazes me, how we are allowing Bill Clinton to be out on the stomping campaign for her. Isn't this about her being "the best qualified?" Or are we willing to look the other way at what they are doing?

Everyone feels sorry for her because she is a "woman" running for President of the United States. The other candidates can't say too much about her because then it will be "they are picking on her because she is a woman." Now she wants preferential treatment. Bill Clinton had to step in to defend her. If Bill Clinton was not on the campaign trail with his book "Giving," would we really be giving Hillary Clinton the time of day? They are getting double media coverage and attention. Unfair.

If she can't handle this now, how will she handle the foreign nations, who are going to be tough and quit nasty when things continue to detoriate in America. How will she handle that? Will she run to Bill to defend her and us?

Let's look at this very closely. If we are not willing to ask this one question, why every news reporter, Debate anchor, and even us on the question of "the best qualified," Where was Hillary Rodham Clinton when the Office of the President of the United States, the very office she is running for was put in a compromising position? Where was Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Where?

She was thinking about how she was going to run for President of the United States. How she was going to get every one of us to unconsciously feel sorry for her. Have Bill Clinton out on the campaign trail, daring us to not ask that question, hoping that we will forget. That is the highest office in this country. How can we be so naive or have the audacity to even bring that up?

If we do not bring that up, how can we trust her to be President of the United States without knowing, if she will protect us from all harm? Or will she put us in a compromising position with our foreign allies and enemies?

If she could not protect us then, how can we trust her to protect us for four years?

I said all that to say this, every time I look at her and see Mr. Clinton, I feel sorry for him. That he would allow her to use him for her personal ambition. It is not about us. With all due respect, it is about her being over Mr. Clinton, Ms. Pelosi and every other candidate running at the expense of our safety and respect in the world.

At the end of the day, what difference will it make?

Let's be honest. Everyone is afraid if they don't elect her, Barack Obama may win.

At what cost, are we willing to close our eyes and pretend what happened did not happen? At the cost of "truth."

So who are we fooling, again?

Ourselves.

Posted by: vgw22 | November 16, 2007 12:38 PM

I thought all candidates did very wellin last night's debate. Each had good messages for voters. It's refreshing to see candidates who want to end this phony war and reverse the course Bush has set for America. Bush has the full support from ALL the Republican presidential candidates who insist on continuing his stupid push to destroy this country in the name of saving it. Go Democrats.

Posted by: CharlieWilliams | November 16, 2007 12:38 PM

I'd like to add a couple of additional comments about Mr. Biden, who seems to be the darling of some of those posting here. Remember, please, that this is the man who is so strenuously arguing for a "rational" solution to the Iraq war, that still includes troops left in Iraq and surrounding countries. Under WHAT authority, Mr. Biden? We have no UN authorization, nor should we. He still doesn't get it about how unconstitutional this is. He also voted, hook, line and sinker, for the USA PATRIOT Act. Now, he wants it "tweaked". How is that decisive leadership when this act, too, is so clearly unconstitutional? His shepherding of Clarence Thomas onto the Supreme Court, as noted earlier, also shows lack of deep investigation and thinking ability. He, too, continues to vote all the money Bush/Cheney want for their illegal, immoral wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If that is leadership, please give me another leader. One of this type, we already have.

Posted by: hawkwtchr | November 16, 2007 12:41 PM

Barrack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton CANNOT beat Mike Huckabee. He can run oratory circles around the both of these creeps. Huckabee is a prolific debater. He is 'Reaganesque' in style: a great communicator, iconic optimist, and a strong former governor. He will draw away more moderate and conservative dems from the democratic ticket than Reagan ever dreamed about. Huckabee is also a 'Licolnesque' figure: frugal beginnings, a great visionary, and a moral godly man who stands on his convictions, even though he was told (like Lincoln) he could not win. HRC and Barrack Hussein Obama will say anything to get elected. When are you dems going to realize that in order to win the presidency you need a conservative in your party to run for the nomination, other wise you write off the south every time?

Guess what? Huckabee is winning now! Just look at the polls! He is gaining so rapidly, has the momentum, and will be the GOP nominee. Better luck eight years from now Dems!!!

Posted by: bryantew | November 16, 2007 12:41 PM

Why so much emphasis on how the audience reacted? Are we now making our important decisions about presidents based on how they play a crowd?

Please....

Posted by: musichub | November 16, 2007 12:42 PM

It was nice to be one of the dozen or so people who watched this thing. I actually TiVo'd it and zapped the debate just so I can watch the commercials.

When will Al Gore jump in the race and bring some Goring Experience to this boring field?

Al Gore not a bore? Wow ... times do have changed!

Metin
Newport Beach
www.TalkTurkey.us

Posted by: metin1 | November 16, 2007 12:42 PM

Does Marrying Bill Clinton Qualify Someone To Be President?
By John Hawkins
Friday, November 16, 2007

If a CEO of a fortune 500 company were to retire, would anyone seriously consider his wife to be an adequate replacement simply because she was married to him when he ran the company? What about a Super Bowl winning football team? What do you think the reaction of their fans would be if their coach's wife was being seriously discussed as his replacement?

It sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Yet, Hillary Clinton has practically been anointed by the press and the punditocracy as our next President, despite the fact that her run at the presidency is almost entirely based on being Bill Clinton's wife.

By that, I mean that if Bill Clinton had meant the sweet nothings that he whispered in Monica Lewinsky's ear and he had divorced Hillary and married Monica, today Monica would be planning her Senate reelection campaign while Hillary would probably be working as a lobbyist for the Chinese toy manufacturers association.

But isn't Hillary Clinton is a brilliant politician in her own right? Oh, please. She has been involved in more scandals than the whole rest of the Democratic and Republican fields combined, she's a participant in an off-putting sham marriage, she has minimal charisma, she is one of the most polarizing figures in politics, she has a reputation as a shameless liar, and so far, in her entire tenure in the Senate, she has never once accomplished anything of great significance or displayed notable leadership on any issue. Additionally, this is a woman who has gotten away with taking bribes, which is what her famous "cattle futures" scandal was really all about and had she been Hillary Jones, ordinary person, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, First Lady, she would have ended up in a jail cell over White Water.

However, if you listen to the talking heads on TV, she's talked about as if she's a political genius. Does it make you a political genius to poll test every publicly stated position you have and then script out a response that allows you to change your position and go the other way if public opinion changes or, more importantly, if you think you can get away with it? Maybe it does -- if you can come across as being genuine while you do it. But, Hillary comes across as exactly what she is: An amoral shrew who's willing to lie about anything and everything, destroy the lives of people who get in her way, and help cover up and enable the frequent affairs of her husband, all because she has an all-consuming urge to achieve power for power's sake -- and that's just what liberal Democrats like John Edwards and Maureen Dowd think of her. Republicans generally aren't as kind in their assessments of her personality and character.

So, how in the world has she managed to become the favorite in the race for the presidency? Simple: because of her husband, she has been the beneficiary of a double standard that is outrageous, even by the standards of the mainstream media.

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/11/16/does_marrying_bill_clinton_qualify_someone_to_be_president

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 16, 2007 12:43 PM

The CNN post debate analysis was so pro Clinton I thought we were watching a different debate. Two former Clinton Admin. staffers.....What happened to Gergen's typical insightfull perspective - maybe too much time at Harvard.

I am a 50 year old caucasian independent who voted for Bush twice. If the Republican nominee is anyone but Rudy or Romney I could easily vote for Biden, Dodd, or Obama.

I am having a really hard time understanding why the media keeps publishing these national polls where Clinton's name recognition is huge - meaningless.

Margret Thatcher, Golda Mier..., Janet Napolitano..fine - I don't have a gender issuue. But exactly what experience and responsibility does HRC really have. First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of US means you never had the responsibility, your experiece is second hand at best.

Her Senate elections in NY were against weak opponents and the Senate offers no executive experience. Maybe a Jack Kennedy or Obama who are inspirational can bridge that lack of executive experience.

HRC is a product of the special interests, the politics of parsing is so obvious. YES please some reporter check out the audience - allowing the pro Clinton audience to sway the debate is just wrong. Either have no audiece applause and hoots or give equal tickets to aggressive partisan audience members.

Democrats nostalgia for Bill Clinton has gone to far (a backdoor 3rd term for Bill) and the Democrats are going to hand the Republicans a victory.

Imagine Mitt Romney (a Republican who actually won election in a Democratic state and whose executive resume dwarfs HRC) versus HRC - we are in a time of war and I seriously doubt the majority would vote HRC commander in chief if they did not think they were voting for Bill in the background.

I can't believe it - but HRC makes Al Gore look pretty good, the Dem's and the media should reconsider giving away the White House.

HRC is divisive - I would not vote for here under any circumstances - same for my wife and business partner - I guess I am part of that solid 50% negative polling. These debates just continue to reinforce my negative impression of a candidate who lacks experience and honesty.

Posted by: weinbob | November 16, 2007 12:45 PM

JimD: "The last thing we need is another extremely divisive president. While I think she might be more likely to win the election than dmarble does, I do believe that it would be a 51 to 49 victory at best and would definitely hurt down-ticket Democrats in swing states."

JimD: You do understand the regardless of which combination of candidates we have to choose from in the general election, the spread is going to be, at the very most, 55-45 one way or the other. So that makes all of the candidates "extremely divisive," which is of course ridiculous.

Can we stop talking about "extremely divisive" candidates? It's a red herring. There's not going to be a kum-bay-yah moment regardless of who the next president is, folks.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | November 16, 2007 12:47 PM

When Cilizza says it was draw (well he hast to earn living maintaining the fiction this is a horserace), and Clinton haters call it a draw, whinge about how can anyone like that woman, spit feathers about various faux issue, shoot the messenger poor old Blitzer: yu have to know she was hittin the out of the park. A couple of my buddies who are devoted Edwardians have admitted she was cool last night she looked , yep, presidential.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | November 16, 2007 12:47 PM

I have liked Joe Biden for quite some time and have often wondered just why he wasn't getting more love in the campaign. Perhaps there is still time for this to happen. I think this was one of the best efforts by Biden and received as well.

Do you get a little tired of the Hillary "haters" who can find no reason for their sometimes questionable coments other than the "hate any Clinton" attitudes? If Biden is not able to make it, my choice would come down to Clinton or Obama and would probably be Clinton. Although if Obama had four more years experience, he could very well be the choice. I like Obama's thought process and agree with his message of change but this doesn't get done without experience. I remember another good man coming in with a message of change. As with Obama, he too had state government and one term Senate experience. Remember, Mr. Carter. A really good man with a good message but he was unable to bring but little success to his four years in the White House. Not because of a lack of intellengence or character but simply a lack of experience.

Edwards, you can have him just as long as you take him far away. The idea of this guy in the White House makes Giuliani look like a good choice. Edwards has not and can not sell his message to the public and is trying to club his way into the picture with personal attacks that are beginning to get old. It isn't going to work and I think tonight showed the beginning of the end for him. The response of the crowd (Hillary didn't plant the crowd and had no more imput on their attendence than you or me) was an indication to me that people are tired of personal attacks and want to see some substance in campaign messages. His mistake, substance he dosen't have and is beginning to spin out of control. You could see and hear it in the debate last night. Hillary and Obama is not Edward's problem, he should be woring about Joe Biden. Biden will be moving into the top three by the time we get through NH.

Posted by: 1ken | November 16, 2007 12:47 PM

Winners:

Clinton - Was solid and tough, and got a lot of help from the crowd and question selection. The winner on points as far as effective debating tactics, but that's not the only determining factor in the public's vote. I'm not sure this debate completely stopped the bleeding either, if only because she got a pass on so many major issues.

Obama - Did a great job of challenging the presumption of the human rights/security question and engaging Clinton on social security funding. But the drivers' licenses question looked like a waffle and he didn't get the best of Clinton at the start. All in all, as Chris says, he did a good job of presenting himself as a credible, safe alternative to Hillary. I think that's a very big deal given Hillary's general election negatives.

Biden - Repeatedly on point, the best of the second tier. VP Material for Obama or Edwards as an elder statesman with foreign policy cred? The plagiarism thing and his reputation as a "walking gaffe machine" are what doom him as a presidential choice.

Losers:

Edwards: Really didn't connect. His position on stage didn't help. His jabs were artless and I think the ongoing negativity may lose him some voters to Obama in the race to be the anti-Hillary. Was that a stacked crowd though?

Richardson: "Excruciating" and "blowhard" were the terms used in the group I was watching with. He's a governor. He's the energy president. He's the education president. He's a governor.

Dodd: Was fine when he was paid attention to, which wasn't much. He's out of time.

Wolf Blitzer: There are no words. There's a difference between not answering a question, and answering a question within a broader context. Complex geopolitical decisions are never black and white, you nitwit.

CNN: For idiot hosts and unbelievably stacked pro-Hillary post-debate coverage.

FWIW, I was watching with a large 20-something crowd online, and the consensus in our group was that Obama and Biden walked away with it easily.

Posted by: jtmorgan61 | November 16, 2007 12:49 PM

weinbob admits responsibility for inflicting the worst president since the war on the country and then gives us a lecture on how bad Clinton is and he would never vote for her. Well you've already demonstrated you are not entirely rational bob.

Posted by: johnbsmrk | November 16, 2007 12:50 PM

I like to see real issue debates rather than one-minute talking points presentation.

Who should be out of these next debates before Iowa?
1)Gravel is already out.
2)Dodd should be next.
3)Kucinich should follow after that.
4)Richardson (before NH)

Posted by: pradhan | November 16, 2007 12:52 PM

I find it hilarious listening to the so-called political "analysts" carefully scrutinizing the qualifications for the Presidency of candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, et al...where were these sages and political pundits when George W. Bush slouched onto the scene and got his Poppi-appointed Supreme Court buddies to hand him the Presidency. One thing that Dubya has done with his eight years as President is lower the bar to sub-surface levels for any future canddidate. With Bush as the role model it is clear that a pinworm has equally credible credentials for becoming President.

Posted by: Jerryvov | November 16, 2007 12:54 PM

I am angling for chelsea in 2016. she has just about as much experience as hillary. we could have clintons for the next 16 years.

three for the price of one.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 16, 2007 12:56 PM

Yes, she did manage, again, because of who her husband was, to get elected as a Senator in New York, one of the most liberal states in the nation, but that's a rather thin reed to use as justification for a run at the Presidency. Just as a point of comparison, Dan Quayle was relentlessly bashed as being too inexperienced and green to be Vice-President, despite the fact that he has served in the Senate just as long as Hillary Clinton and had spent two terms as a Congressman besides. Even more impressively, Quayle won office on his own merit, not because he happened to have married the right person.

What it all boils down to is that Hillary Clinton is Kevin Federline becoming famous because he was married to Britney Spears. She's "Brownie" being appointed as head of FEMA, not because he was the best-qualified person for the job, but because he knew the right person. She's every 22 year old "C" student with a business degree who has been allowed to leapfrog over dozens of more capable people and start as a top executive because his daddy happens to be a heavy hitter in the company.

Posted by: kingofzouk | November 16, 2007 12:57 PM

If you want a reason to hate Hillary try looking at her answer on merit pay for teachers last night. In her very Clintonesque way, she said she doesn't support it. Then she said bad teachers should be weeded out of the system.

How exactly? Your teacher's unions will not allow such a thing Mrs. Clinton. That would have been a nice time for a follow up from Wolf. Unfortunately, everyone on the stage is similarly in the tank on education. It's a shame.

Posted by: Glass_Half_Full | November 16, 2007 12:58 PM

Debate? What debate? I was on an intercollegiate team 50 years ago when I last witnessed a debate. That thing last night, like all those things since Kennedy v. Nixon 47 years ago, was nothing other than a news bite contest. Please, news media, STOP CALLING THESE THINGS DEBATES. You insult not only the candidates, but the intelligence of the American public when you do so.

Posted by: chartwl | November 16, 2007 01:02 PM

Elioto 1 said, "BUT OBAMA (CONVENIENTLY) WAS TOO BUSY TOO VOTE!!! HOW CAN OBAMA CRITICIZE?"
Absolutely, I idealogically agree with Barack, but he has missed what 30% of votes this session. He has absolutely no credibility, IMHO. It is really unfortunate, because he is a man that I could follow.
I have to add that while the crowd's booing was inappropriate, it was NOT undeserved. Edwards has spent too much time criticizing his opponents, and not enough time on

Tech Stand

Uigei — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:08:10 EST

Obama shares his tech plan today in valley visitThe San Jose Mercury News | November 14, 2007

By Matt Marshall

Barack Obama will unveil several new technology policy initiatives today during a visit to Silicon Valley, including a proposal for a national technology czar called a "chief technology officer," VentureBeat has learned.

The Democratic presidential candidate comes to California seeking to bolster his standings here, where he currently trails front-runner Hillary Clinton in most opinion polls.

Obama's tech agenda, including the CTO proposal, should play well with the employees at Google, the Mountain View search engine, where Obama will visit this afternoon, among other stops.

The CTO's mandate under the plan is significantly different from the cybersecurity czar position created by the Bush administration. The CTO's main responsibility would be to ensure the government holds open meetings and records live Webcasts of those meetings, and that blogging software, wikis (Web site pages where multiple people can edit a document at the same time) and open comments be used to communicate policies with Americans.

Obama's technology plan covers everything from providing new subsidies for Internet broadband access to increasing permanent visas for skilled immigrants.

His campaign has long stressed the need for open government meetings and more transparency. But his plan reveals more specifics. He wants Cabinet officials, government executives and rule-making agencies to hold meetings open to the public and transmitted with a live feed. The
Advertisement
CTO's mandate will be to ensure this happens, according to Obama's campaign managers, who spoke with VentureBeat.

Specifically, Obama wants the public to be able to comment on the White House Web site for five days before legislation is signed.

Several well-known local figures are expected to announce their support for Obama's plan, including two former FCC chairmen under President Clinton: Stanford University legal expert Larry Lessig and John Roos, chief executive of Palo Alto law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Roos, one of Obama's top fundraisers, said Silicon Valley start-ups will be encouraged by Obama's call this month for a clean technology venture capital fund backed by a whopping $50 billion in federal money over five years.

In the plan, Obama also calls for more aggressive government support of broadband access. Specifically, he says subsidies for phone carriers should be given only to those offering both regular phone service and Internet broadband to rural areas. To date, carriers offering merely phone service have been able to claim subsidies from the so-called Universal Service Fund, giving them little incentive to roll out out broadband.

Obama also calls for reviewing the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to open the wireless spectrum for competition. He thinks the FCC may not have gone far enough with its recent ruling, according to campaign managers who asked not to be named. He wants to conduct a multiyear review but is leaning toward pushing for the opening of some spectrum on the 700 MHz band so third parties can lease it on a wholesale basis.

This is to ensure that the winners of a pending auction for the spectrum - expected to be large phone carriers like Verizon - don't just sit on the spectrum and not use it. Some fear they may do that to block others from competing with them.

Obama's proposals are supported by Google, which is expected to bid on the wireless spectrum.

The candidate also is in favor of network neutrality, a policy that would prevent Internet service providers from charging companies like Google extra to ensure the speedy transfer of data over the Internet.

Read the full article from The San Jose Mercury News

Paid for by Obama for America

Hmmmm

Uigei — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:46:02 EST

Lee Pham sent this to me

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/

The link is to a PBS feature that is a must read on Hillary and the
Bill Clinton years. Quoting a Washington Post blog entry about the
web feature:

"I came across an interesting website from ABC News and PBS/Frontline
on the Clinton years,
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton). It is
revealing for what it exposes as key lessons in the Clinton textbook.

In a word, fascinating. I had watched the original, but like so many
pieces of political reporting it settled in the dark recesses of an
overcrowded mind. Stumbling upon it today was like rediscovering a
once read, but long-lost book: you kind of remember the plot, but the
twists and turns were missing. It is worth revisiting.

On the First Lady, Robert Reich said: She had not been elected to
anything. She had not been directly or formally appointed to anything,
and because she was the wife of the President, it was difficult for
people to criticize her, kind of a subtle intimidation. "...others
feared her wrath." It was Hillary's refusal to cooperate with the
request from the Washington Post (and the rest of the press) that blew
up Whitewater. "You didn't want to get on the wring side of Hillary."

David Gergen said he thought it was a mistake to have put her in
charge of healthcare. It was Hillary who brought Dick Morris (longtime
Republican "operative" and one-time Clinton advisor during the
Arkansas years) back to the White House to employ Hegel's principles
of thesis, antithesis and synthesis -- better known to the rest of us
as "triangulation." George Stephanopoulous called triangulation "empty
of substance" and amoral. Morris' key advice during the early years of
the Clinton White House was to "stop trying to get elected for the
right reasons and just get elected." Al Gore -- although he was
elected as Vice President -- took a back seat to Hillary who called
the shots. (Perhaps that explains why Hillary is so reluctant to
release the correspondence between the former President and First
Lady.)

Re-reading some of this is like playing a special edition of the
parlor game "Clue:"

Hillary at the Rose Law Firm with the Whitewater investments. Bill
with the Arkansas state troopers procuring female "talent." Bill in
the Governor's mansion with Gennifer Flowers and the 12 year affair.
Hillary and the FBI at the White House travel office firing longtime
staffers (all re-instated and those charged with "crimes" acquitted.)
Hillary and the missing legal papers from Vince Foster's office. Bill
and Paula Jones at the courthouse about the sexual harassment charges
(settled ultimately out of court for an undisclosed sum paid to Ms.
Jones.) Hillary and the subpoena to testify before grand jury and
House and Senate. Bill and Hill forced to appoint a special prosecutor
(Fiske) (because Hillary refused request for documents from WashPost.
Sound familiar?) Hillary and Ira Magaziner fail at secret healthcare
plan. Bill and Hill and Newt with the '94 Republican election
landslide. Bill and Hill propose welfare reform that Labor Sec'y
Robert Reich calls "immoral" for the harsh penalties it imposes the
poor and working poor. Bill and Hill shut down the government. Bill
and Monica with a thong in the President's office. "I did not have
sexual relations, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Hillary and Matt
Lauer and the vast right wing conspiracy. House and Senate
investigate. Special Prosecutor (Starr) expands the scope of his
investigation and publishes a lurid bestseller. Bill and the grand
jury testimony ("It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.") Bill and
the House in the impeachment hearings and vote. Bill and the Senate
and impeachment vote acquittal.

There is more, but there is also Clinton fatigue. And Hillary, in the
words here of White House insiders was at the center of it all,
directing -- dictating -- the actions and reactions of nearly everyone
on everything.

I will take Barack Obama's freshness instead of warmed over Clinton
scandal, petty politics, secrecy, maneuvering, obstruction and perjury
any day."

--

Meet The Press

Uigei — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:02:37 EST

Senator Obama will be on "Meet The Press" next Sunday, November 11, 2007 @ 8:00 AM PST....Other areas please check your local listings.....Please be available to tune in and to support the Senator.

Blessings

Saturday Night Live

Uigei — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:39:33 EDT

The Senator just opened for SNL....he is something else ! I smiled from ear to ear. We are truly blessed to be a part of this campaign.

Blessings

They are on their marks !

Uigei — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 02:14:48 EDT

These past few days have been nothing less than intense. We have had to respond to so many negative comments and blatant lies on behalf of Senator Obama. I'm up for it. Keep reading, stay on top of the Senator's responce to the issues. Know where he stands on the issues. Know where you stand on the issues.

This is just the beginning. Those that are against Senator Obama will find a way to get their smut to the forefront. They are on their marks. So are we ! Now is not the time for the weak or the faint of heart. They aim to win. So do we !

Be prepared to defend Our candidates integrity, and his vision. Senator Obama is the catalyst to our country getting it's standing back. He is a unifying soul. He has been nothing but an inspiration to us.

We need you now more than ever. If you have only been a tepid volunteer, we need you to turn the fire up. There is a place for you in this campaign. The Senator is holding our hand. We can do this. Senator Obama is going to be the President of the United States. No matter what those scoffers spew, Senator Obama is going to be the President of these United States.

Wisdom and Light

Obama in East Los Angeles - a volunteers perspective

Julia from Pasadena — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:23:19 EDT

I got to see Barack Obama in East Los Angeles today. Here are LOTS of pictures to show all that went on.

WMD'S

Uigei — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:02:19 EDT

If there were weapons of mass destruction...why haven't they used them ? We know that whole premise was a lie ! We are living a lie and for way too long our Congress has been a party to it. We should question all of the members as to what they were and are thinking. They all should be held accountable. I know this topic has been discussed before, however it really hit me hard again today. It has been on my mind all day. We got played !

Remember in the day when we all sang "I ain't gonna study war no more, I ain't gonna study war no more, I ain't gonna study war no more no more. What happened to that sentiment ? Did only some of us believe and sing those words ?

Why are we still practicing "The Art of War" ? We are so technically advanced and we have matured and evolved so much....or have we ? Why are we still harboring primal instincts in relationship to each other ? We are better than that. We are beyond the cave ! I ain't gonna study war no more !

Peace

Freedom of Speech at UNR Still Under Discussion

Zachary Scott Edwards — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:23:00 EDT

If the University of Nevada, Reno has its way, Maritza Perez, the Vice-President of the Students for Barack Obama UNR chapter, won’t be able to practice her freedom of speech by placing a Barack Obama sign and an anti-war sign in her 4th floor dorm-room window.

From left to right: Boris, Marysa, Barack, Maritza, Jeb

The ACLU has now gotten involved and is advising Maritza on her upcoming discussions with the school administrators. The official policy of UNR is to not allow any signs in dorm room windows—so that they don’t have to make decisions over what is “offensive.”

The Nevada Sagebrush has been doing great in-depth reporting on this controversy and contacted Lee Rowland, the staff attorney for the ACLU about the upcoming conflict with school administrators:

Rowland said this is a First Amendment issue and laughed when she learned the university banned signs because they didn’t want to deal with obscene speech.
“Quite frankly, (banning signs because) some speech might be offensive or disruptive is absolutely ludicrous, especially from a government entity like UNR,” Rowland said.

The University of Nevada, Reno was the first institute of higher learning in Nevada and was established in 1887. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas broke free from UNR in 1964 and began to call its students the “Rebels” to solidify their newfound freedom.

It looks like students at UNR are still fighting to level the playing field—and university administrators are still pushing back against anyone who wishes to use their freedom of speech—whether that be to support a Democratic presidential candidate, or protest the Iraq War.

UNR President Milton Glick said that “It’s one of those issues where good people can disagree on it.”

Civil rights should not be written off with such ease. Mr. Glick, we respectfully disagree with you.

If you would like to join the Students for Obama movement:

Myspace:

Nevada for Obama

Facebook:

Obama for America-Nevada

Northern Nevada Students for Obama

UNLV Students for Barack Obama

Nevada Students for Obama

MyBarackObama.com:

Nevada Students for Obama

Privacy and Civil Liberties

Nevada Youth Vote Director:

Justo Robles

jrobles@barackobama.com

Join the Official Obama Drive for Change to Nevada!

Zachary Scott Edwards — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:00:00 EDT

Have you heard about the Nevada Drive for Change? Read this week’s LA Times article!

…But Nevada's program has an added dimension: "We are surrounded by February 5th states," said Obama's campaign director in Nevada, David Cohen, referring to primaries scheduled in California, Arizona, Idaho and Utah. That makes Nevada prime training ground for volunteers from the other states.

"This is important from a larger, strategic perspective," Cohen said.

Come Join A Drive for Change!

Hello Friends from California:

You have the chance to make a huge and significant impact on the 2008 Democratic nomination process. Next weekend, October 6th and 7th, Come to Las Vegas and change the course of this election by helping out in Nevada. Then, take what you learn back to California! If you would like housing and/or a ride, we can provide that and you will get lunch and dinner on Saturday. This will be a phenomenal weekend. There are five reasons to make it out to Nevada.

1) It is one of the most important things we can do to make sure Senator Obama is the nominee. There is a reason that Iowa and New Hampshire have historically gotten so much attention. What happens there has ripples across the country and literally changes the course of elections.
Now Nevada is in this position and you have the unique opportunity to make a difference in that process.
2) You will get VAN, phone banking, and pledge card chase training for your team from one of the amazing members of the Las Vegas team.
3) You will learn skills and practices that work. You will also see what a well-structured campaign office can be. We want you to take these skills and structures and replicate them in your Congressional Districts.
4) You will make relationships with a field staff that is a great resource as you get deeper into your CD organizing.
5) You will have a great time!

Thank you so much! If you have more questions or if you are interested in joining this Drive for Change, please contact Border State Director, Krish Subrahmanian at krish@barackobama.com or call him up at 702-469-9026. You can sign-up at http://nevada.barackobama.com/driveforchange

Please don't let this incredible opportunity pass you by.

Thanks so much!

Join the New Media Team in Nevada

Zachary Scott Edwards — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:15:34 EDT

Greetings from the Obama for America, Nevada New Media Team-

My name is Zach Edwards and I am the co-director for New Media at Obama for America in Nevada. I wanted to extend my hand and invite you to participate in our New Media out-reach program that is going to ensure that Nevada will be a hub for Barack to extend his support through the West after the Nevada caucus on January 19th, 2008.

In order to ensure that Barack wins the Nevada caucus and has the momentum to sweep California, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho, we must build an online organization that works to support field operations. MyBO.com, Myspace, Facebook, and other various social networking sites are great for networking and meeting groups of local supporters, but we must also turn this into a brick and mortar operation. We must use our online tools to organize actual democratic participation.

Here is what we have so far: Any suggestions are GREATLY appreciated.

The Border State Program:

The Nevada New Media team is assisting a Border State program with our Director Krish Subrahmanian. This weekend more than 50 people came from Los Angeles to join our Border state program.

1) You will get VAN, phone banking, and pledge card chase training for your team from one of the amazing members of the Las Vegas team.

2) You will learn skills and practices that work. You will also see what a well-structured campaign office can be. We want you to take these skills and structures and replicate them in your Congressional Districts.

3) You will make relationships with a field staff that is a great resource as you get deeper into your CD organizing.

4) You will have a great time!

Want to get involved? Contact Krish at krish@barackobama.com or call him up at 702-469-9026. Or sign up online http://nevada.barackobama.com/driveforchange

Other Internet Networking tools that we use:

The Official Barack Obama Nevada Blog: http://nevada.barackobama.com/

If you have any Pictures or Video from Barack Obama events, organizational meetings, or house parties, we would love to have those sent to our Email addresses attached below. We will be posting material from our Border States in order to highlight your organizations. If you ever wanted to become a blogger—herd is your chance to do a guest blog on our official page.

The Drive for Change Online Signup Form: http://nevada.barackobama.com/driveforchange

Want to Intern in Nevada? (It’s the best way to a paid position): http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/NVinternship

MySpace.com
Nevada for Obama

http://www.myspace.com/barackobama_nv

Facebook.com
Obama For America – Nevada
http://psu.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6613625043

Flickr.com

Barack Obama’s Photos

http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/

Join MyBO.com Groups

The Official Nevada HQ Group

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NVHQ

What is a Caucus? How will Nevada select Barack on January 19th?

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/

If you have any questions, concerns, comments, or suggestions please feel free to drop us a line. We want to engage all of Nevada’s neighbors in our official blog and other official campaign resources. If you have any media (pictures, videos) you want to showcase, or ideas to get the internet community involved in the grassroots, please let us know.

Thanks, we are looking forward to working with everyone to make sure Barack becomes the Democratic nominee.

The New Media Team Contact Information

Zach Edwards MYBO.com Profile

Co-Director New Media Obama for America

Las Vegas, Nevada

Zedwards@barackobama.com

Office Number: 702-253-2008

Michael Pipe MYBO.com Profile

Co-Director New Media Obama for America

Las Vegas, Nevada

mpipe@barackobama.com

Cell Number: 702-308-1759