Progressives for Obama

Thousands rally for public takeover of big banks

Peter Klein — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:54:26 EDT

From: PWW

Author: Tim Wheeler
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/13/09 17:25

Thousands of protests staged 60 rallies and vigils across the nation, April 11, to demand nationalization of the banks, many still insolvent despite hundreds of billions in taxpayer bailouts.

The actions were organized by the online group A New Way Forward (ANWF) that signed up 11,000 supporters in just three-and-a-half weeks to demand a public takeover of the crisis-wracked financial system.

It included 100 people standing in the pouring rain in New York City’s Union Square, 300 in Portland, Oregon, and 400 in Los Angeles. A group who had met online staged a vigil at a street corner in Anchorage, Alaska. In Raleigh, N.C. 200 people put on a “nest egg hunt” in observance of Easter and in solidarity with millions of retirees whose nest eggs have been stolen.

The protests demanded, “temporary bank nationalization and structural reform including a new decentralized banking system where no bank can ever again become too big to fail,” said an email sent out by ANWF.

Tiffany Cheng, and a friend, Donny Shaw, both technologists and bloggers in Massachusetts initiated AWNF out of frustration that the Obama administration and Congress continue to pour hundreds of billions into the coffers of bankers who created the problem with no signs that it has restored the flow of credit or stabilized the economy.

“People of all races and backgrounds joined in the April 11 protests who had thought about the bailouts and were angry,” Cheng (email address info@joetrippi.com) told the World in a phone interview. “These are people who want to learn more about solutions. We’re not seeing policies coming out of the White House that are actually going to help us get out of this crisis. The main thing we want to point out is that the bankers are becoming the middle-men between us and this crisis. We need to own-up to this crisis and deal with it head-on. Stop feeding the bankers, the middle-men.”

Cheng said Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, deeply influenced ANWF with his open advocacy of nationalizing the banks. Joseph Stiglitz, former Senior Vice President of the World Bank has also advocated public takeover of the banks as the only solution.

Polls show that 94 percent of the people disapprove of the current bail-out plans while another poll shows that 50 percent favor temporary nationalization of the banks. “So we have the job ahead of us of talking to each other about sound solutions we can all believe in,” Cheng said. “We are calling on everyone to talk with five people every week about the economy and about nationalizing the banks.”

ANWF is planning four or five large panel discussions across the country on the topic “What is Nationalization?”

There is some evidence that the Obama administration, itself, is divided on the way forward to solve the crisis with some, especially Obama’s political advisers at odds with the President’s financial advisers on the issue of a public takeover of the banks.

“It does seem like there is a possibility that (nationalization) might be the next step,” she continued. “As long as the bankers are so influential, the chances of pursuing a policy that is actually beneficial to the people is low. We have to let President Obama know, ‘We are here to support you in these policies. We’ve got your back.’ We need to pursue economic and financial policies that will enable all people to prosper, not just the bankers.” That, she said, is the goal of bank nationalization.

greenerpastures21212@yahoo.com

Poll: Many Americans prefer socialism over capitalism

Peter Klein — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:49:54 EDT

From: PWW

Author: Teresa Albano
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/09/09 14:54

This poll made our day.

According to a recent Rasmussen Report, only 53 percent of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

Not a very good spread for the profits-before-people, greed-is-good crowd. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave.

These numbers of course reflect the deep, transformative moment we are living in. An economic depression is a powerful force for people to experience, leading them to question the system that got us here.

Then there is the 20 percent that say socialism is better than capitalism, according to Rasmussen. Another wow! Twenty-seven percent are not sure which is better.
As the population gets further away from the Cold War years, the more they are open to socialism. The under 30 population is essentially divided: 37 percent prefer capitalism, 33 percent socialism and 30 percent are undecided.

Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the current system with 49 percent for capitalism and 26 percent for socialism.

But the ones over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13 percent of those believe socialism is better. What happened to the radical baby boomers?!

As you may imagine, those who have money to invest chose capitalism by a 5-to-1 margin. But for the rest of us who have no money to invest – a quarter of us say socialism would be o.k. Only 40 percent of non-investors think capitalism is better.

These are amazing statistics considering Rasmussen did not define either capitalism or socialism in their questions.

In an earlier survey by the polling firm they found, 70 percent of Americans prefer a free-market economy. When using the term “free market economy,” Rasmussen asserts, it attracts more support than using the term “capitalism.”

“Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors,” the poll summary stated.

Imagine how Americans would react if truly a national conversation was had on the benefits of socialism. Right now most Americans see it as a “government-managed” economy and they aren’t convinced the government could do any better than the corporate royalty, according to further poll findings.

Not included in the current popular view of socialism is democratization of the economy – where representatives of all communities, unions, schools, etc., would actually be involved in steering economic policy and decision making on all levels – micro and macro.

Recently, a colleague of mine, Sam Webb, the chair of the Communist Party said of the current economic and political situation:

“Is there any reason to think that millions in motion can't transform this country and world into the just, green, sustainable and peaceful "Promised Land" that Martin Luther King dreamed of?

“It would be a profound mistake to underestimate the progressive and socialist potential of this era. The American people have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity within their reach.”

While polls are just a snapshot of a very fluid and dynamic process of what people think, the more long term forces of the economy are already having this profound effect.

Union leaders announce new progress in push to unite labor movement

Peter Klein — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:49:55 EDT

From: PWW

Author: John Wojcik
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 04/08/09 13:29
The AFL-CIO, Change to Win and the National Education Association announced April 7 the creation of the National Labor Coordinating Committee to hammer out a final agreement among their affiliated unions to unite the entire American labor movement.

The committee has already settled major rifts that resulted in seven unions quitting the then 63-member AFL-CIO in 2005 and is drafting the final terms of a deal to form a reunited labor federation.

David Bonior, the former House Democratic whip, has been selected as chairman of the committee.

Bonior said major progress in negotiations was made this week in how the new united federation will deal with organizing, political action and legislative campaigns. He said the remaining issues are how the reunited federation will be governed and how it will be financed.

The main disagreement when the split occurred in 2005 was over the issue of whether union organizing or political action was more important. Since that time events have driven unions on the two sides to work together both in the area of political action and organizing. Labor’s push to elect Barack Obama was widely considered as the most united and successful labor mobilization in U.S. history.
.
“Recognizing the historic moment we face, the American labor movement must unify to restore the American dream for working families,” Bonior said.

Although he would not give a set timetable for when he expected the federations to achieve formal reunification, indications are that it should happen before the scheduled mid-September convention of the AFL-CIO in Pittsburgh and in time to boost labor’s effort to reform labor law by passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

“I am very pleased with our progress. The committee has pledged to complete its consultations and other work on unification plans over the coming months. A unified labor movement is the way to ensure that the vast majority of Americans who want a union are able to join one,” Bonior said.

He also indicated that, in addition to hammering out the final terms of a unity agreement, the Committee will act nationally on a range of critical issues facing workers, including not just labor law reform but also additional steps needed to stimulate the economy and national health care reform.

The affiliated unions of the AFL-CIO, Change to Win and the NEA represent more than 16 million workers in more than 60 unions.

In addition to the presidents of the AFL-CIO and Change to Win, the membership of the National Labor Coordinating Committee consists of the presidents of the National Education Association, the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, the American Federation of Teachers, the Communication Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Laborers International Union of North America, the Service Employees International Union, Unite Here, the United Auto Workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the United Steelworkers.

Auto workers left with no bailout

Peter Klein — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:23:36 EDT

From: PWW

Author: John Wojcik
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 03/31/09 16:16

President Barack Obama said March 30 that the government will withhold additional long-term federal loans for General Motors and Chrysler unless the company, its creditors and the unions make more concessions. He also raised the possibility of “controlled bankruptcy” for one or both of the two companies.

Hoping to reassure potential car customers, the president announced that the federal government would immediately back the warranties that new car buyers receive – a move he hopes will assure people it is safe to buy American automobiles despite the sorry shape of the industry.

In a statement from the White House, Obama said he is “absolutely committed to the survival of a domestic auto industry that can compete internationally. And yet, our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough.”

Obama’s remarks underlined the extent to which the government is now calling the shots for the two auto giants after recent moves that gave it controlling interest in banks, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In an unprecedented move, the administration forced the departure of Rick Wagoner as CEO of General Motors over the weekend.

Ford Motor Co. has not requested federal bailout loans, and was not included in what the president had to say.

The Bush administration, last year, approved $17 billion in federal funds to help GM and Chrysler survive. It also demanded both companies submit restructuring plans that the Obama administration would review. Although he called their efforts “unsatisfactory,” the president offered General Motors “adequate working capital” over the next 60 days to produce a reorganization plan acceptable to the administration.

Obama said Chrysler’s situation is more precarious, and the government will give the company 30 days to sell itself to Fiat, the Italian automaker. “If they are successful, we will consider lending up to $6 billion to help their plan succeed,” the president said.

The Obama move came after an explosion of public outrage over bonuses paid to business executives and AIG executives while the economy tanked. Critics of the president are saying that dumping Wagoner lets the administration deflect attention away from Wall Street where the Treasury Dept. is still up to its neck as it struggles for solutions to the mess there. The administration’s detractors say the moves in Detroit allow Obama to portray himself as tough on the corporate executives who are ruining America, without having to draw blood from the bankers.

Defenders of the administration note that Obama has yet to give AIG one cent. The TARP bailout happened under President Bush. If additional funds are given to AIG or any other banks with no guarantees in exchange, they say, then they might be willing to point the finger.

There is a way forward for the auto industry right now. Beyond turning out “green” cars and a variety of other fuel-efficient vehicles, the industry should re-tool to help meet the enormous mass transit needs of the country. Hopefully, this is the direction in which the Obama administration wants to move.

Unfortunately, “restructuring” has usually meant shutting down production in the U.S., laying off workers and squeezing those remaining for more concessions. The auto workers resent being called on again to be the fall guys. They resent being told that corruption and greed on Wall Street and incompetence in Detroit’s corporate boardrooms can only be solved by busting them and their union.

They particularly resent this because, for decades now, they have been the ones who always lose. The slow drain of the auto industry has drained them of their benefits, wages and jobs.

In his speech Obama announced the appointment of a new “director of recovery for the auto community and workers.”

What will determine the success of any plan for the auto industry is not whether GM or Chrysler survive as profitable outfits. More than keeping any particular company operating, it is the responsibility of government to keep workers of the auto industry employed. “Retraining,” by itself, is meaningless to a worker who asks, “Retraining for what?”

The people of Michigan need a lot more than “training” and tax breaks.

They need a program that involves major government subsidies for new industries to locate in hard-hit areas like Michigan.

The new employers will have to be required to hire the union members who lost their jobs and to pay union wages to the additional workers hired. The Employee Free Choice Act would help a lot in this area.

A massive effort to enlist the universities in establishment of training centers for workers who need new high-tech skills, might not be a bad idea.

A massive plan to create government jobs in the area will be needed. These can include jobs resulting from a new national healthcare plan, for example, or jobs connected with the rebuilding of mass transit,infrastructure or numerous other areas.

In cases where nothing can realistically be done for individuals or for groups of workers, the government plan should incorporate meaningful help in relocating people.

The auto workers were left out of the auto company deliberations when those companies devised their restructuring plans.

The auto workers were left out of the deliberations of the experts who advised the Obama administration about the positions it should take.

The auto workers have been left out of all the bailouts and rescue plans.

The time for leaving them out is over.

jwojcik @ pww.org

EFCA Ad

Peter Klein — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:43:19 EDT

We Don't Ask - National Ad for the Employee Free Choice Act

...pass it on.

Contracts can’t be broken—unless they involve union workers

Peter Klein — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:34:08 EDT

Author: Tula Connell
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 03/18/09 20:13 Original source: AFL-CIO Now

Contracts can’t be broken. We learned that lesson well over the past few days when AIG honchos swore that despite being bailed out by $173 billion in taxpayer funds, they couldn’t break the sacrosanct contractual bond that guaranteed billions in bonuses to the same top executives who brought the insurance giant to its knees.

But we also were taught another lesson in these months of financial chaos: Contacts can’t be broken—unless they involve unionized autoworkers.

Tim Rutten at the Los Angeles Times really hits the mark today when he writes:

What we’re essentially being asked to believe is that employment contracts involving hardworking men and women on Detroit’s assembly lines are somehow less legally binding—less “sacred” in the current rhetorical argot—than those protecting a bunch of cowboy securities traders living in Connecticut. [snip]

For years, the smart guys on Wall Street have convinced a growing number of Americans that organized labor is an impediment to economic progress, an unacceptable “cost” in a globalized system of production, a quaint social fossil from the era of mills and smokestacks. If there’s a lesson to be gleaned from the current crisis, however, it’s that when the chips are down, organized labor is a far more responsible social actor than the snatch-and-run characters who fancy themselves financiers.

Who re-negotiated their contracts in the face of a taxpayer bailout? Not AIG CEOs. It was the autoworkers who agreed to put their middle-class wages on the line to help out the struggling industry. So far, not one AIG CEO has stepped up to the plate to return that $1 million or so bonus. (AIG bigwigs aren’t alone in soaking up taxpayer money for personal fun—a video clip here by Brave New Films lists more CEOs on the taxpayer dole and urges people to take action on March 19.)

When General Motors (GM) and Chrysler asked for government support in December, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) pushed a pay cut amendment in the Senate that called for slicing the autoworkers’ wages to those paid to nonunionized workers. So, Bob, your fans are waiting breathlessly to hear you call for AIG billionaires to give back their bonuses. Or, as a columnist in Corker’s home state puts it:

Paging Bob Corker! Explanation please! [snip]

So, to make sure I have this right, we can give $185 billion to AIG and we have to uphold their employment contracts with 80 people, but we can’t give 1/5th that amount to General Motors unless they abrogate their employment contracts with 100,000 workers.

Yes, taxpayers own 80 percent of AIG. But we can’t seem to stop AIG execs from getting bonuses. After all, AIG CEO Edward Liddy and the company’s apologists argue, AIG knew it needed to keep its people. The implication here is that financial wizards who run a global company into the ground are more valuable than the blue-collar men and women who aren’t paid seven-figure salaries and whose jobs involve creating tangible products like, say, automobiles. Meanwhile, AIG bonus information so far includes:

* $200 million in bonuses.
* 73 AIG employees receiving bonuses of $1 million each, almost all of the employees…responsible for creating the exotic derivatives that caused AIG’s near collapse.
* Some of those receiving the bonuses are not U.S. citizens.

A CNN poll released today shows the American public increasingly fearful that the nation’s economic downturn will mirror the Depression. Asked whether Depression-era circumstances could reign in the next 12 months, 45 percent of those polled reported that was likely. That’s an increase from 38 percent who responded in the same fashion in December.

As AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says, “These outrageous bonuses are yet another example of an economy that has become fundamentally imbalanced.”

All of the power is concentrated in the hands of the very few at the very top and the gap between CEOs’ and workers’ pay continues to grow. That is why we need to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Passing the Employee Free Choice Act will allow workers to have a voice at work, lift their standard of living and build stronger communities as well as stronger families.

A Gallup poll released in recent days found 53 percent of the U.S. public supports the Employee Free Choice Act, which was reintroduced in the U.S. Congress last week. Why? Because we need a stronger middle class. One with contracts that are sacrosanct.

Windsor auto workers seize shuttered plant

Peter Klein — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:58:31 EDT

Original source: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090318/canada/canada_windsor_plant_1

(CBC) - A group of workers at a recently closed auto parts supply company in Windsor, Ontario, Canada have taken over the plant.

In the latest twist in a saga that has been brewing since two auto plants in the area shut down early last week, about a dozen workers occupied the Aradco plant Tuesday night, March 17. They have welded the doors shut from the inside and say they will not leave until they get what they are owed.

Work at the Aradco plant stopped last week because of a dispute between the plant owners and Chrysler, which has mused publicly about pulling out of its Canadian operations unless unionized workers make substantial concessions.

The Canadian Auto Workers Union that represents the Aradco workers say that in the wake of the shutdown, the workers are owed money for severance pay, vacation pay, and termination pay totalling $1.7 million.

The plant's owner, Catalina Precision Products Ltd. has offered the workers four weeks of severance pay or about $200,000 in total for all 80 workers.

The plant builds parts for Chrysler. Since last week, Chrysler has been trying to go in and collect parts and tools it says are its, but the workers are not allowing it. They have been blocking trucks from coming on to the property. Union representatives say the workers fear that if the tools and parts are removed, they will have no negotiating power.

"Some of the workers here have decided to take over the plant. That's the only thing they have in order to try to get the monies that are owing to them," said Gerry Farnham, president of the CAW local representing the workers.

Progressive Pragmatism

Michael A. Dover — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:25:08 EST

The issue of pragmatism may become a cottage industry, much as the concept of
globalization was. It is true that it can distract away from clarifying the underlying
political and economic issues. But in this case, I think it is healthy to discuss it. It
is an issue on which I've posted twice to this list. In the Extended Post, there is a longer message.
Michael Dover, mdover@umich.edu I refer in this posting to Christopher Haye's article about pragmatism in the December 29, 2008 The Nation. I refer also to a PDF file which may not be uploaded to this seite but is available upon request.

What Next for Progressives of Obama?

Michael A. Dover — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:30:27 EST

By Michael A. Dover
mdover@umich.edu

This is in response to the proposal by Carl Davidson and Bill Fletcher at:
http://progressivesforobama.net/discussion-on-our-future/ and on the Progressives for
Obama yahoogroups list serve.

Interesting proposal, Carl and Bill. One operative statements seem to be: "Progressives
for Obama is in a position to play a catalytic role in moving forward in a major way." I
did read the final report written by Carl, emphasizing how many hits on the website,
etc., but it seemed to me a bit overestimated. The number of endorsers wasn't huge, and
the final/current number of participants on this group isn't vast either. Yes, when the
media was looking for things to say about the left's approach to the campaign, we got a
little coverage.

And it was nice to think someone somewhere in the campaign was listening. I for one
succumbed to that when David Plouffe came out with a call for folks to go "all in"
between then and election day, a couple of months after my posting to P4O of that title.
But I dismissed the temptation to give more credence to my influence than called for,
something we might try to avoid as we discuss what's next.

Another operative statement is: "Left-progressive defines the political orientation,
essentially broad agreement with the principles of the initial call to 'Progressives for
Obama", in combination with, "First, already mentioned, is a common political orientation
mentioned above."

I for one saw little evidence on this list of anything resembling such a common outlook,
either towards the campaign or in terms of any conceptualization of what P4O was all
about. In general, since the 1991 split in the left, eclecticism has been the order of
the day. This was a positive thing at the time, but there are costs to eclecticism,
including the inability to garner unified action but most importantly the lack of
evolution of coherent theory and strategy. See my theory of the fates of social movement
organizations below.

All along, in P4O, one issue has been, to what extent "left-progressives" should work in
one of the following ways:

1. Within the Obama campaign as individuals,

2. Within the campaign as Progressives for Obama in the group of that name within the
Obama website (which ended up poorly utilized)

3. Independently as part of various established groups such as Move-On or PDA or various
union or professional association PACs or in one of the non-partisan voter groups,

4. Independently within Progressives for Obama (but again, despite the report of our vast
influence, was there a single organized Progressives for Obama actual group on the ground
doing anything? I'm forgetting from Carl's report.)

5. Independently as part of an ad hoc groups established to fill gaps in the
effectiveness of the official campaign (as we did in Michigan and Ohio, mainly in Ohio,
with www.concerneddemocrats.org).

6. Within other local campaigns that were truly supporting/coordinating with the top of
the ticket OR within state/county/local Democratic parties, which may have printed and
distributed as many yard signs as did the campaign (I'd like to see the data on that.)

As we answer the question, What Next for Progressives for Obama, it would be valuable to
try to ascertain to what extent each of us in Progressives for Obama as a whole did one
or more of these 6. And then and only then to answer the question of what next based on
that analysis. Why not throw up a quick survey of members of Progressives for Obama to
see what people did then and what people think now?

I'll start with myself, commenting on each of the above:

(1) Within the campaign: I did as much as I could as an individual donor and volunteer
within the campaign, given I live in and work in two states and do a lot of commuting.
Also, donated 500 buttons and bumper stickers to the Cleveland State students for Obama
group and another 500 to the East Cleveland campaign operation, since they had few/none
of their own!

(2) Within the campaign in the website's P4O group: Made a big deal out of when I joined
P4O of the need to belong to both the within campaign and independent grouping, so I
cross posted my postings including my Open Letter to Democratic Candidates which I also
send out on various list serves calling for more support for the top of the ticket by
Democratic candidates. I also posted my work on the nature of progressive pragmatism
(see the Nation's Christopher Haye's analysis at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081229/hayes, and see the widespread consternation and
confusion on left list services since the election, as a liberal pragmatist
President-elect with progressive leanings takes office). See by campaign blog at
http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/private. Carl was nice enough to become my
friend, thanks Carl! But despite posting a picture of myself and Giselle, I was flop in
the social networking category. Also, I found that no matter how hard I tried, my nearly
$1500 in donations in like 20 different efforts wouldn't seem to aggregate to the P4O
group or even count for myself, which I attribute to confusion over the MI and OH
varieties of me. But P4O did as a group raise $24 and had 110 members.

(3) Within established independent groups: I avoided Move-on as I felt that it could hurt
Obama with it's self-serving promotion of its own name on its bumper stickers and signs;
it might play in Ann Arbor but not in Adrian, and I actually joined PDA formally but
didn't get active; I was also supported DSA endorsed House candidates in Michigan,

(4) Within our P4O: I was active with the Progressives for Obama, becoming a monthly
sustainer to support Carl's work and endorsing the call and I was active on the list
serve, which I noticed attracted quite a few folks who seemed more critical that
supportive of Obama, I guess reflecting the tradition of "critical support" from the left
for Democratic candidates,

(5) Within ad hoc groups: Founded Concerned Democrats of MI and OH, which advocated with
local and statewide candidates and party leaders to do more to ensure that grassroots
Democratic candidates supported the top of the ticket. We did individualized emails to
all Ohio state House candidates, follow-up calls focused on rural and suburban candidates
who weren't incumbents, and did a mailing of a couple of thousand buttons and bumper
stickers directly to the candidates, which was well-received. Tactic: asking the
candidates to wear the Obama buttons 24/7 from then until election day "except when you
are in the shower",

(6) Within local campaigns or DP: Door to door work supporting a DSA endorsed House
candidate in Michigan; supported my own MI House candidate, distributing Obama buttons
along the way, joined the Ohio DP and renewed my dues to the MI party (the least I could
do in that they listened to my/our concerns about lack of support from some candidates
for the top of the ticket.

In the process I neglected much else in my life in order to make good on my pledge to go
"all in between now and election day."

What next? Why not consider the fate of the same 6 approaches?

(1) Within the campaign, it seems to me that if the campaign is truly interested in
keeping volunteers together and having an ongoing operation, there is some value in
responding positively when there are calls to do house meetings, attending meetings,
etc.. Haven't done it yet, didn't on 12/13-14 but probably will. I remember well from
work to re-elect Dutch Morial in New Orleans in the early 1980s how fiercely the power
structure could re-unite to prevent the re-election of the first African-American to hold
real power in national office. I've spoken to some former and current staffers and
volunteers and they are very positive about the need to hold things together. It's a bit
confusing with the proliferation of websites but worth the effort. I still feel as a
matter of principle if we are really P4O we should respond to Obama's early call not to
operate unnecessarily through independent groups. As a matter of fact, if our P4O were
really diverting serious energy outside the campaign, I wouldn't have supported it, but
it was clearly mainly a discussion group that (as one Obama staffer a-n-d one P4O leader
consulted for advice said about our Concerned Democrats operation, it "couldn't do any
harm."

(2) Within the campaign's P4O list: I'm told these lists will remain active; there is
still lots of discussion on Social Workers for Obama, started by my NOLA friend Russ
Henderson, but I don't see much activity on the campaign's P4O list, nor was there much
interplay between the official and unofficial P4O groups, and I think that's a shame. I
doubt anyone's interested in submerging ourselves, but personally if we are really for
Obama and the campaign wants ongoing groupings, I don't see why we shouldn't take
seriously the possibility of moving into and operating out of that list. Less grandiose
perhaps, but one way to stay active and less likely to attract the left fringe who wants
to spent its time attacking Obama.

(3) Within established groups: I do think PDA is an option; I get it's OH postings and I
like the idea that it is a real group related to a real party. In OH, the state party
Chair seems very open to independent groupings. Doing this even en masse wouldn't be the
worst thing and reminds me of a couple of key historical events on the left. In the
1950s thousands of leftists who had decided that support for groups like the Progressive
Party hadn't proved effective joined none other than the Cold War liberal influences
Americans for Democratic Action and by the 1960s and 1970s ADA has very real influence on
the Democratic Party and the nation. I think that such a strategy might be in order now,
and PDA would be an effective vehicle; if there are things we don't like about it, why
not change it? Clearly, some counterweight to the DLC is needed. It goes within saying
that we should still be active in various other large issue oriented groups and groups
within professions and unions.

(4) Within our P4O group: That, of course, is the question. I do see the value of
keeping some kind of network together. I'm not about to cut off my monthly sustainer
just yet, and truly appreciate the role Carl and others have played in this. It's been
wonderful how many of us who haven't seen or communicated with each other in years have
been brought together in part by P4O. I'm the author of a distributed but like many
things unpublished piece on the fate of social movement organizations. I contend that we
have what I call "paired fates." We tend to choose two of the following fates and
ambivalently swing between some two of them. The fates are:

Dispersion - P4O dissolves in one way or another, either from organizational death or
from merger. It's members most likely lose any sense of cohesion or identity based on
the previous P4O affiliation.

Density - P4O stagnates, throwing off folks at its periphery and failing to attract other
members, but retaining enough members committed to survive one way or another. It
focuses on ensuring a common political outlook to the exclusion of eclecticism. The
membership would be dense in the sense that there are rather long-standing and close ties
among the remaining members. But the organization would not play a major role in any
sense due to its small size and increasing isolation.

Drift - This metaphor is perhaps one way of describing a process consistent with the
semi-permanent network option. To understand and consider this option, it's important not
to see the word drift in a pejorative light. Historically, folks on the left have often
committed the voluntarist error: a view in the world as something our organization could
change, and to the extent we still hold to such a view, we may see the very word drift as
distasteful. Using the "drift" metaphor, the organization would still be P4O in a formal
sense, with a website, a discussion list, and perhaps even formal dues, which actually I
would favor where it to continue, and with one list restricted to formal members.
Members of P4O would also be active in other groups throughout the spectrum of the above
table, but our main contribution would be not as an organization but as individual
activists in these other organizations and causes and to each other as members of this
network, through interpersonal relationships, education, and limited recruitment and
socialization into our tradition. We would n-o-t see ourselves as an coordinating group
and certainly not as any vanguard. We would all commit to reading every word of each
other's long postings! (:}

Dynamism - This is a direction in which P4O grows and flourishes and truly becomes
something akin to the maximum version of what Carl and Bill proposed. But essentially it
would mean that we find a way to grow and be more formal and play a serious role.
Ambitious.

Of the four options, I tend to ambivalently swing between drift and dynamism, and to
dislike dispersion and density. But when asked to choose, I tend to favor drift, as I
think that it is the fate which leads to organizational survival. If we could live to
fight again, even if just in 2012, I would be happy to continue to see that happen.

One idea: I presented a workshop on grassroots organizing in 1992 in Berkeley, at which I
presented an idea I've since tried to implement but haven't had a chance to do on
anything other than an experimental small scale. It's called Pairing and Intentional
Leadership Development. The idea is that you build or rebuild the organization, formally,
with a unit of organization that is not the individual, but the diverse pair. 2, 4, 6,
8, you build the organization based upon pairing. It helps if the founding pair is
diverse. In this instance, Carl and Bill are a diverse pair; what if we re-built P4O
from the ground up as a diverse membership organization based upon the pairing principle.
I've written a draft of a paper on this which I could share with anyone interested and
have done some preliminary database work within Filemaker Pro which I think shows how it
is possible to build an organization that could have the pair as the membership unit and
still communicate effectively with each pair. There are lots of issues about this issue
of pairing and in my own organizing I've done some consultation and have some anecdotal
organizing examples I could share. The opportunity to implement the pairing principle in
re-building P4O would motivate me to be involved, for sure.

(5) Within ad hoc groups: A couple of us who have been involved in Concerned Democrats
have talked about whether we should fold it up. We probably will largely due to some
personal/political points I make below. But thinking back to another historical example,
I recall the Reform Democratic clubs of NYC in the 1970s. They played a very positive
role in supporting the election of progressive candidates like Bella Abzug, early gay
candidates, and in supporting important causes. President-elect Obama has spoken
recently of the distinction between people who go into politics for service and the
others. I think it would be valuable to form Concerned Democrats or Reformed Democrats
clubs at the local or state level that would work within the Democratic Party. One good
example has been Progressive Democrats of Washtenaw County, one of whose founders, Tim
Colenback (who is a fellow member of Social Welfare Action Alliance) was later elected
Chair of the Ann Arbor Democratic Party and recently stepped down from that post. I
seriously think that if there were clubs that had serious codes of ethics and worked for
ethics reforms including truly serious ethics requirements for candidates endorsed by the
DP, more serious than any law that is in effect or might be put into effect, that it
would do wonders to advance progressive political action. Let's face it, the corrupt
regulars and opportunists and what's in it for me folks are still major forces in
Democratic Party politics, and it doesn't have to be that way. If in addition to groups
like PDA, there were such semi-independent clubs of dues-paid DP members in major cities
and states, they could have a real impact, as did the Reform clubs of the 1970s.

(6) I plan to keep up my dues in the DP's of MI and OH, continue to selectively support
elected officials in my districts and elsewhere, and to support DSA endorsed candidates
and belong to DSA (Democratic Socialists of America). My analysis of what I saw happen
in MI and OH is that as effective as the Obama campaign was, the DP stepped up to the
plate, buying huge quantities of bumper stickers, buttons and yard signs (especially yard
signs) from www.demstore.com and other outlets. In some areas of OH, rural DPs banded
together to buy them since they couldn't get them from the campaign. In some large
counties in OH, county parties saved the day with these purchases. This is an untold
story of the campaign if you ask me; the role of the Democratic Party leadership in
stepping up to the plate nationally and locally; Dean himself hasn't gotten enough
credit. The leaderships both nationally and in the states were well aware and when
pressed admitted to problems with candidates not supporting the top of the ticket and did
much to try to counter that but put their $$ to work making sure that lack of O/B
materials wasn't the excuse that could be used to distance oneself from the top of the
ticket. This was particularly apparent in the last 2 months of the campaign.

This said, in addition to talking about what's next, I think it would be helpful to talk
about next time (2012).

Next time, we may not be able to count on the Obama re-election effort to be as
grassrootsy and effective as it was this time, and we should make efforts to ensure that
there are contracts and plans in place to make absolutely sure that if David Plouffe or
whoever is still of the view that visuals don't count there are plans in place to make
sure we mass produce magnetic car signs, buttons, 8"by13" window signs of the size that
would fit within the typical vertical rectangular window pane area and which I think are
easier to distribute and harder to steal than typical yard signs), etc.. We shouldn't be
dependent upon the Obama campaign for these materials but they should be authorized
materials; the Obama campaign was notoriously late in delivery, and I wasted several
hundred $$ on materials that arrived literally days before the election that were ordered
6 weeks earlier. The campaign did deliver 1000 buttons on time at $.35 apiece as
advertised; www.demstore.com was quicker but late on one order for bumper stickers. In
general this problem of shortages of materials has to be planned for next time.

Nuff said.

All of this is complicated by the fact that I claim to have retired from organizing after
40 years to focus on my writing and teaching, to which some reply, "fat chance, it's in
your blood.") I guess it depends on the meaning of the word organizing. If it means
trying to get other people to do what you think should be done by making phone calls,
organizing meetings, sending out mailings, participating in committees, initiating
grassroots outreach, etc., I'm still on the wagon since 11/4. It's hard, but I'm trying.
Would this posting be a relapse?

I did say I still want to write. And if someone else organizes something I might show up
and do something. Volunteering and even joining are things I still want to do. But no
hard stuff. Although I had been radicalized and become active as early as the Fall 1966
editorials I wrote as a freshman Michigan Daily writer against the Vietnam war, it wasn't
until the assasinations of early 1968 that I fully dropped out and entered into the cause
with all my efforts. And although there are some on this list who top 50 or more years
of activism, I think that 40 and out wouldn't be the worst thing.

I've recently stepped back from all but being co-treasurer of the Social Welfare Action
Alliance, the radicals in the professions group for social workers and other human
service workers which I helped found in 1985. I suppose I could always come out of
retirement later. I certainly will plan on playing a role in 2012, and would love it if
we can find a way for a sane and committed P40 group to be held together in the meantime.
Knowing this was possible would do wonders to permit me to enjoy my retirement....

Michael A. Dover, MSW, Ph.D.
Ann Arbor and Cleveland
(734)645-6261
mdover@umich.edu

OH Action Needed! Ohio Voting Rights Threatened

LynnOH — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:21:11 EST

As an Ohioan and Obama volunteer, I am very concerned about the legislation under consideration this week in both houses of the Ohio State Legislature. This is Ohio Substitute Senate Bill 380.   Ohioans need to be voicing strong opposition to their Ohio legislators.

One objectionable component of the legislation would require the Secretary of State to create lists of voters with mismatches between their voter registration information and their information in   social security and motor vehicle databases. It is well known that such mismatches are widespread even for properly registered, eligible voters. The lists would go to the Boards of Elections and would be publicly available, thereby serving up caging lists to those with malicious intent.   In the run-up to the November 2008 election, Ohio Republicans sued to require the Secretary of State to create and distribute such mismatch lists, but the courts sided with Secretary Brunner. Now Republicans are trying to legislate this disenfranchisement mechanism.

Another measure that must be stopped is an amendment to Sub SB 380 that would tighten the ID requirements in Ohio to require a state photo ID for voting. Currently Ohioans without a state ID can use other documents such as a current utility bill or almost any current government document showing the person's name and address.

The legislation also calls for the elimination of the "golden week" during which Ohioans can register to vote and vote at the same time.

It is well established that any fraudulent voting in Ohio is miniscule. This legislation is opposed by the League of Women Voters. If enacted, it will disproportionately disenfranchise Democratic voters. It is a step towards defeating Secretary Brunner in 2010.   Any future repeat of the happy results of Ohio 2008 would surely be dangerously threatened by a Republican Secretary of State (remember Ken Blackwell and Ohio 2004?) and by the loss of voting rights that would be brought by the passage of Sub SB 380. Wake up! Call your legislators!

Contact Info for Your Ohio Legislators:
At this link, you can enter your zip code and find the names, phone numbers and email address of your Ohio senator and representative:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/search.cfm#reps_zip
Also, toll free messages can be left for members of the Ohio House of Representatives at 1-800-282-0253.

League of Women Voters opposition at:

http://www.lwvcols.org/theleague/displaynews.php?id=73

What Makes Pennsylvania Blue: Labor and Hard Struggles for Justice

CarlDavidson — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:16:33 EST

Making History
at the Raccoon
VFD Polling Place By Carl Davidson

What's Next? Grow the Hope: join in and help us!

Brian Corr — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:32:32 EST

After the polls close tonight, here's the next step: Grow The Hope <http://www.growthehope.org>

For so many of us the Obama campaign has inspired us to hope for a better future and engage in the political process to make change possible. We know that something special is happening in this campaign. We feel it. We experience it personally and share this profound and moving feeling with others.

We celebrate this special moment and continue our work to elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States. The final day of this historic campaign is crucial to our success. We will canvass, phone bank, and organize until the polls close.

While we keep focused on the prize - electing a smart and moral man as the next president of the United States, we also feel moved to do what we can to nurture the hope that has built within this campaign and within many of us.

Thus we begin the process of building Grow The Hope - a people's movement for progressive social change. We seek to capture the spark of creativity and hope that has come alive during this campaign.

If you are interested, please join us. Explore the brief introductory website at: http://www.growthehope.org and sign up by giving us your contact information. As this movement unfolds we will reach out to you.

Those of us working on Grow The Hope are so busy with the campaign that we don't yet have complete answers about what's next. We have not yet determined our organizational structure, programmatic initiatives, or funding options. If you get involved now, you can help shape the future direction of this emerging movement. At this point, we urge all those interested to take one minute to sign up, spread the word, and get back to working on the campaign!

Let's do all we can this final crucial day of the campaign to make sure that we can celebrate on November 4th. Then on November 5th, let's take a day of well deserved rest. On November 6th, let's be back in touch to see how we might join together and Grow the Hope.

Yes We Can!
Brian

Brian Corr
Organizer, Progresive Massachusetts for Barack Obama
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/ProgressiveMassachusettsforBarackObama
BCorr@CambridgeConsultingServices.com

-----------
Grow the Hope is not affiliated with Obama For America.

Barack Morning Buzz-11-4-08

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 08:46:44 EST

Barack Morning Buzz-11-4-08
On to Victory Tonight

(1) Long Lines Form Early as Voters Finally Decide
Nedra Pickler and Beth Fouhy-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYbBmMmElgU_AjfYlbWgYFe66cqAD94848MG0

(2) Record Numbers of Voters Expected to Deluge Polls
Deborah Hastings-Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/voting_problems

(3) Tired Obama Addresses Huge Virginia Crowd at Final Campaign Rally
Ewen MacAskill-Guardian-UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/04/uselections2008-barackobama

(4) Obama's Grandmother Dies of Cancer
Associated Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie4x5FvSQYI&eurl=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Barack+Obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ctiurl=http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/Ie4x5FvSQYI/hqdefault.jpg

(5) Obama's Grandmother Remembered as Calm and Assured
Herbert A. Sample-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3m4YaeYwDHXS6hHdZJi8pm6cZdAD9481BJG0

(6) Obama Defeats McCain in Dixville Notch-15 to 6
Toby Harnden-Telegraph-UK
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/11/04/barack_obama_defeats_john_mccain_in_dixville_notch

(7) Five Things to Watch Tonight
Charles Mahtesian and Josh Kraushaar-Politico
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081104/pl_politico/15226;_ylt=Alb8fxeaoAx5uow35Lo77OtsnwcF

(8) Obama-McCain Race May Be Decided Early-Watch Virginia's Vote
Kristin Jensen-Bloomberg
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081104/pl_bloomberg/amxtbxva0ssi;_ylt=AhgCJx9uIn1.Cg6B0FRC59psnwcF

(9) 78 Percent of Hispanics Favor Obama over McCain
Tim Gaynor and Chris Wilson-Reuters
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081104/pl_nm/us_usa_politics_poll_hispanics_1

(10) Obama and McCain Make Last Effort at Swaying Voters
Julianna Goldman and Edwin Chen-Bloomberg
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081104/pl_bloomberg/atu2cglb7azc_1

(11) Chicago Police Get Set for Obama Rally and Global Spotlight
Angela Rozas-Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-crime-rally-columnnov04,0,6879355.story

(12) Obama Official Confident as Voting Gets Under Way
Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0W4xTdh1pfVIVxqOj9ldEe6xo8QD9483VR80

(13) Election Night Predictions
Dallas Morning News-Trail Blazers Blog
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/11/election-night-predictions.html

(14) Pennsylvania-Battleground State a Tough Fight
Associated Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjVwkqtW_Yc&eurl=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Barack+Obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ctiurl=http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/mjVwkqtW_Yc/hqdefault.jpg

(15) Obama and McCain Have Breakout Game
Richard Sandomir-New York Times-Pro Football
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/sports/football/04sandomir.html?ref=politics

(17) California a Generous Friend of Obama
Dan Morain and Maloy Moore-Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-calmoney4-2008nov04,0,2325023.story

(17) Kenyans Pray for Obama Win and Plan Election Parties
Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j7f_yf-uBbpnhLIKnO3qpSOHszwAD9481SGG1

(18) A Campaign to Remember
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/news/stories/2008/11/04/pelandmarks.html

4th CD PA PDA Unity and Victory Dinner a Big Success

CarlDavidson — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:09:48 EST

Want to know want can come from organizing independently at the base? Bringing together antiwar activists, Obama youth, labor and civil rights groups? Or a notion of what we can do down the road? Take a look at this....

http://students.barackobama.com/page/content/sfbohome

MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Vote No on Hate! Help Defeat California Proposition 8; Florida Amendment 2; Arizona Proposition 102; Arkansas Act 1

Tommy News — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:04:26 EST

Please watch this important short video and then forward this urgent message on to your entire address book today!http://www.noonprop8.com/messages
MARRIAGE EQUALITY: Vote No on Hate! Help Defeat California Proposition 8; Florida Amendment 2 Arizona Proposition 102 Arkansas Act 1 And Vote Obama-Biden Too! Florida Amendment 2 What the Amendment Says Amendment 2

"Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized." 6 Reasons to Say No 2Taking Away Benefits
Amendment 2 could take away existing benefits from all unmarried Floridians Hurting Seniors
Amendment 2 could force seniors to choose between important benefits like sharing health care and important government benefits. "Gay Marriage" Bait & Switch
Amendment 2 claims to ban "gay marriage" but Florida already has multiple laws banning same-sex marriage Massive Government Intrusion
Amendment 2 puts the government where it doesn't belong - regulating the personal relationships of Floridians Hiring Expensive Lawyers
Amendment 2 could force unmarried Floridians to hire expensive private lawyers just to protect their basic legal rights Dramatic Consequences
Amendment 2 could take away job benefits from university employees and be used as a defense to domestic violence - as in other states which passed similar amendments Click Here to Help:http://www.sayno2.com/Arizona Proposition 102 Proposition 102, if approved by Arizona voters,
will amend the Arizona Constitution

Arizona voted NO in 2006

Now we have to vote NO again in 2008.

Help us make it loud and clear —
VOTE NO on Proposition 102 on November 4th

The state has more important issues to address.

Keep Phoenix Politicians out of Marriage!Click here to help:http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/home.phpArkansas Act 1http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/This proposal would ban anyone who is unmarried from serving as a foster or adoptive parent—gay and straight alike.It applies to both public and private adoption, and deprives children of loving, nurturing homes. What We Believe

We oppose Initiated Act 1 because it works against the best interests of children who need loving homes. We can all agree that children should be placed in loving permanent homes where they can be nurtured and raised in an encouraging environment. We ought to be making that easier, not harder, to do.
We believe that child welfare experts, who know what is in the best interests of children, should decide on a case-by-case basis who should be a foster or adoptive parent. We oppose a blanket rule that bans otherwise qualified people from being foster or adoptive parents.
Arkansans should not deny loving homes to the children who need them most.

We Need Your Support

Arkansas Families First is organizing and working to defeat Initiated Act 1—and we need your help! Please contribute to our campaign, sign up for email alerts, find opportunities to volunteer.

Click here to help:http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/California Proposition 8 Vote No on 8, Vote No on Hate! Vote No on Prop 8 - Equality for All
California Proposition 8 is a California ballot initiative that would make same-sex marriage in California illegal. This discriminatory initiative is on the statewide California ballot this November 4th.Civil rights matters should not be placed on the ballot, but unfortunately this is on the ballot, and we must work to defeat it. This discriminatory measure affects people nationwide. not just in California, but only Californians can vote on it. Gay people deserve the same EQUAL rights as everyone else. Anything less is discrimination.As long as the government makes laws about and codifies civil marriage, all people must be included in those laws equally. Churches are then free to bless those unions or not. There are plenty of Progressive and tolerant churches that will. Please think about this: How does someone else's marriage affect yours? It does NOT! Vote No on 8, Vote No on Hate! Go here to learn more about California Proposition 8 and donate to help fight it:http://noonprop8.com/homeVote No on 8, Vote No on Hate! We need your help and we need it now. Please pass this message on! Here are the facts:Vote No on Prop 8 - Equality for AllWhat Is Prop 8?

The following information will be included in the November ballot materials.

Ballot Title and Summary

Proposition 8:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

On August 8, 2008 Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley ruled that the Attorney General's Title and Summary of Proposition 8 is accurate.

Ballot Argument

OUR CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION -- the law of our land -- SHOULD GUARANTEE THE SAME FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS TO EVERYONE -- NO ONE group SHOULD be singled out to BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.

In fact, our nation was founded on the principle that all people should be treated equally. EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETY.

That's what this election is about -- equality, freedom and fairness, for all.

Marriage is the institution that conveys dignity and respect to the lifetime commitment of any couple. PROPOSITION 8 WOULD DENY LESBIAN AND GAY COUPLES that same DIGNITY AND RESPECT.

That's why Proposition 8 is wrong for California.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society, just like the freedoms of religion and speech.

PROPOSITION 8 MANDATES ONE SET OF RULES FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES AND ANOTHER SET FOR EVERYONE ELSE. That's just not fair. OUR LAWS SHOULD TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY.

In fact, the government has no business telling people who can and cannot get married. Just like government has no business telling us what to read, watch on TV or do in our private lives. We don't need Prop 8; WE DON'T NEED MORE GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES.

REGARDLESS OF HOW ANYONE FEELS ABOUT MARRIAGE FOR GAY AND LESBIAN COUPLES, PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE SINGLED OUT FOR UNFAIR TREATMENT UNDER THE LAWS OF OUR STATE. Those committed and loving couples who want to accept the responsibility that comes with marriage should be treated like everyone else.

DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS are NOT MARRIAGE.

When you're married and your spouse is sick or hurt, there is no confusion: you get into the ambulance or hospital room with no questions asked. IN EVERYDAY LIFE AND ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH. Only marriage provides the certainty and the security that people know they can count on in their times of greatest need.

EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW IS A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE. Prop 8 separates one group of Californians from another and excludes them from enjoying the same rights as other loving couples.

Forty-six years ago I married my college sweetheart, Julia. We raised three children -- two boys and one girl. The boys are married, with children of their own. Our daughter, Liz, a lesbian, can now also be married -- if she so chooses.

All we have ever wanted for our daughter is that she be treated with the same dignity and respect as her brothers – with the same freedoms and responsibilities as every other Californian.

My wife and I never treated our children differently, we never loved them any differently and now the law doesn't treat them differently, either.

Each of our children now has the same rights as the others, to choose the person to love, commit to and to marry.

Don't take away the equality, freedom and fairness that everyone in California -- straight, gay or lesbian -- deserves.

Please join us in voting NO on Prop 8.

Why Vote No on Prop 8?

"Proposition 8… would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry – traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment – by definition relegates them and their relationship to second class status."
Los Angeles Times Editorial, August 8, 2008

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, we should guarantee the same fundamental rights to every Californian. Vote No on 8.

Let's remember that gay and lesbian people are our neighbors, our friends, our coworkers and our family members. They are nurses, firefighters and small business owners. Same-sex couples are loving and committed couples who want to get married. They care for each other, they pay taxes and they want to protect each other and take responsibility for each other, just like other couples. We should not hurt same-sex couples in California by eliminating their right to marry.

It's not the government's place to tell couples who have been together for years whether or not they are allowed to marry. In California, we let people decide what is best for themselves – without government interference. Eliminating fundamental rights for same-sex couples treats them differently under the law – AND THAT'S WRONG. Vote No on 8.

Domestic Partnerships are NOT the same as marriage. Domestic partnerships are just legal documents. They don't provide the same dignity, respect, and commitment as a marriage. In a marriage, a paramedic doesn't tell you that you cannot get into an ambulance with your spouse. Married couples can automatically make life or death decisions for each other in these crisis situations, no questions asked. Vote No on 8.

Regardless of how you feel about this issue, it's wrong to eliminate the fundamental rights of fellow Californians – and hurt our friends, neighbors, coworkers, and family members. THAT'S WRONG.

Proponents of Prop 8 continue to lie in their television ads.

Here's what's fiction and what's fact:

Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is "false and misleading."

Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."

Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent's objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don't agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won't affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it's about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn't grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren't supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

Fiction: People can be sued over personal beliefs.

Fact: California's laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

Fiction: Pepperdine University supports the Yes on 8 campaign.

Fact: The university has publicly disassociated itself from Professor Richard Peterson of Pepperdine University, who is featured in the ad, and has asked to not be identified in the Yes on 8 advertisements.

Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won't have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, we should not eliminate fundamental rights for ANY Californians. Please vote NO on Prop 8

http://noonprop8.com/campaign_updates?id=0001

Donate

We need your help and we need it now. There are so many ways you can help fund the fight against Prop 8. You can help to raise much-needed funds and educate your friends and family about why it is so important for Californians to vote NO on Prop 8.

Click Herre:http://www.noonprop8.com/page/?id=0052

Sign up to receive more information on Prop 8

http://eqfed.org/equalityforall/join.tcl

Click Here to help:California Proposition 8 Vote No on Prop 8 - Equality for AllFlorida Amendment 2 http://www.sayno2.com/Arizona Proposition 102http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/home.phpArkansas Act 1 http://arkansasfamiliesfirst.org/
And Vote Obama-Biden Too!

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

Why This Is Not Over

Andrew Hammer — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:48:08 EDT

The nation was ready for a change.

It had been through a depression, a war, and sixteen years of government by the same political party. The incumbent was an unpopular man who had been a "last choice" pick four years earlier for the Vice-Presidency. The challenger was an intelligent, charismatic, well-spoken and experienced governor of a major state who had been nominated once before and whose time had finally come.

Everything was in place, the polls looked great, and on election night, the media was so certain of the challenger's imminent victory that a major American newspaper reported that he won before all the votes had come in.

And then Thomas Dewey lost. The great hope of the Republican Party failed to take the presidency away from Harry Truman, a man who inherited the office in the shadow of Franklin Roosevelt.

Fast forward sixty years, and we Obama supporters find ourselves in a similarly dangerous situation. The polls look great, and our opponent looks like a beaten man who made a bad choice for a running mate, and can't seem to do much of anything right. Our guy looks presidential, and no one can deny he has the charisma of a classic American leader. The whole world wants him to be elected.

But just as in 1948, the only thing that matters is the final vote count. Not polls, not charisma, not clever slogans. And if we do not work every day to until November 4th to win this election, as if we were the ones who were ten points behind, we could well find ourselves mourning a numbing loss of the White House the next day.

If you're young, it's so easy to feel over-confident about all of this. Hell, even if you're old it's easy. It's so obvious that Obama is the best choice for the job, right? How could anyone not see that? But many don't, and many won't, and you and I will never understand why they won't, because we just don't think that way.

What I'm trying to say to everyone who reads this is that we can lose this election.

The only way to prevent that is to resist the temptation to believe that we have already won it. The media is singing into our ears about how great our campaign is, how well-funded and well-organized we are. How naturally presidential Obama looks and sounds.

Don't believe it. Work as if we have nothing and need to gain everything. Speak passionately but patiently to people who are not yet convinced that Obama is the right choice to lead the nation. We need them to join us if they can.

If you are living in a part of your state where our victory is very clearly assured, then consider going to another part of your state where it's an uphill battle, and your help is desperately needed.

This election symbolizes deep change on many levels, but only one of them has to do with the election. We are at a point of cultural and generational change in this nation that will take place no matter what the result of the election may be.

The people who remember the Great Depression are now all near 80 or older. The youthful generation of the 1960s that we still see in films and television shows, the ones who are often seen as eternally youthful hippies; they are now all near or over 60. So change is going to come; the question for us is will we get the political leadership we want to steward us through those other kinds of inevitable changes.

Time has done its part; it's up to us to do the rest. As Barack Obama has said from the very beginning, it's not about him, it's about us. He can do nothing unless we make him the next President.

Let's get out there and make the change we want.

Andrew Hammer is a writer, speaker and activist with over fifteen years of experience as a consultant on faith and politics to progressive political parties throughout the world.

GOP: "Liberals Hate Real Americans"

Ed Terry — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:29:24 EDT

'Liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God'So says 5-term Republican Congressman Robin Hayes from North Carolina. This just after Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann accusing Senator Obama, Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress of being anti-American.

I do not believe people of such hate should be serving in the Congress of the United States and the minute I heard the news of such episodes, I google'd to find who the Democratic opponent was and made a contribution to that Democrat's campaign. Only by removing these advocates of radical right-wing fear mongering will we be able to restore a civilized political discourse in our country.

Larry Kissell is the Democratic challenger in North Carolina's 8th Congressional District. Looking at his photo, he does not appear to be a terrorist and his bio says he's a life-long member of the First Baptist Church of Biscoe, NC. I would assume he believes in God since he's a deacon at that church. No where on his web site does Larry claim to be anti-American or against hard working citizens.

As for the race in Minnesota, Elwyn Tinklenberg has raised over $600,000 since Congresswoman Bachmann's remarks were first reported. That money has allowed him to purchase print, radio and TV ads as Election Day approaches.

Let's help Larry get the same kind of resources to silence Congressman Hayes. Consider a $25 contribution.

http://www.larrykissell.com/
http://www.tinklenberg08.com/

"Newspapers That Backed Bush Shift To Obama" by Rachel Weiner

natalie gould — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:55:10 EDT

"Newspapers That Backed Bush Shift To Obama" by Rachel Weiner,

The Huffington Post - October 17, 2008 03:56 PM

The Denver Post, "which had backed George W. Bush in 2004 and is owned by Republican-leaning William Dean Singleton," endorsed Barack Obama for president on Friday. "So did the Chicago Sun-Times, Kansas City Star. Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And to top it off: another Bush-backing in 2004, The Salt Lake Tribune."

Open Letter to Democratic Candidates

Michael A. Dover — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:23:19 EDT

Concerned Democrats
1900 Superior Ave. Suite #221
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone: (734)645-6261
www.concerneddemocrats.org
An Open Letter to Democratic Candidates for Office
October 5, 2008
Dear Democratic Candidate for Office:

We are writing you as Democrats to another Democrat. As a Democratic candidate for office in this historic year, you are in an unique position to help Barack Obama and Joe Biden reverse our nation's priorities.

Unfortunately, the combination of the Obama/Biden campaign’s practice until very recently of de-emphasizing use of traditional visual materials such as yard signs, bumper stickers and buttons and the natural tendency of local candidates to be focused on their own races has resulted in a repeat in 2008 of what has been a longstanding problem in Democratic campaigns during Presidential years: uneven levels of coordination between local campaigns and the top of the ticket in many areas and inadequate support for the top of the ticket.

True, there are many areas in which there is strong support for the top of the ticket and vice versa. That may very well be the case in your area. But this Open Letter stresses the importance of supporting the top of the ticket in very simple ways, such as wearing Obama/Biden buttons, putting Obama/Biden bumper stickers on your car, putting an Obama/Biden sign in your own front yard, trying to get Obama/Biden yard signs up where your own supporters have yard signs, etc..

Concerned Democrats was formed with goal of raising consciousness among candidates for office about the importance of the use of such Obama/Biden materials, in order to send a symbolic but important message to everyone who sees you that you support the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.

Although there are many logistical causes of lack of coordination, lack of support for the top of the ticket also has political roots. It has manifested itself most often when there has been a liberal candidate for President, such as in 1972, 1984, and 2004. This year Barack Obama has articulated a uniquely pragmatic point of view. Barack Obama realizes that the social problems facing rural, suburban and urban American can’t be solved in isolation from each other.

Senator Obama is the real maverick in this race. He has worked successfully across party lines on nuclear proliferation and other issues. He defied the odds and ran a tough primary campaign during which he and Senator Hillary Clinton made history together. But their efforts and those of their supporters will be nullified if we don’t unite to elect Barack Obama as President, Joe Biden as Vice-President, and Congressional and state candidates across this country and state.

This makes it particularly important that all Democratic candidates unite to show the flag for the top of the ticket. That is the best way to build the turnout needed to win up and down the ticket. This year, undecided rates are still at a high rate, according to recent polls, and many voters are looking for guidance to those persons in public life they know and trust. In your area, that would include you!

You are in a good position to help voters in your area realize that our local problems can’t be optimally addressed without a change in administration in Washington. However, if voters don’t see consistent and visible evidence of your support for Barack Obama, they may mistakenly conclude that you are actually distancing yourself from the top of the ticket.

Thank you for hearing our concerns. Please feel free to call contact us at any time at mdover@concerneddemocrats.org. We are especially interested in hearing unique ideas as to how you have improved coordination and generated momentum in your area. We will then collate these ideas and share them with you in a follow-up email just prior to election day. We will also share them with the Democratic Party and the Campaign for Change, although I want to make it clear that Concerned Democrats does not represent either of these entities.

From preliminary conversations, one idea has already arisen, and that is for each candidate to say at every possible opportunity, "If you are supporting me, I would strongly urge you to also vote for the Obama/Biden ticket on election day."

One day, years from now, all of us who are active in this election will be asked by people close to us, "What did you do to help elect Barack Obama as President in 2008?" As a Democratic candidate for office this year, you will be able to proudly point to your candidacy and its important contribution to change in your area. However, I am writing you to ask that you also be able to say that you did whatever was in your power to be help elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden!

Sincerely,

Michael A. Dover

Concerned Democrats

Concerned Democrats
1900 Superior Ave. Suite #221
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone: (734)645-6261
www.concerneddemocrats.org
An Open Letter to Democratic Candidates for Office

October 5, 2008
Dear Democratic Candidate for Office:

Sincerely,

Michael A. Dover

Concerned Democrats

New Website for Concerned Democrats

Michael A. Dover — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:39:00 EDT

See www.concerneddemocrats.org.

While I respect the campaign's wish that folks not operate independently, in addition to working within the campaign, I must do so. We'll be distributing 2000 buttons, 1000 bumper stickers and 2500 lapel labels directly to rural and suburban House candidates in Ohio and Michigan and seeking their pledge to more actively support the top of the ticket in the weeks again. The Obama/Biden campaign's stubborn failiure to listen to the people coming into the office asking for materials to distribute to neighbors and friends (due to David Plouffe's faulty and mistaken belief that visual materials don't matter and his over-reliance upon email, text messaging and TV ads) has combined with the intentional and unintentional failure of local candidates to show the flag for the top of the ticket. This 'perfect wave' is threatening the election outcome in Ohio and Michigan. When rural and suburban voters don't "see" visible support by their local candidates for the talk of the ticket, this lack of 'visuals' makes them think that these candidates aren't supporting Obama/Biden, which is very often not true. I'm hearing one story after another from these candidates about how hard a time even they have getting materials! So we're sending them on our own one candidate at a time.

Mike Dover, mdover@concerneddemocrats.org

If the world can vote...

let me delete my account — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:44:52 EDT

The Economist, a british magazine, has poll.

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?source=hptextfeature

Barack will surely win.

Going All In Between Now and Election Day: An Urgent Appeal

Michael A. Dover — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:52:42 EDT

Going All In From Now Until Election Day: An Urgent Appeal (Pass the Word)

It happened in 1972. It happened in 1984. It happened in 2004 and it could happen again. It happened to McGovern, it happened to Mondale-Ferraro, it happened to Kerry and it can happen to Obama-Biden. What happened was that in those years there was widespread failure on the part of candidates for state offices and for Congress to support the top of the ticket. And there was insufficient coordination by the presidential campaign with the candidates for local office. It contributed to the losses in those presidential races and losses in local races. If we want to bring change to the country this time, we’ll need to make some changes in how we go about it.

First, what can be done:

1. Turn your house, glove box, trunk, and office drawer into a repository of campaign materials for the top of the ticket and for your favorite local candidate. Official materials can be obtained from: http://store.barackobama.com/ or from your local Obama-Biden headquarters. To find the nearest headquarters, visit: http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/mioffices and substitute your state initials for “pa” before “offices” at the end of the URL. While visiting the Obama-Biden office, sign up to be a Obama-Biden campaign volunteer. I have, and you can to.

2. Request a meeting, a conference call or a phone conversation with your state or local party chair. Do the same with local or statewide Obama-Biden office staff. And do the same with local and Congressional candidates you are supporting. Discuss your observations about coordination and support for the top of the ticket, both positive and negative. Discuss solutions. Ask how you can help, both with any perceived problem and in general. Build unity by pointing out that this is a problem which has developed over the decades and isn’t unique to this year. You can do this and if you don’t want to do it solo, ask some friends to help raise the issue along with you.

3. Pass the word for unity, coordination and support for the top of the ticket. Do everything in your power between now and election day to make sure that this historic opportunity for change is realized. Let’s not get discouraged, let’s get determined. Pass the word. Forward this message.

4. Donate to both the Obama-Biden campaign and the local campaign. You can donate to many local campaigns via this website: http://www.actblue.com/directory. After you donate, send the candidate a message with a plea for better support for the top of the ticket. You don’t have to give much, but every bit helps.

5. Work to ensure that candidates for local office and their supporters are wearing Obama/Biden buttons, mentioning the top of the ticket in phone calls, and helping to distribute Obama/Biden yard signs and bumper stickers. Work to ensure that local Obama/Biden offices are making such materials available for free for use by official representatives of local campaigns as well as providing additional materials on consignment for sale to the public at local campaign offices. The best way is to call the candidate and visit the campaign offices and get involved.

6. Campaign websites need to be updated urgently to include prominent links to www.barackobama.com as well as statements and photographs showing that the local candidate is fully supporting the top of the ticket.

7. State parties, unions and PACs who assign staff and volunteers to help elect a local candidate should instruct them to work actively to ensure coordination of the Obama/Biden campaign with the local campaign and local campaign support for the top of the ticket.

8. Candidates interviewed on radio, TV and in the newspapers should go out of the way to stress the need to elect Biden/Obama in order to ensure a national leadership which can respond to local problems.

Why we need to do this:

The problems of lack of coordination and of insufficient support for the top of the ticket are endemic problems historically and in many states. They are not new this year, and this must be stressed. This concerned Democrat and longtime activist works in one state and lives in another and has made it his business while driving back and forth, talking on the phone, visiting websites, and showing up at campaign offices to observe local, Congressional and presidential campaigns. There were clear signs there is a serious problem of lack of coordination from the top of the ticket and lack of support for the top of the ticket.

Next, I solicited reports from longstanding friends and fellow activists around the country. These included reports from Louisiana (“It’s happening here”), Ohio (a half-hour long radio interview with a Congressional candidate who doesn’t mention the presidential race, despite the fact he’s a progressive candidate whose own website has a link to Obama/Biden) , and Pennsylvania (where Progressive Democrats of America members have complained about a Congressional candidate not openly supporting Obama/Biden). Reports have also been received from members of Progressives for Obama in Oregon, from the relative of a union activist in Washington, from Social Workers for Obama, from candidates for local, statewide and Congressional offices, from Obama-Biden campaign volunteers and staffers including veterans of Hillary’s campaign, and from Democratic Party officials and staffers.

True, these are anecdotal reports. And there as many examples of excellent coordination and support for the top of the ticket as there are reported problems. But it appears that this longstanding problem is developing once again in 2008. And it threatens the outcome of the election. It’s not all problems with the candidates and their campaign organizations or the Democratic Party. In some cases unions, 527s, professional organization PACs and other independent groups are focused on Congressional or gubernatorial races to the exclusion of the top of the ticket.

It might seem like there is little the everyday activist can do between now and election day about the attitudes about race or the opinions about progressive ideas which we may be seen as the central factors that will determine the outcome of the presidential race. But there is something we can do about this problem of lack of coordination or support for the top of the ticket. We can do “whatever’s in our power” to overcome it as in step 2 above. And if we do so along with continuing our everyday activism so that we can have a real impact, as in step 1 Above. We can put our money where our mouth is as in step 4 above. And we can pass the word as in step 3 above and compare notes about this problem in the hopes that there can be an upsurge in unity in the weeks ahead.

More on the problem....:

If you are already convinced, no need to read on. Yes, there are great examples all over the country where coordination is already working. Let us now praise good examples, and collect suggestions and ideas other than those here. But there are also places where this is not happening. In some cases it’s unintentional, in that both the presidential campaign offices and local candidates are naturally focused on electing “their” candidate. In media interviews, local radio, TV and newspapers reporters are often assigned to get the angle on the local race. But that doesn’t prevent a candidate from sneaking in mention of the need to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States of America and articulating the reasons why that is relevant to the local race and local issues.

True, in some cases, the problem of lack of coordination is due to continued logistical problems, such as lack of funds by relatively poorly funded local campaigns to purchase Obama-Biden materials or shortages of those materials on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign. It is urgent these problems be overcome on the part of the Obama-Biden campaign. The Obama-Biden campaign should schedule meetings with state and local parties and candidates devoted to a single issue discussion of improved coordination and support of the top of the ticket.

Unfortunately, in other cases, there is a problem of foot dragging by local candidates as to their support of the national ticket. This is an endemic problem historically and one based upon a faulty logic. Typically, the view is that the top of the ticket is too liberal for the local area, and that being identified with the top of the ticket will hurt the local candidate. But if the local candidate is a shoo-in for re-election, this doesn’t apply. And if the local candidate is hopelessly outvoted, it surely doesn’t apply. But what if it’s a close race? It doesn’t apply then either, for the following reasons. Yes, there may be some local voters who will be turned off by such a candidate’s support for the top of the ticket. But there will be many more local voters who are more likely to be convinced to turn out to vote in the most important presidential race since 1960 than there are who can be convinced to turn out to support a local candidate. Put another way, there are many more local voters who haven’t always made it to the polls in the past but who are more likely to vote this time due to a high profile presidential campaign than there are non-voters who can be turned out for a local race on the ballot.

Supporting the top of the ticket is the best way to maximize overall voter awareness and turnout. And it is that turnout that has the best chance of producing victories in close local races, even in less than liberal areas.

Let’s eliminate the bottlenecks and the excuses and make this work. Where there is a will there is a way. A rising tide lifts all ships. But if ships are crossing in the night they might not reach their destinations.

Signed, A Concerned Democrat and Long-Time Activist

Very Serious Warning - Checks Out on Snopes

Deva — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:37:06 EDT

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ADVISE EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT THEY
ABSOLUTELY CANNOT GO TO THE POLLS WEARING ANY OBAMA SHIRTS, PINS OR HATS, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW AND WILL BE GROUNDS TO HAVE THE POLLING OFFICIALS TOTURN YOU AWAY.

THAT IS CONSIDERED CAMPAIGNING AND NO ONE CAN CAMPAIGN WITHIN X AMOUNT OF FEET TO THE POLLS.

THEY ARE BANKING ON US BEING EXCITED AND NOT BEING AWARE OF THIS LONG STANDING LAW THAT YOU CAN BET WILL BE ENFORCED THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THEY ARE BANKING THAT IF ARE TURNED AWAY YOU WILL NOT GO HOME
AND CHANGE YOUR CLOTHES.. PLEASE JUST DON'T WEAR OBAMA GEAR OF ANY
SORTS TO THE POLLS!!

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION, OH AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
WERE ALREADY AWARE THIS WAS NOT MEANT TO INSULT YOUR
INTELLIGENCE. JUST TRYING TO COVER ALL GROUNDS.

Feminists for Obama Gear

Deva — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:32:12 EDT

I have been having a good time alughing at the Republicans as they use Sarah Palin, hiding behind her femininity, and pretendeing to be feminists. The fact that they think asking her dificult questions is sexism just shows how little they understand feminism. We all know what Republicans care about and it isn't feminism nor is it women.

So, I decided to do something about it. I decided to make a statement: I am a Feminist for Obama. I created a whole bunch of Feminists for Obama Gear. Feel free to stop by my online store and pick up some bumper stickers, buttons, a coffee mug, and a whole lot more. Also, pass this link along to your feminist friends. Don't let the Republicans pretend they have the corner market on feminism.

http://www.cafepress.com/Feminists4Obama

I'm donating the maximum ammount to the Obama campaing, so purchasing this gear means you're helping the campaign and making a statement at eh same time.

Thank you for your support.

Barack Morning Buzz - 9-17-08

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:38:49 EDT

Barack Morning Buzz - 9-17-08
On to Victory in November

(1) Obama Buys 2 Minute Commercial on Economy to be Broadcast Nationally
Terence Hunt-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD938ATIO0

(2) Obama and McCain Exchange Blows on Economic Woes
John McCormick-Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign-wedsep17,0,5139429.story

(3) Obama and McCain Seek Political Foothold with Wall Street Battered
Alison Fitzgerald and Christopher Stern-Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqwxDPvmIvDc&refer=home

(4) Obama Looks to Shift Focus of Campaign to Economy
Jeff Zeleny-New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17obama.html?ref=politics

(5) Obama Action Wire-Campaign Mobilizes Rapid Response on Web
John McCormick-Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-mediasep17,0,6325137.story

(6) Women's Rights Group Endorse Obama for President
Ann Sanner-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gbJvGZDG9ZD_SsuZpy-SSApOaW7AD93858M00

(7) Obama Picks Up about $9 Million in Hollywood
Terence Hunt-Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_en_ot/obama_32

(8) Obama Raises Millions in Beverly Hills
Dan Morain and Michael Finnegan-Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obamafund17-2008sep17,0,2221444.story

(9) Obama Does Hollywood
Jake Tapper-ABC News-Political Punch
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/obama-does-holl.html

(10) Obama is Ahead in Washington
Chris Grygiel-Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/148919.asp

(11) Can Obama Really Pull It Off?
Roger Simon-Politico
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080917/pl_politico/13524_1

(12) Libertarian Nominee Bob Barr Sues to Keep Obama and McCain Off Texas Ballot
Associated Press
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D9388CTO1.html

When Education fails.. everything else fails

Dell — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:00:07 EDT

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/15/paying.grades/index.html?iref=topnews

This is an article in CNN regarding a program that pays students for good grades. For this to happen in our watch is really sad. This is another reason why we should work hard to awaken AMERICA to VOTE for OBAMA. I can't believe we have to pay kids to just show up. Responsibility should be taught to kids for free not to be paid to make them accept responsibility. This is really sad. If our government can't even fix the education system, how can we expect them to fix our economy among other problems. Im so tired of hearing Republicans and McCain campaign diverting the focus from the issues to stupid personality tests. All the lies are so obvious and there are still people who actually believe them.... This is really tiring. Please Obama please fight for us. Please.

A reminder- Spills from Katrina?

Tom Pearce Palm Beach Community Organizer — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:55:40 EDT

Now why are we compromising on offshore? Now that Galveston Bay is covered with fuel from Ike? Why? Pandering

Major spills (over 100,000 gallons)
Bass Enterprises Production Company (Cox Bay): About 3.78 million gallons discharged, of which 960,000 gallons were recovered, 2 million gallons were contained and 982,000 gallons evaporated.

Shell (Pilot Town): About 1.05 million gallons discharged, of which about 718,000 gallons were recovered, 129,000 were contained and 105,000 gallons evaporated or dispersed. Some 87,000 gallons have not been contained.

Chevron (Empire): About 991,000 gallons were released, of which 983,000 gallons were naturally dispersed or evaporated, 4,000 gallons were recovered and 3,600 gallons were contained.

Murphy Oil Corporation (Meraux): About 819,000 gallons discharged, of which 305,000 were recovered, 196,000 gallons were contained and 312,000 gallons evaporated. Some 6,000 gallons were not recovered.

Bass Enterprises (Point a la Hache): About 461,000 gallons of oil discharged, of which half was contained and half evaporated.

Medium spills (10,000 to 100,000 gallons)
Chevron (Port Fourchon): About 53,000 gallons were released, of which 21,000 gallons were naturally dispersed, 26,000 gallons were recovered and 420 gallons were contained.

Venice Energy Services Company (Venice): About 840,000 gallons of potential discharge are enclosed in bermed and boomed area, but only 25,000 gallons were actually discharged, of which 4,800 gallons were recovered.

Shell Pipeline Oil (Nairn): About 13,440 gallons discharged, of which 126 gallons were recovered, 2,940 gallons were contained and 10,500 gallons reached shoreline.

Sundown Energy (West Potash): About 13,000 gallons discharged, of which 153 gallons were recovered, 2,000 gallons were contained, and 5,000 gallons reached shoreline.

Offshore oil
As for oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, Paskewich said the Coast Guard has fielded no reports of offshore spills there, though leaks could spring when the thousands of oil platforms and hundreds of miles of pipeline are restarted. Last year, Hurricane Ivan was responsible for oil spills in the Gulf, he said.

Paskewich dismissed suggestions by an environmental advocacy group that satellite photos showed some 7,000 square miles of oil floating in the Gulf, saying numerous flyovers revealed only minor sheening.

Skytruth, a group that uses satellite imagery to track environmental damage, says extensive oil slicks are visible in areas of the Gulf raked by hurricane-force winds.

“Daily overflights are being conducted to find the real truth of what’s going on,” Paskewich told Reuters. “As for now, I am confident that we have not received any reports of significant oil spills offshore.”

THE HIGH ROAD WINS

push pin — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:02:47 EDT

Perhaps many of you remember, as I do, some comments on FOX News a while back suggesting Obama's kids could "end up in a bell tower" because their folks "don't buy them Christmas presents," "proof that they're socialists," etc. Do you remember? Pretty nasty stuff.

When Governor Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's VP pick there was immediate gossipy discussion about her family issues from our side. It wasn't as gratuitous as the FOX News garbage, and it didn't make main stream news until Gov. Palin announced that her daughter, Bristol, was pregnant and unwed. At that point, Obama loudly and angrily declared that the family was "off limits", promising to fire any staff who tried to make political hay of the situation. His declaration was the perfect response, because people DO remember that FOX bullshit, and the ugliness of the attack is evident, ESPECIALLY in light of Obama's noble refusal to countenance the same from HIS people...

We should never forget Obama's frequent reference to the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you", and its possible corollary, "...even when others do ill unto you first."

Our candidate is holding the high ground, and winning it, in ways even his supporters can't fathom. His admonishments regarding Palin's family issues are part of a consistent theme of sticking with the issues that really matter, and avoiding the ugly methods of Karl Rove's political philosophy. I have a sense that his perseverance is beginning to pay off. As his team continues to paint a canvas with the bright colors of high principal, the GOP's continued resort to innuendo, character assault and outright lies stand out in sharp contrast as mud brown.

On the spectrum of American political opinion, between the partisan extremes of left and right, there exists a blending continuum of objective, critical thinkers in varying degrees of doubt. They are invariably the ones who have to be sold. Up to now, Rovian methods have been winning because they have been DEFINING "politics as usual" in cynical fashion, alienating non-partisans from the process. But Obama is offering a REDEFINITION. He has pointedly, repeatedly, called for discarding the cynical politics of division. That is only accomplished by the arts of inclusion, effectively encouraging the alienated center to rejoin the American quest, a return to American ideals.

We partisans can be excused for the revulsion we feel for the things that appear in our mail: The bogus lawsuit to disqualify our candidate as a non-citizen; McCain's accusation that Obama has "never" been bipartisan; Palin's claim that he has "never" proposed significant legislation; the inexperienced liberal elitist tax-and-spend baby-killer who hates America... It surely makes you want to slap their faces, grab them by the collar, shake and shout, "What the hell are you trying to pull? You liar! You cheat!", and throw them against a brick wall. Fact is, their response would be to step back, straighten their clothes, grin and say, "Thanks for your cooperation. We win..."

It's tough. It's frustrating. Continue your mailings, your forwards, comments, investigations and debunking. Leave no stone unturned. And don't hide your exasperation. Advertise McCain's graduating class rank, the planes he crashed, his less-than-unique POW status and his temper. Post Palin's weakness as a parent, her credit for facing down Russia and leading her Alaskan troops to war, and her fundamental(ist) ambitions. Point out the Mass Media lies, distortions and partiality, and take them to task for their objective failure.

Just don't call for Obama and his team to join in.

It has struck me from the very start of this race that the issue has never been about an ABILITY to lead -- experience, voting record, blah, blah, blah. It has always been about HOW to lead. Do we attract and appoint the able, or do we select the loyal? Do we address opponents with respect and high expectations, or do we deride their ideals and denigrate their abilities? The HOW of leadership is the only thing to be demonstrated in a campaign. The rest is just vague dross, promises that may become less than practical when office is won and the limitations of reality descend. But the tone, the quality of leadership remains, and our man is ahead, and gaining, on that score.

Barack Obama has often applied the term "defining moment" to this election. This is not fluff, or bluff, or empty rhetoric. It's a fundamental TRUTH. As tempting as it is to join the mud-slingers in the pit, doing so would betray the very principals that brought him into this contest, and in winning it would hobble his ability to fulfill those lofty promises. If he fails while staying true, on the other hand, it only means that America is not ready for a redefinition. That's the point of this election: to test the maturity of the electorate and our readiness to accept the next stage of democratic evolution. I think we're winning.

A remarkable confluence of people and events has conspired to make it possible for the high road to WIN, sending Karl Rove and his minions, the off-cue applause machine of the GOP convention, back to the garbage dump that spawned them, and they know it. They're running scared. That's why you see the attacks multiplying, and they'll continue. For the first time they see a genuine, serious challenge to their continued rule of the dialog, they will make every devious effort to defeat it, and they will continue when this campaign is finished.

Keep fighting. Keep the high road. Be not afraid. Yes we can. GoBama...

Deficit doubles- One more reason why we should vote for Obama

Dell — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:43:17 EDT

(Newser) – The federal deficit will swell to $407 billion in the fiscal year that ends this month, theWashington Post reports, a figure more than twice last year’s total. Congressional budget analysts blamed the surge on weak revenue growth and accelerated spending, including the $168 billion economic stimulus package. They also said the next president could face a $438 billion deficit.

Today’s news sparked partisan bickering: One Democrat called it “another reminder of the dismal economy and budget Republicans are leaving others to sort out.” The White House accused Dems of trying to inject billions in “extra spending” to appropriations bills. Congress’ budget director noted that Washington’s takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac won’t significantly affect the figure.

SOURCE Washington Post

9 15 08-

Well I guess the bad news about the economy still goes on.. With the financial crisis getting worst, what can we expect to happen in a McCain -Palin government.. more Bush tax cuts, more Bush policies.... No more please.. VOTE OBAMA.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks tanked Monday, amid the largest financial crisis in years after Lehman Brothers filed for the biggest bankruptcy in history, Bank of America said it would buy Merrill Lynch and AIG slumped on fears that it can't raise cash.

Treasury prices rallied as investors sought the comparative safety of government debt, sending the corresponding yields lower. Oil prices tumbled, falling well below $100 a barrel on slowing global economic growth. The dollar rallied versus the euro and gold prices spiked.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 504 points, or 4.4%. It was the biggest one-day decline for the Dow on a point basis since Sept. 17, 2001, when the market reopened for trading after having been closed in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks. On a percentage basis, it was the biggest decline since July 19, 2002.

"Lipstick" ad brings a convert!

Roy in Tampa — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:54:14 EDT

Was having coffee this morning with a friend who teased me unmercifully four years ago because he was "cancelling your vote" by voting for Bush.

Today he said, "I've changed addresses since the last election. Do you think I'm still registered?"

"Probably not," I said. "They usually send out a letter to confirm your address and when the post office sends it back, they cancel you out."

"Umm. I have to find out how to register. I want to make sure I can vote for Obama."

Well, said I to myself. Start your community organizing now!

So I whipped out my voter card and my cellphone and called the county supervisor of elections office right as he sat across from me and asked them how to get registered with a new address. The transferred me to the "voter section" and a pleasant woman said, "Oh, I can do that on the phone."

So I handed the phone to my friend and after a few identifying questions, he was re-registered.

They told him his voter card would be in the mail within three weeks.

So I asked why he was (thank heavens) voting for Obama. He told me because he and everyone he knew - whatever their income level - was in hard times, and things have to change.

"And you know what," he asked, "McCain hasn't got anything better to do than send out the ads with all kinds of lies in them. Especially that 'lipstick-on-a-pig' thing. He knows Obama was talking policy not about the governor. And he sent it out anyway."

As he left to go on his way, he looked back at me.

"I wonder if you'd have been as helpful if I told you I was voting for the other guy."

"Not a chance, buddy. Not a chance."

We both laughed, but I had a new, correctly registered Obama voter for my efforts.

Slime Obama some more John McCain. I have lots of minutes on my cell to help people get registered for Barack!

Slowly But Surely

push pin — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:20:21 EDT

From the climactic end of the Democratic Convention through the shocking selection of Sarah Palin, I have sensed a GOP attack machine in high gear, using all their devious arts to try and damage our candidate. They put some of their ugly message into our convention coverage (thanks to the MSM), and they’re recycling the old character attacks, plus submitting new ones. But their attacks are getting shriller and shriller, even taking on an edge (in my opinion) of desperation. That desperation is born of the realization that Barack Obama is beating their game, slowly but surely.

Obama’s acceptance speech subverted the GOP message, canned in advance, which anticipated fluff and empty rhetoric. Instead, he presented substantive proposals, and millions of the doubtful were watching. Those millions must have wondered at the GOP message, asking themselves if the critics were talking about the same speech they saw. Doubts.

When rumors about Gov. Palin’s 5th child achieved MSM status, Sen. Obama nobly and forcefully denounced the rumor mongers and seriously threatened any staff members who participated. Millions heard it. When the GOP accuses the Democrats of unfairly attacking Palin’s family, those millions must wonder if they’re talking about Obama’s Democrats. Doubts.

When Hurricane Gustav threatened New Orleans, McCain’s “presidential” response was to travel personally to a few hundred miles from the coast. Obama offered his millions of supporters for volunteer relief and no one, to my knowledge, claimed it was an empty gesture. The undecided millions must have wondered who was being truly presidential and who chose the standard photo-op. Doubts.

Stay tuned.

The attack ads and e-mails and VP appointments that worry us so much are aimed at the true believers, the 25% who believe G.W. Bush is doing a “heck of a job,” and the millions just beyond them who still have doubts about this new guy. But the doubts are slowly being turned around. Obama and his team are skillfully turning the tables on the methods that have always worked before. The watchers who have always been ready to accept GOP claims are beginning to wonder if they’re being lied to. Skepticism, slowly but surely, is on the rise.

I’m starting to liken this campaign to a wagon train of settlers moving toward a new frontier, the far horizon. We are debating the choice of wagon master.

Our candidate insists that the high road is the best way to reach the Promised Land. We believe him. In our hearts we’re sure it’s true. But sometimes, when the going gets rough, we can’t believe how difficult it is. It’s stony and steep and full of hazards. The road has been neglected and untraveled, so we have to chop at the narrow places, rebuilding bridges and culverts, removing debris and obstacles caused by erosion. Sometimes we have to put our backs to the wheels to get them over the boulders and fallen trees, many put there by rivals to impede our progress.

The opposing candidate is leading a section of the wagon train to the low road, knowing it’s easier and better traveled, and he claims it leads to the same place. You and I don’t think so. We’re sure it only goes deeper into the valley and ends at a swamp of cutthroat competition, leaving the less able to sink out of site in the mud.

The writing of the American Constitution and the creation of a unique form of government of the people, by the people and for the people was a high point of human progress achieved on this continent more then 200 years ago. America has since surmounted other high points on the road to its destiny of leading mankind toward freedom and self determination. There will be others to climb, followed by gullies and canyons to be crossed on the journey to a high, fertile plateau. Maybe we can’t see it yet, but we know it’s there, on the far horizon, where people from all the tribes can prosper in peaceful commerce.

We should consider ourselves the scouts and engineers of the high road. As we use and improve the neglected track way, making it smoother and easier to travel, more wagons will follow. As more follow, the wider and smoother it becomes. But it will always tend uphill, and require steady effort.

The slope that we're on now rises to what I call a Rennaisance of Reason. After years of political destruction based on division and rancor, Americans are now hungry for leadership based on rational debate, rather than mutual recriminations. Barack Obama can provide it. He and we are the new pioneers, following the dreams of our nation's founders, the extraordinary leaders who have come after them, and the great thinkers who have gone before. The destination is a society in which no one is denied the opportunity to do their best for themselves and for each other, with liberty and justice for all.

Slowly but surely. Wagons Ho.

Get out the vote

alternativefuel — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:23:34 EDT

Make sure you are registered and if you are going to be out of state make sure you turn in your absentee ballot. Or if you live in a state where you can mail in your vote ahead of time then cast your vote now.

Political Dinosaurs

Roy in Tampa — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:45:33 EDT

It's been fun to listen to the political dinosaurs groan about the lack of attacks against the Republican candidate during this convention. They don't realize that their time has gone.

The outstanding thing about the speakers at the Democratic Partyy convention, in my humble opinion, is that they are completely tacking away from the tiresome - and much hated - practice of lobbing handgrenade for handgrenade with the GOP but instead they are on message and to the point! What a rare politics this is.

This morning I happened to catch a few minutes of Morning Joe on MSNBC and heard the screechy whines of Pat Buchanan who traced his history of trench warfare back to the Nixon years saying that it somehow is the duty of politcal speakers to constantly attack, attack, attack. I understand that is all the GOP can do - their candidates have no charisma, no program and no message anyone wants to hear. But what Pat needs to know, and what I've been coming to understand is that we can well do without that, and do very well without it, too.

I think among all the things this campaign will be remembered for one of the very top memories will be that this will be the time when ideas overcame insults and proposals trumped personal attacks. Thank you for that, Barack Obama.

THE SUITOR

push pin — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:49:45 EDT

My son and I were talking politics one night, discussing Barack Obama’s campaign for President, when he revealed that he had broken up with his girlfriend. It was pretty painful for him, his first relationship that seemed to have depth and serious potential, touching on love. They’re only 21, barely at the beginning of their life journeys, and there is so much more to learn. I advised him that this blow was just one of life’s lessons: Youth and the confusing interplay of love and lust, passion and compassion, friendship and companionship. They had been close for only a few months, but at their age time is fleeting and emotions run high. My suggestion was that this experience would help him grow.

Always in the background of a new relationship is the echo of a hope that this is real, serious, and will last forever. Youth is impatient for forever, not realizing that life will be full of brief encounters, with many disappointments and surprising satisfaction.

We talk politics fairly often. He's been pursuing an English major with a minor in political science and he has some pretty strong opinions, especially on international affairs. We’re both big Obama fans, and on this night the subject was Barack’s struggle for acceptance among voters who are ready to believe the worst about him. Our candidate often declares his wholehearted love and admiration for America and his readiness to take on the awesome responsibility of leadership. Yet his critics paint him as shallow and pretentious at best, traitorous at worst, sowing the suspicion that he doesn’t really honor America.

Our greatest frustration with this campaign is the ease in which Barack Obama is cast as alien and suspect. How many times does he have to loudly, bluntly declare, “This is the greatest nation on Earth; nowhere else could a story like mine even be possible”, “This country is not perfect, but it is perfectible”, “It’s not about me; it’s about us; together, we can solve the momentous problems that we face”, before the mass of Americans take him at his word? The mere hint that he has a secret intent or hidden motive injures him. As in any courtship, whispers of doubt can be deadly.

My son needs conversation above the level of gossip and trivia, and his girlfriend was good for that. But more then that, he says the attraction was based on the idea that they could help each other achieve their respective dreams. Yang and Yin. What one lacks, the other provides. Like Obama’s petition to American voters, my son tried to convince her that, together, they could achieve great things. But, as he came to learn, suspicion can destroy a budding relationship.

I tried to encourage him by pointing out that his attitude showed a distinct level of maturity. It’s frustrating, I told him, but love is not the initial goal. It’s the final one. The more immediate task in any relationship is the establishment of trust, each convincing the other that vulnerability will never be taken advantage of. If there’s a wound, bandage it. If there’s an offense, forgive it. If there’s a fear, set it aside….

Obama’s critics insist that he’s a fake and a poser, unworthy of America’s affection. He’s a self-important egoist, they say, who’s only in this for the sake of power and prestige; that it’s really only about him. Entire books are published with the aim of impugning his character from every angle. They don’t want him to win us over because they say his intentions are bad, even suggesting he plans betrayal. His goal is not the nation’s welfare, but her destruction. Some, of course, subtly suggest that a person of his complexion simply shouldn’t be allowed into the family. He’s not “one of us”.

My son discovered that his attempts to understand and appreciate his girl’s strengths and wishes were rejected out of suspicion for their motives. The more he informed himself in the areas that interested her, the more she drew back. As he tried to get close to her feelings, and reveal his own, she became guarded. He says she worries that she’s incapable of intimacy, and feels awkward in social situations. He’s sociable, open with his emotions, and he wanted to help her out of her shell. There was a fear to be overcome, and he thought he could help her beat it.

But he couldn’t gain her trust and his first brush with love came to an end. I told him not to be discouraged. There will be others, perhaps even another opportunity with this young lady who briefly captured his heart.

This may not be true for America, however. Obama’s candidacy might be her best opportunity to break from the fears that hold her back. Reservations are justified, of course. He is, after all, just a man, a human being with the flaws and weaknesses of any human being. But the nobility of his manner and his aspirations for this great nation are worthy of acceptance. Obama’s unique quality is his willingness to address the American electorate as a mature audience. It can’t be overlooked that a candidate of his caliber doesn’t come along often. Like the girl my son was courting, it will be necessary for America to set aside her fears if this relationship is to bloom.

Barack Obama is wooing America. He says he loves and respects her right down to the core of his soul. The guy doesn’t claim to be perfect; he only claims to care. He seeks a partnership where everyone wins in the struggle for social progress. He’s willing and able, he says, to lead her out of the well of doubt and insecurity, to help her be the best she can be.

It’s something of a consensus in world and national opinion that the leadership blunders and misshapen policies of the last eight years, and the divisive, deceitful political methodology of the last 40, has made a mockery of American ideals. From pre-emptive war and the acceptance of torture to the damaging excesses of deregulation, our country is said to be going in the wrong direction. A fine example is the observation from Obama’s opponent that, “In the 21st Century, countries don’t invade other countries”. This doesn’t jibe well with Senator McCain’s support for the invasion of Iraq, but it should be noted that this is one of the unvoiced goals of the liberal democracy evolving from our Constitution: Abolishing the scourge of war. It’s a civilized idea, hardly attainable in the short run, but which abides at the heart of a political system founded on “certain inalienable rights”. It's one of the many inherent ideals of a government “of the People, by the People, and for the People”.

The United States has a special destiny in human affairs, carrying the torch of “Liberty and Justice for All” into the future. Perhaps the responsibility of living up to that destiny is what we fear. Denouncing torture and refusing to take part supposedly makes us vulnerable. Restrictions on corporate enterprise supposedly make us weak. I say the failure of law to protect the powerless from the potential depredations of government and commerce is far worse. It may take centuries to find the right balance in order to attain such idealistic goals, but ABANDONING THEM IS NOT AN OPTION.

Obama partisans have been characterized lately as “love struck teenagers”, enamored of a shallow celebrity. But this is not love for most of us, at least not yet. It is merely hope that America can chose a leader who will bring her through a crisis of confidence, as did Washington, Lincoln and FDR.

Supporters might consider how this campaign is a courtship. Voters need to be convinced that this man is worthy of their trust, that he does indeed hold their best interests in his heart. If it leads to betrothal in November and “I do” in January, America, in my humble opinion, will have made a wise choice. Judging from Obama’s obvious show of intellectual heft and tactical smarts, we can hope that the issue from such a union will, over the years, include a renaissance of reason, spiritual maturity and peace in the household.

It has been famously argued that no one can be fully prepared for the awesome task of the American Presidency. The same might be said of the intimacy of marriage. As with any relationship, issues have to be worked through. Nothing is easy. Often, it just gets harder.

Maybe, like my son, I’m succumbing here to youthful idealism, anticipating more than I should. Of course it’s foolish to bet all on such an outcome in a world full of deceit, but we should not be blind to persons of high ideals. America is a young country in many ways, and Barack Obama has the potential to be a superb leader. Nevertheless, since I’m no youth, I’ll know to expect many disappointments and surprising satisfaction.

MCCain Paying Anti-Obama Hillary supporters?

Tom Pearce Palm Beach Community Organizer — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:09:51 EDT

It is very interesting how the socalled Anti-Obama Hillary supporters out protesting at the MSNBC press both have so far expressed no liberal thoughts at all. In fact they are just spewing out Jerome Corsi's nonsense.

We need to tag them as being paid by McCain to pretend to be Dems. I would love for the reproters to demand to see their voter registration cards.

FL Dems Fight over Offshore Drilling

Tom Pearce Palm Beach Community Organizer — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:44:29 EDT

Dems vying for Mica's post split over offshore drilling

By JOHN BOZZO
Staff Writer

Drill for oil off the Florida coast?

Two Democratic Party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives in District 7 disagree on whether the answer should be "yes" or "no."

Their answers on drilling, in separate interviews, formed the sharpest difference on issues between candidates Faye Armitage and Clyde Malloy.

Both are making their first run for political office in the Aug. 26 primary.

The winner will square off in the Nov. 4 general election against one of the state's veteran politicians, Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park.

Mica is seeking his ninth term representing the district, which stretches from Duval County to Orange County and includes Palm Coast, Daytona Beach and DeLand.

Grassroots Strategy Means from the ground up

Tom Pearce Palm Beach Community Organizer — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:41:19 EDT

Grassroots organizing will tell you that you follow the lead of your base. No one in our base ever said :"hey let's flip on FISA" or "Offshore Drilling would be great for the campaign" although I am sure some fundraiser did. The grassroots of this campaign started and the reason Obama beat Hillary was because of his credentials on the war and her flipping on the war. Now someone somewhere convinced the campaign that flipping was good for the campaign. Is Dick Morse hiding in the closet? We can pull this off if we stick to our guns. Lets thake the war and the economy and gas prices.

1) The War and the office of homeland security have driven this country into a tailspin economically.

2) The War and instability in the middle east have driven up the price of gas. Gas will not go down until stability and peace have been achieved in the region.

3) Borrowing money for the war from China and other countries drives the value of the dollar down.

4) John McCAin and the Republicans are responsible for this highly unpopular war.

5) Beat him over the head with it till election day.

This is how we win an election in Novemeber. By sticking to the truth. Not trying to win over people who probably won't vote for us anyway. Remember a movement is not it's leader it is it's base. The leader is nowhere without the base.

Your foot soldiers are against FISA, the WAR, Offshore drilling, for choice, for the seperation of church and state, agaisnt intolerance and most importantly consistent honest leadership. We have to have it to keep people committed to the finish line.

You have to win the debate on offshore not avoid it. Not agree because of polls. You have to respond to the question of "do you believe the surge is working?" by pointing to the cost to our economy, by pointing to the fact that we wouldn't need a surge if we hadn't gone to war, by pointing out the cost of the surge to our federal deficit and the value of the dollar. You can win the debate. If you make the argument.

In South Florida you have to ask the Jewsih community "is Israel safer today than it ws four years ago"? In towns rocked by layoffs? Are you better off than you were 8 years ago? The old Reagan line. You have to make the argument and make this a campaign of change we can believe in.

Richardson for VP and a Remembrance of 2000

Michael A. Dover — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:42:39 EDT

To follow up on Dorinda Moreno's posting, since Iowa I've been convinced that Gov. Richardson is the best VP candidate and am still convinced. It's simply a matter of who has the best judgement and the best experience. It's not what part of the country they are from, what states they can bring, what demographics are needed. And it's not about having a Governor on the ticket. It's who inspires trust. And, yes, name recognition is important, and Richardson has that.

What is really amazing is how none of the media mention him, as if two people of color on the ticket would somehow sink it. I don't agree. It's not just change people want. It's honesty and fairness. To deny the VP slot to the clearly most qualified potential candidate because he would be person of color #2 on the ticket would not be fair.

I recall well the Democratic convention which nominated Sen. Lieberman. It was electrifying that a Jew had been nominated, but what was clear to me from the TV version at least was that the most electrified delegates of all were the African-American delegates! They were clearly inspired and excited by the realization that once the religion barrier had finally been broken (first a Catholic, now a Jew and now doubt one year a Muslim such as the Representative from Minnesota), the race barrier would also soon be broken. I recall well and have an MP3 of the very moving concluding prayer from that convention, by an African-American pastor from Arkansas, who went out of the
way to include ecumenical content with a strong focus on Old Testament conent. I've posted this at:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mdover/website/benediction.htm

The phrase "in the City of our God" refers to Los Angeles...

As we ready ourselves for the 2008 convention and consider our political commitments, regardless of our religious views I think it is helpful to hear this.

Now we are on the verge of breaking that very race barrier to the Democratic nomination. Nominating Gov. Richardson would not be about further breaking that race barrier. It would be about selecting the best candidate. But imagine the degree to which people of any religion or any culture or "race" would be electrified by the realization that the political process in this great democracy is potentially open to all.

Michael

Bob Herbert Gets It

Roy in Tampa — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 07:37:24 EDT

This morning, the NY Times Bob Herbert put it right:

Running While Black

About time someone called McCain's ridiculous bluff.

Barack Evening Buzz - 7-29-08

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:56:02 EDT

Barack Evening Buzz - 7-29-08
On to Victory in November

(1) Obama's Quest to Find a Running Mate Sends His Researchers on the Road
Jeff Zeleny-New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30veep.html?ref=politics

(2) The Obama Veepwatch-Tim Kaine
Andrew Romano-Newsweek-Stumper
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/07/29/the-obama-veepwatch-vol-8-tim-kaine.aspx

(3) Obama Says He Will Order the Elimination of Executive Orders Which "Trample on Liberty"
Jesse J. Holland-Associated Press
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080730/ap_on_el_pr/obama_13

(4) Obama in High Level Talks on Economy and Terror
Jitendra Joshi-Agence France Presse
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080730/pl_afp/usvote_080730022440

(5) Obama Knocks "Old Politics" of McCain
Howard Kurtz-Washington Post-The Trail
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/29/obama_knocks_old_politics_of_m.html

(6) "Old Politics"-Obama Dismissive of McCain in Energy Ad
Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU0EWZcx3NAS1qa1M6s7Q4Ux7E8QD927QPVO0

(7) Obama's Symbolic Importance
Jonathan Weisman-Washington Post-The Trail
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/07/29/obamas_symbolic_importance.html

(8) A Referendum on Obama
Bill Schneider-CNN-Senior Political Analyst
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/29/obama.referendum/

(9) When Will Obama Make It Hot for McCain?
Robert Seltzer-Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/372682_seltonline30.html

(10) A Canceled Obama Visit and the Story Behind It
Jeff Zeleny-New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us/politics/29truth.html?bl&ex=1217476800&en=8f738be5ba496284&ei=5087%0A

(11) Obama Revives a Play from the Primary Contest
Brad Haynes-Wall Street Journal-Washington Wire
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/29/obama-borrows-a-play-from-the-primary-contest/

(12) As a Professor, Obama Enthralled Students and Puzzled Faculty
Jodi Kantor-International Herald Tribune
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/30/america/30law.php

(13) The Power of the Protest Vote
Andrew Kohut-New York Times-Campaign Stops
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/the-power-of-the-protest-vote/?ref=opinion

(14) Behind the Scenes with McCain's Campaign
Katie Couric-CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/29/eveningnews/main4305547.shtml

(15) McCain's Gaffe a Minute on Iraq
John Young-Waco Tribune-Herald
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/372684_youngonline30.html

(16) McCain Battles Against Age Bias
James Coomarasamy-BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7518522.stm

Register to vote online!

alternativefuel — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 06:36:15 EDT

Go to this website and register to vote - http://projectvote.org/index.php?id=15 The Project Vote registered 1.15 million low to middle class and minority voters in 2004.

Real Men Vote for Obama

RBlake — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:39:50 EDT

Below is a link to an article by Lou Aguilar of the National Review titled "Real Men Vote for McCain". It is quite ridiculous. Please read it. At the top right corner of the page is a button that allows you to email the author. Please send this moron a piece of your mind and send it along to your friends. Thanks for your help as always.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTkyNTJkNDY1ZDdjMzBjNTA0NmJlMDNhZWQ2ZmZiOWY=

Impossible Dream? Banning the Bomb, Starting in Britain, France, India and Pakistan

Michael A. Dover — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 11:01:44 EDT

Remember when banning the bomb was the fervent hope of the peace movement throughout the world? The post-boomers in the US whose inspirational leadership is bringing the hope of change via the Obama campaign may not have lived through those years, but I'm hoping that an Obama administration can take not just nuclear proliferation seriously (an issue that Senators Obama and Lugar have addressed) but nuclear disarmament seriously.

We need bold proposals for change. Here is one. When India announced it had the bomb, Arundati Roy wrote an eloquent article in The Nation about the bomb and its relationship to Hindu nationalism, despite the bomb's contradiction to the precepts of the Hindu religion. But at the risk of stereotyping religions, I'd like to make a point here. There was already a Christian bomb, and it was exploded twice over Buddhist and Shinto Japan. There was already an Atheist bomb, and it had been wielded in Cuba. And there was already a Jewish bomb, which again, speaking as a Jew, is contrary to everything Judaism stands for, first and foremost life. But, you see, everyone was convinced that the bomb was necessary to preserve life and prevent war. Their lives and their God needed the bomb.

It was only a matter of time until there was an Islamic bomb, and predominantly Sunni Pakistan was first. Then there was the North Korean bomb, which I can't even try to typologize. Now, as Benny Morris pointed out in his New York Times column, most intelligence services are convinced Iran plans its own, Shiite Muslim bomb. Wonderful, what's next, a Shinto bomb emerging from a thankfully not yet resurgent nationalism Japan? A Buddhist bomb courtesy of rogue rulers in Burma? And, of course, foremost in the minds of many is the Terrorist Bomb, courtesy of a theft from one of the stockpiles or a do-it-yourself project that is less likely to come from some cave than from the private estate of some wealthy would be totalitarian theocrat seeking to impose his way on the world or protect his people, his religion from the threats he perceives.

What is the way out? I think the way out is to go back to the roots of war and nuclear weapons before WWI. Back to the roots of colonialism. Two colonial powers, Britain and France, have the bomb, while other colonial powers, Japan, Germany, and Italy, were defeated and don't have the bomb. The key to nuclear disarmament is in Britain and France and their relationships with the previous colonies of India and Pakistan. President Obama should work with Russia and China and come to an agreement that they agree to a massive cut in their weapons stockpiles contingent upon the following: Britain, France, Pakistan and India would disarm entirely. This would free up the tremendous sums these nations now spend on nuclear weaponry. The peaceful intentions shown by the three superpowers would help convince India it is safe from China, the source of its primary concern historically. The most important threat of nuclear war, which is in my opinion between India and Pakistan were there political instability, would have been eliminated. Tremendous pressure would have been put on Iran not to arm, but there is a need for continuous pressure independent of such an initiative to prevent Iran from arming to start with. But if there is no Sunni bomb, it is my belief that there would be much less pressure for a Shiite bomb. I think we can leave Israel out of this, but once it was accomplished and an Iranian bomb was prevented, and there was a state of peace between Israel and Syria, it is my belief that for its own economic and humanistic and religious reasons, Israel would disarm as well. None of the existing nuclear powers are threatened by Israel's bomb and it shouldn't be the red herring which would prevent the kind of progress discussed above.

The key is Britain and France. Why do they need the bomb when there is no Soviet threat, no Russian threat, and they are adequately protected by the US nuclear umbrella and NATO's conventional forces? India and Pakistan would never disarm as long as their former colonial power, Britain, had the bomb. But if Britain and France were willing to disarm, I think there would be tremendous pressure on India and Pakistan to disarm. Well, in a nutshell, that's my impossible dream.

Who/What ARE the Agents of CHANGE?

Lawrence "A Better Nation" Walker — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:09:16 EDT

I ran across an Obama blog post by Obama compatriot Arlene Love, asking for a naming of names: who are the other agents of change in our country today?

I'd say there are Whos and there are Whats. The biggest Whats are always conditions closely tied to human nature: security, loyalty, and patriotism/nationalism (which is just the modern form of tribalism). At the heart of security are two factors: safety and money or "the economy."

So follow the money. Higher gasoline costs will drive change a lot faster than even the most enlightened of leaders because even the best leaders must attune themselves to a deft balancing act of both following AND leading. Even Barack Obama has to keep BOTH EARS tuned to the issues and feelings he must follow. Only then can he pick and choose where and how to lead. The following comes first. He's not reinventing the wheel. Charismatic "change agent" that he may be, he's still got to follow a lot of the time. The nation may be unsettled and at odds, but it is not (yet) in a revolutionary mood. Hence, the candidates from all sides (if they are to be popular and thus successful) tend to drift back toward the middle. Obama is already doing that, as he must in a country which holds "popular" elections.

And so, "it's the economy, stupid" for sure. That is the bottom line. Then come crime, community stability, and other security factors.

But for the not-so-stupid, there are the smart people who do lead the way with honest and courageous information and insight. These are the intellectuals, far different individuals from "the common man." And so who are some of these agents of change?

Arlene's blog post had already mentioned or gotten feedback naming a few: Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and a few others.

I've added my response to Arlene's blog in the first comment below, and I welcome other additions and contributions here. Thanks!

Electronic Voting Tally can be tampered with

alternativefuel — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:47:35 EDT

If you've seen any of the alternative movies, websites or blog posts about the voter disenfranchisement that took place in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004 respectively you know that the voter database records can be altered and the Diebold voting machines can be tampered with. We're just three and a half short months away from a United States presidential election. Each town in each county of all 50 states have their own responsiblity to ensure all legal citizens, 18 years of age and older without a felony conviction can vote. All that you as an individual have to do is register to vote.

However, as distasteful as it may be to think about there may have been votes that went uncounted or were counted for the wrong party on purpose in prior presidential elections in the US. Each Diebold machine has a flash card the make and model of which can be identified and purchased. There is no way to tell a tampered flash card between a standard flash card. At least physically without benefit of a flash reader and computer know-how. I imagine that the byte-sizes and file date and time stamps may be different on the modifed cards. As a computer nut I digress too much in the technical details.

The bottom line is, there are opportunities for volunteers to ensure voter protection in every town and county in the US. We as a democratic country should video tape and report any suspicious activity at the polling stations. If we think there are any votes being thrown away or changed we need to speak out.

Technology can be a boon or a bane. The fact that something is electronic does not make it secure and infallible. There are plenty of countries where the votes are cast on pieces of paper and counted the old fashioned way, by hand. Those countries probably are more patient and their citizens don't mind waiting to know the outcome of an election. Is that so bad? Can we learn to live with not knowing the night of, or even the day after the election, who won? I think we will survive.

Progressives for Obama within the Obama '08 Campaign

Michael A. Dover — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 02:39:40 EDT

I joined the independent Progressives for Obama group and signed the ipetition available from the link at http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com/ Along with many veteran activists of the 60s generation, I've never given up the ship for progressive social change. But although I have supported some Democrats in the past, it has been rare for me to actively work for them (Jesse Jackson in 1984 in Louisiana; Dutch Morial's re-election as Mayor of New Orleans). Sometime just prior to the Iowa primary, I began paying attention and am convinced that while not dropping all of our other activism, progressive social activists should support and work hard to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. However, we also need to utilize this opportunity to re-think some of what we mean by progressive, and what being a progressive pragmatist means. So here is how I joined the independent group and above is how I'm blogging here. Glad to be aboard in this way and not just to donate as I have on numerous occasions.

"While the mantra of independent political action is one I have long supported,
we have seen some of the damage which ill-considered independent
actions on behalf of Obama and in other electoral contexts can do. A
forum for discussion and well-considered action is valuable, but I
have been and plan to continue to be active directly within the
campaign and its many sub-groups such as social workers for Obama. I
might ad that those of us on the left are also part of the very "old
politics" which Obama is trying to move beyond. Somewhere along the
way since glasnost, the promised "new thinking" never happened. We too
need to re-think the nature of the alternatives to neo-liberalism we
put forward, lest they be more or less the same. Also, generationally,
young activists are clearly thinking differently about all sorts of
things we don't "get", such as the relationship of activism to
volunteerism, just to give one example. What is progressive at one
point of time is not necessarily progressive at another point of time,
since the nature of progressive politics is historically contingent.
If radical pragmatism isn't what progressives for Obama want out of
President Obama, we should get in for a rude surprise, as I suspect
that's what we are going to see, rather than the kinds of prototypical
ideologically suggested responses and positions. Pragmatism is never
popular, as it gores all sorts of sacred cows."

The Democrats' National Securtiy Mistake

RBlake — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:05:31 EDT

The prevailing assumption over the years is that democrats are weak on national security. That's why they say the tactics of fear have been so effective against us. They say we want to talk to and appease our enemies, protect our privacy at the expense of security, and retreat from a winnable war. They say we are soft on terrorism and that we lack committment to defeating Islamic extremism and the anti-American sentiment.

All of these false claims might as well be true, because not many democrats have took a stand with the right message. More importantly, not many democrats have took a stand with their votes in the house and senate.

How is it that republicans convinced America that democrats are weak on terrorism? Does anybody remember that the 9/11 attacks occured on Bush's watch? Does anyone remember the strange ways in which we responded? If our biggest national security concern is Islamic extremism and anti-American sentiment in muslim countries, it probably doesn't help calm the storm by invading a country that not only didn't threaten us but didnt' even have the means to threaten us.

Now they say we need to finish the job and stabilize the middle east. Stabalize? Don't we bear much of the responsibility for the current destabilization? Is continuing an unwanted occupancy of a nation we attacked illegally going to help stabalize anything?

Weak on national security? The republican policies have created new terrorists groups, improved the ones that already existed, and pissed everyone in the world off in the process. We have never had so many enemies.

How does the country that already has WMDs invade a country that doesn't have WMDs and say its because we thought they had WMDs. I guess you have to be a sheltered American to not see the oddness of that scenario. And continuing the occupancy is going to calm them down?

Dear Democratic leaders,

The republicans are right. You are weak on national security. Because you don't have the guts to stop funding the war.

Stop voting for war money. While you're at it, put impeachment back on the table so the world might think we give a hoot about the law.

Battleground Choice: Lesser Evil or Positive Good?

CarlDavidson — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:02:22 EDT

Battleground Choice:
Lesser Evil or Positive Good?
Obama on the War and National Security

By Carl Davidson
Progressives for Obama

The broad base of Obama supporters, particularly its insurgent antiwar and youth contingents, are both mobilizing and being mobilized to create a firewall between their candidate and all the forces of 'rightward drift' that could sabotage Obama's candidacy.

Parts of the 'forces of rightward drift' are the attack ads of the GOP and the right that have little to do with Obama's platform. Part comes from the DLC 'Blue Dogs' and the corporate lobbyists who have compromised the party into defeat time and again. But still another part resides in some flawed and conflicted thinking within the positions of the candidate himself.

Keep Phil Gramm Talking! LOL!

Roy in Tampa — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:59:27 EDT

Phil Gramm, McSame's chief economic adviser and friend of the sub-prime lenders, today said there is no recession and that all of us should "stop whining" about things like inflation, forclosure and the impossibility of making ends meet. We really need to keep this man talking.<p>Everyone pulling up to a gas pump should remember Phil Gramm and stop whining... or stamp that message at the meat counter or the vegetable stands in the supermarkets.For those suffering through this period of econimc adversity, I'm certain Gramm's words will be comforting.<p>We just have to hope McCain unleashes Gramm's tongue more and more often as the campaign progresses.

A Rebirth of Freedom

Roy in Tampa — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 07:58:28 EDT

Happy birthday America. This could be the year you get a new birth of freedom... and boy after eight years of a Republican president, you sure do need it.

Oh! No! Bush Still Pulls In Money!

Carole@www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:06:44 EDT

Bush raising tons of cash
http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/down-in-polls-bush-retains-midas-touch/20080702094709990001

Scary Talk on Iran

Roy in Tampa — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:39:34 EDT

Listening to the chatter on 'Morning Joe' just now and being very frightened about the growing possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, seeking to destroy Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons. I'm grateful that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in public yesterday that there are no U.S. troops available for another front in this stupid set of wars Bush has us fighting. (And I never thought I'd be happy about anything a member of the JCS had to say.)

However, I don't think we - or any other nation - has a rein on what the Israelis do. Will they blow the world apart?

It's scary.

A New Idea in Community Assistance

Roy in Tampa — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:11:39 EDT

Barack Obama today said he would reform Bushy's faith-based assistance program:

"Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don't believe this partnership will endanger that idea - so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can't use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them - or against the people you hire - on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we'll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work."

It would be great if their were a like number of secular outlets doing the work of faith-based groups, but there just simply aren't and the relationships they have with their communities are not as deep or permanent as the churches. But it needs to be done right! These funds can't go to spread the "message" of the faiths, just to give people the lift they need to improve their lives.

Obama knows this, and the changes he proposes are brilliant. At times you need to get below the headlines.

A Bit of Gratitude

Roy in Tampa — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:10:15 EDT

Today I'm grateful to Pat Leahy, D-Vt., and the others on the Judiciary Committee for holding up all those weird Bushy appointments to the Federal bench whose only qualifications, it seems, are that they are unflaggingly loyal to the worst notions of Neoconservatism.

The reason is a decision rendered by a federal appeals court calling the government's position in declaring a detainee at Guantanamo an 'enemy combatant" absurd and barely supported. They even quoted an absurdist poem of Lewis Carroll - "The Hunting of the Snark" - to ridicule the military and Justice Department's offer of evidence against the detainee.

It's a shaky proposition to depend on the courts for the life of the Fourth Amendment, given the eight years the Bushy and Cheney have had to muck with bench, but today's decision gives one hope that there is sanity in some parts of one branch of the government.

There are problems surrounding the release of this "detainee" as detailed in the story, but the main point - the government had no reason to hold him to begin with - stands as a beacon of hope.

I wonder how many others are remaining in captivity on such thin evidence as shown in this case. If it's even one, it's too many. For the full story:

Click Here

Arianna Gets This One Right

Roy in Tampa — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:17:38 EDT

Here's a very interesting post from Huffington herself this afternoon on the problems of 'tacking toward the middle' for candidates who offered a progressive call in the first place.

Memo to Obama:Moving to the Middle Is for Losers

Hope someone in policy headquarters is listening.

Employee Free Choice Act: Repost

RBlake — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:16:09 EDT

Friends,

I hope you will visit the link below and sign the petition in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act. This act strengthens workers rights and prevents intimidation tactics by employers who don't want employees to have the right to organize and fight for fair wages, safety, healthcare etc.. Senator Obama is a strong supprter of this act.

http://www.freechoiceact.org/page/s/petition

Thanks!

Fighting FISA

RBlake — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 09:34:30 EDT

Repost from Yesterday:

Please visit my friend Tricia's blog and show your support for a NO vote on FISA. She's collecting initials so we can show the campaign that we do not support the FISA compromise. We are still vigorous supporters, but we want the campaign to know that we do not support this bill. You can find her on my friends list, her screen name is simply "tricia". Some people are having trouble viewing my profile. If you do, you can search for tricia by her screen name and her location which is Santa Rosa, California.

Thanks for all of your help.

Winning with you,

Rich

Stand Up Against FISA

RBlake — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 20:42:31 EDT

Dear Friends,

We have been outstanding supporters for our candidate and that support will continue regardless of this FISA disaster. However, we must let Senator Obama know that we want him to vote no on FISA. Please join my friend Tricia in her effort to contact the campaign and let them know that we aren't happy about this. You can find her on my friends list, her screen name is simply "Tricia". Please visit her blog and leave your initials. She will be sending the campaign a list.

Also, please take a moment to contact the campaign yourself via the Contact Us button and send a comment. We're standing up for Senator Obama. Let him know that we want him to stand up for our 4th amendment rights. Ben Franklin said "he who would trade liberty for temporary security deserves neither".

Please help my friend Tricia stand up against FISA. Thanks as always my motivated friends.

Protesting in Pittsburgh

RBlake — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:56:17 EDT

This morning we (labor unions) held a protest at a BP gas station in downtown Pittsburgh. We had signs that said "Tell McCain: No Tax Cuts for Big Oil" and "Bush & McCain Love Big Oil". We were chanting "say no to McCain". Plenty of people were honking and some local news channels were there.

After the protest we knocked on doors and got signatures for a petition in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act.

Pittsburgh is for Obama.

Cheers.

Winning With You

RBlake — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 08:44:58 EDT

Dear friends,

Yesterday we officially opted out of public financing. This means that our small donor support needs to continue growing in order to maintain a money advantage through election day. It also means that we will be under attack for what republicans consider as us backstepping out of our public financing agreement with John McCain.

I am working for the campaign here in Pittsburgh as part of a summer internship with the United SteelWorkers Union. I just graduated from Florida Atlantic University and will be starting a doctoral program at Loyola College in Maryland this fall for clinical psychology. I'm also an Iraq War Veteran.

I've been making phone calls, knocking on doors, organizing events, and attending rallys for Obama as well as congressmen and local activist groups. I've been making a difference on almost every front except for fundraising. I set my original goal at $500. Thanks to a few close friends I have raised $120. I really want to start focusing on my fundraising efforts now that I know we opted out of public financing. I have about 1,000 friends on this website. It would take a $5 donation from 76 of you to put me over the top.

I hope some of you will consider checking out my fundraising page and possibly contributing $5.

Thanks for everything you are doing to change the world, and if you need anything just send me a message.

Winning with you,
Rich
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/rblake00

A Suggested Direction for Some Critical Discussion

benny — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:02:56 EDT

A Suggested Direction for Some Critical Discussion

by benny lemaster

I find myself increasingly frustrated at one of the particular discussions surrounding Barack Obama’s current position as the projected Democratic nominee. This discussion heads newspapers, internet new feeds, and social interactions that I have had with friends and strangers alike. This discussion surrounds the ongoing, and often frightening topic of race. However, the precise point of unease that I encounter involves one particular focus on race—one that is oft ignored because it is viewed as flighty or misaligned, or God forbid, traitorous. You see, dominant race discussions are diluted with feelings of racial absolutism—an outmoded means of discussing race; allow me to explain.

When race is discussed, if ever, people are far too careful not to upset the unstable threads that bind the very thoughts keeping the unstable discussion looking stable. We want to see race as a simple series of 5 or 6 colors with bold outlines keeping the borders of each color separate, yet equal in portion and view. Race is simply not like this any longer, and the discussions surrounding race must change for more critical and engaging discussions to take root. This is 2008 after all, a time in which racial discourse should take into account the historical context of decades of racial miscegenation.

Now, I know it is hard to swallow, but peoples of differing racial backgrounds have been makin’ babies for quite some time now. And I am not referring to the simplistic-minded, so-called, “melting pot.” No, I refer simply to multiracial people: A distinct way of identifying that simultaneously acknowledges every ancestral string in ones heritage without the impediment and pressure of external forces urging traditional ways of identifying. This way of identification is, simply put, revolutionary and radical. It is rooted in unyielding and unapologetic resistance; urging for a mental, rhetorical, and social revolution; with an ultimate goal of social change in the way in which race is viewed: truly critical.

I write from a multiracial perspective. From a perspective that is more often than not subjugated to the very ties that keeps race and racial discourse separate AND not equal. You see, I am multiracial and I pass as white. I am first generation Asian American AND I am the child of a Scottish family whose American roots date as far back as the founding of this fine country. I am NOT white. It is far more complex than that. My Taiwanese family primarily raised me yet I am accustomed to white culture, as I have always passed as such. That said, I grew up afraid of Asian people. I distanced myself from them. I didn’t want my friends to know that I was Asian, and that I always teetered between victim and culprit. Had my friends known of my Asian family, that I would have been just another victim of racial slurs. This pressure, instead, left me on the side of the racial divide that enjoyed privilege and poking fun at stereotypes and belittling those who looked and sounded different.

It took many years for me to awaken from this tragic thinking. Many years to embrace my mother and grandmother with full emotion, without fear of ridicule; To put aside my seemingly white skin, with hidden troves of racial mixing just to say ‘i love you’ to my mother, and mean it fully. To see Asian people as allies, not enemies.

However, views of race that segregate the multi- personage, as I have found, have infiltrated the fragile arenas of racial minority groups as well. I was no longer white in my mind, but white looking. But it was my white privilege that positioned me as potential enemy and mole to Asian circles. I was always too white or too Asian, and not Asian enough or not white enough—all of these thoughts and feelings (both internal and external) occurred simultaneously, constantly. I can never embolden the same ‘- of color’ circles that my mother will, as I hold within my appearance authority and power whether or not I want it.

I write all of this now because the discussions surrounding Barack Obama’s campaign have focused on only one faction of his racial existence and history. He has become the “first African American nominee of a major US political party,” and may even become the “first African American president of the US.” To say that Barack Obama is African American, simply put, ignores his white mothers very existence, no matter how often he talks about her from speech to speech and in book to book.

In fact, as I see it, the very mention of his African Americanism, is racism in and of itself because it focuses purely on his ability to take on such a role in light of skin pigment and overall physical appearance. I adhere to the discussions of Audre Lorde and the necessity to focus on differences in order to embrace them; that said, we should not lose sight of Obama's multiracial background. That Barack Obama is NOT ONLY African American but that he is also white. He is, multiracial.

And being that this is 2008, it is time to shed the beliefs of old that guided the 17th-19th century One-Drop Rule that stated any person with any African ancestry, no matter the size or distance from the contemporary, cannot be considered white (Heine 2005). This outdated rule and view has penetrated our discussions far beyond the days of slavery and Jim Crow and yet remains intact in our political discussions, whether or not we want to believe it. Under this policy, Obama is black, period. But he is multiracial and we must bring this to the discussion table. We must acknowledge multiraciality and multiculturalism. It is time to do so. In closing I offer two items: (1) a suggested discussion surrounding this topic of multiraciality, and (2) Maria P.P. Root’s Bill of Rights for Multiracial People.

Bill of Rights for Multiracial People (Root 1996)

I have the right

not to justify my existence in this world
not to keep the races separate within me
not to be responsible for people’s discomfort with my physical ambiguity
not to justify my ethnic legitimacy

I have the right

to identify myself differently than strangers expect me to identify
to identify myself differently than how my parents identify me
to identify myself differently than my… [siblings]
to identify myself differently in different situations

I have the right

to create a vocabulary to communicate about being multiracial
to change my identity over my lifetime—and more than once
to have loyalties and identify with more than one group of people
to freely choose whom I befriend and love

Now is the time to discuss multiraciality and to embrace your own multiracial backgrounds.

Reference:

Heine, Susane M.J.. What You White Folks Don't Know. 1 Jan. 2005. 15 June 2008 <http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/161/39/>.

Root, Maria P.P.. The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996.

Barack Evening Buzz - 6-13-08

Barack Daily Buzz - Victory2008.net — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:39:19 EDT

Barack Evening Buzz - 6-13-08
On to Victory in November

(1) Economy Now Front and Center in 2008 Race
Associated Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDKg7eq4Fk8

(2) Economic Woes Loom Large for Obama and McCain
Jim Kuhnhenn-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdX1csHuXbUFJ6REp97MjBsJouHAD919F1K00

(3) Obama Wants a Payroll Tax on Incomes Above $250,000-Only 3% of Americans
Charles Babington-Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyEHa5vNXXyk_a13jhW9zJeN7m8QD919COT80

(4) Obama Proposes Applying Social Security Tax to Higher Incomes
Hans Nichols and Kim Chipman-Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajJwEco3R5bM&refer=us

(5) Fact Check-McCain and Social Security
Associated Press
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jAvBP-erjO6bce7YRvcb06Em2dVQD919CRJ81

(6) Obama Reacts to Tim Russert's Death
Mark Silva-Chicago Tribune-The Swamp
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/obama_mccain_on_tim_russert.html

(7) Power to the New Creatives-Obama's Success Could Hinge on Emergence of Cultured Class of Voters
Telegraph-UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/06/14/baobama114.xml

(8) Obama and McCain Sniping Continues over Advisers
Dana Bash-CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/campaign.civility/index.html?section=cnn_latest

(9) Obama Sends Out Army of Volunteers
Ewen MacAskill-Guardian-UK
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/14/barackobama.johnmccain

(10) Obama and McCain Squabble over Town Hall Meetings
Steve Holland-Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1346337220080613

(11) Balance of Opinion-Obama and the World
Nancy Kruh-Dallas Morning News
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/nkruh/stories/DN-balance_13edi.1.ART.State.Edition1.45f948f.html

(12) Welcome to the Real Campaign, Senator Obama
Dan K. Thomasson-Seattle Post-Intelligencer
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/366952_thomassononline14.html

(13) Michelle Obama Deals with Rumors during Campaign
Charles Babington-Associated Press
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-13-MichelleObama_N.htm?csp=34

(14) McCain Says Treat Our Wives with Respect
Ed Homick-CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/13/mccain.interview/

(15) Condoms Named after Obama and McCain Selling Fast
Claudia Parsons-Reuters
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/13/condoms-named-after-obama-and-mccain-selling-fast/

Hannity's Hallucinations

RBlake — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:16:30 EDT

I got this off of Sean Hannity's website. Here are his keys to victory.

Hannity's Top 10 Items for Victory

1) To be the Candidate of National security:
a) Victory in Iraq
b) Fully support NSA, Patriot act, tough interrogations, keeping Gitmo open
c) A Candidate that pledges to NOT demean our military while they are fighting for their Country. eg Harry Reid: "the surge has failed", "the war is lost"
d) Candidate that promises to ensure that our veterans can live out their lives in dignity.

2) The Candidate who pledges to oppose Appeasement:
a) The Candidate will oppose any and all efforts to negotiate with dictators of the world in places like Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela without "pre-conditions"

3) The Candidate Pledges to support Tax CUTS, and fiscal responsibility:
a) The American people are NOT under taxed, Government Spends too much
b) The Candidate who Pledges to ELIMINATE and VOTE AGAINST ALL Earmarks
c) The Candidate pledges to BALANCE the budget

4) The Candidate Pledges to be a supporter of "Energy Independence"
a) supports Immediate drilling in Anwar and the 48 states
b) Building new refineries
c) Begin building and using Nuclear Facilities
d) expand coal mining
e) realistic steward of the environment
While simultaneously working with private industry to develop the new energy technologies for the future, with the goal being that America becomes completely energy independent within the next 15 years.

5) The Candidate pledges to secure our borders completely within 12 months:
a) build all necessary fences
b) use all available technology to help and support agents at the border
c) train and hire agents as needed

6) Healthcare:
The Candidate will look for Free-Market solutions to the problems facing the Healthcare industry, and will vigorously oppose any efforts to "nationalize healthcare".
a) The Candidate will fight for Individual health savings accounts, that includes "catastrophic insurance" for every American, so people can control their own healthcare choices.

7) Education:
a) The Candidate pledges to "save" American children from the failing educational system
b) The Candidate will fight to break the unholy alliance of the Democratic party and teachers unions, which at best has institutionalized mediocrity, and has failed children across the country
c) fight for "CHOICE" in education and let parents decide
d) fight for vouchers for parents

8) Social Security and Medicare:
a) The Candidate will "save" social security and medicare from bankruptcy.
b) Options will include "private retirement" funds so people can "control" their own destiny.

9) Judges
a) The Candidate vows to support ONLY judges who recognize that their job is to interpret the Constitution, and NOT legislate from the bench.

10) American Dream:
The Candidate accepts as their duty and responsibility to educate, inform, and remind people that with the blessings of Freedom comes a Great responsibility. That Government's primary goal is to preserve, protect and defend our God given gift of freedom.

That Government's do not have the ability to solve all of our problems, and to take away all of our fears and concerns. We need their pledge that we will be the candidate that promotes Individual liberty, Capitalism, a strong national defense and will support policies that encourage such...

It is our fundamental belief that limited Government, and Greater individual responsibility will insure the continued prosperity and success for future generations.

We the people who believe in the words of Ronald Reagan, that we are "the best last hope for man on this earth," "a shining city on a hill," and that our best days are before us if our Government will simply trust the American people.

Times Are Changing......not so much

RBlake — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:55:26 EDT

The arenas are packed with crying, screaming, motivated supporters. Voters from all walks of life are organizing in our communities. We can feel the energy. We can feel the movement. It feels like an overwhelming tidal wave of change that's tipping the scales in favor of a better world. It feels so real. But is it really happening? Is the country really changing, or are we just seeing the energy in our inner circles?

What does the evidence say? Well, unfortunately we are still a 50/50 country. We are split down the middle just like 2000, just like 2004. In an election year when democrats should win by a landslide with the help of the republican war and recession, John McSame is still very competitive in the polls. There aren't 20,000 screaming fans at his speeches, but he doesn't need that. The republican voting block is very consistent and reliable. I'm not trying to discourage anybody. I'm glad we are energized. But there is a very real chance that John McSame can win this election. We need more new voters.

How can McCain be so competitive in a year when we should be able to limp into the white house? The sad truth is that we are still in the same old America. There are a lot of us. But there are just as many who dislike what we stand for. You may not see them, but you'll probably brush by them in the voting booth. There will always be a strong barricade that keeps our movement from sweeping the entire country. That barricade has a strong foundation of religion and is solidly reinforced with racism. Issues of abortion and gay marriage will never go away. Christianity grows more militant each day and views on these issues are slowly hobbling to the extreme. Race is a more optimistic issue. I think eventually it will be a non-issue. But that is certainly not the case in this election.

Is our country changing? Did we all of a sudden make enormous progress in the course of one primary season? No. All we seen by the media and by observers was the amplification of race and gender. Same shit, different flies.

Our movement is real and I'm proud to be a part of it. But we are not the majority. There are barriers and obstacles to overcome. To move forward we need to win. To win, we need new voters. We (myself included) need to spend more time focusing on gathering new voters, and less time chumming it up with those who we already know are voting for Obama. I don't think our movement can swoop too far into the republican block because too many people are rooted in the extreme, American, traditional ridiculousness of racism and religion.

Once we win, maybe we can shake some of those roots, at least loosen them a bit.

Grow the movement. Focus on new voters. Win. Nothing changes if we lose, nothing.

Religion & Guns in Wisconsin

RBlake — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:54:16 EDT

Last night we were making phone calls to Wisconsin for Barack. It came as no surprise that most of those who were supporting McSame named abortion, gay marriage, or gun rights as there top issues in this election.

Let me share one unbelievable story. I asked a man to tell me about his biggest concerns this election year. He told me about several of his jobless family members who can't afford healthcare, his son serving a second tour in Iraq, his unsecure retirement, and how he hasn't left his house in quite some time because he can't afford gasoline. But when I asked him what his #1 issue was, he said "Abortion and Gay Marriage."

I'm thinking....So let me get this straight. Your son is in Iraq, your whole family is broke with no healthcare, you can't leave your house......and you're worried about gay marriage and abortion? That sounds a bit more extreme than "clinging to religion" that sounds like hanging on with a death grip and a death wish. Excuse my language, but What the F---? Brainless, non-thinking, blind, heartless, god-fearing zombies are everywhere! I served a tour in Iraq. I believe my feelings would be hurt if my mother were more concerned about issues that have zero effect on her than with my safety or my family's well being.

Another popular concern was gun rights. I asked these people if they have researched each candidates' position and voting record on guns and most of them said no. Wow.

Overall, it sounded good in Wisconsin. I just wanted to share some of the ridiculousness with my friends.

Lets win!

Inauguration Countdown: 224

RBlake — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:34:11 EDT

224 days until Barack is inaugurated.

Stay Focused!

Inauguration Countdown: 226

RBlake — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:32:53 EDT

226 days until Barack is inaugurated.

Stay motivated!

Forgiven

RBlake — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:37:22 EDT

Hillary Clinton capitalized on an opportunity to unify our party today. Her endorsement was positive, gracious, and admirable. She is undeniably a role model for so many and a strong Senator. This is what we needed. She understands what is at stake. She knows that our movement is strong and she wants to be a part of it. "This is our moment" she said, adopting one of Barack's motivating phrases.

So, should we forgive her for all of the things we criticized her for? Should we forget the constantly changing messages that seemed to sway with political convienence? Should we forget that she might have been dividing us for longer than was necessary in the primary season. Yes. Absolutely. We must accept this, we must unite. We don't have to go backward and spontaneously start agreeing with her tactics. We don't have to go backward at all.

You don't have to become a hardcore Hillary supporter now. If we lose in November and you want to go back and blame her then, fine. But not now. We cannot miss this opportunity. Welcome her supporters. Be positive. Be understanding of their frustrations and let them vent. But don't criticize them. Positivity is what makes our campaign so attractive. Don't ruin that. We need to win for the sake of the entire world. Don't let your ego destroy that for my chilren, and your children.

All is forgiven, we are all on the blue side.

Fear On The Way

RBlake — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:24:13 EDT

Within the next few days or weeks we will mostly likely see the McCain campaign adopt the strategy of Bush's '04 campaign. And why not? It worked after all. Right now McCain is airing ads that highlights his military service and his patriotism. He is a patriot, and we all respect his service and admire his resilient spirit and his time as a POW. I would never take that away from him.

But some people need to be reminded that he must also be held accountable for his career in the Senate. I'm the first to admit that his record is not the worst. Many senators have worse records than McCain. But McCain is running for President. I also admit that its easier to defend Obama's record because there are less years to analyze, less time for mistakes. However, McCain has made his bed in Iraq. Now, he has no choice but to lay in it. He will steal our blankets and expose our insecurities. Here comes the fear.

I predict that within weeks the McCain campaign will already be talking about possible imminent threats, nuclear war, and terrorist attacks. Not because they have any evidence, but because it works with voters. If you know someone who is influenced by this argument, ask them where the evidence is. Taking a Presidential candidate's word for it is usually not a good idea. Where is the evidence? Where are the terrorists? Where are the nuclear weapons? Where is the evidence that Obama is weak on national security?

They probably won't know where the evidence is, but we all know where the fear is.

A Sad Truth to Overcome

RBlake — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:06:46 EDT

Today I heard a troubling story - a story that shook my confidence and my pride for our country. A fellow supporter was phonebanking for Barack. The person she called said "Barack is Muslim; I don't want no f---ing Muslim running this country." They also spoke as if Barack is conspiring to doom our country by opening up our defenses to make us vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

I usually hear people defending Barack against these claims by reaffirming that he is Christian. But how come no one ever asks "so what if he was Muslim." They even speak on the news as if being a Muslim automatically makes him the devil. Can you imagine how terrible it must sound to Muslim-Americans, or all Muslims for that matter, who hear Barack supporters constantly arguing that he's not a Muslim. Then they see republicans trying to stamp the Muslim label on his forehead for political gain. Muslims are being alienated, and that is a sad, sad truth.

Now, for those who actually beleive that a vote for Barack means taking a chance that he is somehow connected to terrorists. First of all, are you aware of the fact that he is already a U.S. Senator. Are you aware that he has been through the most extensive background checks already. Are you aware that he is always surrounded by secret service and staff and he couldn't possibly make contact with terrorist groups without somebody knowing about it. Are you even awake at all?

Secondly, let us assume that these skeptics are correct. What are they so afraid of? A terrorist attack? A war? A crumbling economy? A worldwide anti-American sentiment? Newsflash: Under George Bush we have been attacked by terrorists and responded with a war on Iraq that had nothing to do with it. Our entire reputation is in shambles. The world does not like us. How could it get any worse? Some people may feel like a vote for Obama is a roll of the dice. But that makes a vote for McCain like trying to hit the lottery.

I'm rolling a different kind of dice, and there's change on all six sides.

What HRC campaign never realized and what we do with it from here

Plum Elements — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:04:06 EDT

Meant to write this last week. Wish I had because in the light of the Friday comments re: RFK this becomes almost unimportant, but I think it still matters a bit. A word of preparation/qualification - I am a human communications expert with a focus on conflict and intercultural communications...so this is right in my roundhouse. Hillary and her flying-monkeys never figured out the were campaigning against a more feminine presence then their own. While Obama has a superb male voice, his words, his reliance on context, his openness to alternative views, and his respectful manner of disagreeing, are FEMININE COMMUNICATION TRAITS. While HRC was trying to dupe us into thinking she was the poor victim (being out spent etc.) each time she poked at him she made his distinction more prominent and endearing. Barack Obama as a communicator is more feminine and therefore more broad and complete than HRC. They never figured that out and it hurt them Badly. JMac May not figure it out either. Or as we have been promised, Obama may pivot and more sharply, in a more Masculine manner, engage with McCain. Not sure which would work better. I know part of what attracts many of us to Obama is his willingness to engage, to listen, to embrace that which is different. If he were to become "a fighter" not sure it would serve his personal base. That is among the reasons that an Obama/hrc ticket is not a dream ticket but a nightmare compromise. So what to do? Well think on it first...do you agree or not. Second, see if you can find it in you to commuincate as he does with those who are not on board, whether they support hrc or JMac. Third, think good and supportive thoughts for this Saturday's events in DC. I am hopeful the committee will get it right and the hrc demonstrators and protesters will at best not materialize, and at worst not embarrass the party. I fear FLA 2000 like scenarios like those so well captured in HBO's Recount. If her people storm the committee it would be awful for the party and I would have to hope the end for her as super afteer super punishes bad behavior and declares for Obama. I honestly believe she would be committing a form of Political Suicide if she allows that to happen. So lets us be positive, principled and open and make good things happen that way. Best- JWZ

Note of thanks to Keith Olbermann - Please write him as well

Plum Elements — Sun, 25 May 2008 08:21:49 EDT

On Friday night Keith Olbermann again did what he does better than anyone else in the MSM.He spoke truth to power with conviction, reason and passion.If you have not seen it you must.Try here - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24798368#24798368

Once you catch your breath, write him here:

KOLBERMANN@MSNBC.COM

Thanks.

JWZ

--------------

Keith-

While I do not know you well enough to call you Keith, I feel you know

me that well for almost nightly I hear you speak my heart.

Never more so than on Friday May 23, 2008.

Your special comment was compelling, masterful, and unfortunately

absolutely necessary.

It was also heart wrenching. Your efforts to support the Clintons in

the past are well documented. The obvious and painful disappointment

you feel in her massive, repeated, and inconscionable actions creates

in your delivery a different tone and cadence than when you more

gleefully rail against President Bush.

Thank you for both what you do and how. Please keep it up. This

nation, this world, and this individual are in desperate need of your

reasoned and empassioned voice.

Thank you

John W. Zinsser

Rove in the WSJ, My Response and Yours - Please Act.

Plum Elements — Fri, 23 May 2008 12:45:13 EDT

All -

I have been quiet for a while.

Chalk it up to personal and professional demands, not a loss of interest and desire.

The good news is I have a bunch of things I want to write about and look forward to your thoughts and responses on.

But first this unbelievably surreal piece of politics.

Yesterday the WSJ carried a piece by Karl Rove entitled "Obama's troubling instincts."

If it was not so painfully partisan and attack driven, it could be the opening to a SNL skit this week.

I wrote a comment to the WSJ website and it follows. Encourage you all to do the same.

Do it nicely. Be like Obama - respectful, thoughtful, maybe a little funny, but courteous.

But do act.

We all know this is but the tip of the iceberg. But this bad dog needs to be shown that we, the master, will not accept this form of bad behavior. So roll up that newspaper and please take a respectful discplining swing at Rove and the WSJ.

Best-

John

My Response -

_______________________________

Wait... Karl Rove is titling a piece "(anyone else's) troubling instincts?" Karl Rove who is under supboena from Congress for his troubling ACTIONS not instincts - but ACTIONS? Karl Rove (and others associated with him) who either instinctually or with great personal fore thought continue to choose to thumb their collective noses at the legislative branch of government in hereto fore unseen ways making a mockery of our form of government and balance of power? Karl Rove has no right to question any one else's instincts these days. Something about those in glass houses seems right here. I laughed so hard at the headline, had to wait for the tears to clear from my eyes before I went on to the article. Troubling Actions Karl...how about you write us a meaningful piece about your very troubling, offensive, and possibly illegal actions. That, or show up on July 10, and tell us all about it. Someone will be there to write it all down for you in the congressional record. SIDE BAR - The WSJ's editorial slant has so declined and shifted since the purchase of the paper and realignment of leadership there, that I can almost not read it anymore. It is quite sad to me. Like watching a good, trusted friend, one who was smart and intelligent and helpful, loose that capacity to some insipid brainwashing or disease. A real loss to the business community and America as a whole. Thanks. John

Some other lyrics...accurate and encouraging...

Plum Elements — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:27:09 EDT

Ok - I am a hyper sensitive kind of person.

Little things bother me, get me down. I feel things, everything deeply. That is among the reasons I have always "avoided" politics. I hate the manipulation, creative truth management, spin, attacks etc. I do not understand why we, as a nation/society, can not actually stay on focus about the issues. Why the animosity? why the absence of respect and dignity? it kills me...literally, and all of us are less because of it.

Thus the SPIN CYCLE and the lie fest coming out of hrc this week is making me actually nauseous. (How anyone can say they WON a state with no one else on the ballot and where she signed a statement that it would not count leaves me questioning humanity - the one who can say it, the media that can repeat it, and the poor souls who accept it.)

So...I went looking for some help...something uplifitng and hopeful. As usual I went to music.

Here are some lyrics I found from an old favorite song. I am going to post them to my group Great Lines For Obama. feel free to submit song lyrics there for us all to turn to. maybe we can learn from each other's tastes and preferences, and maybe we can all smile for a few moments before we go back to work trying to do for this nation what it seems unable to do for itself...elect a decent honorable person.

Best-

JWZ

It takes every kind of people.

Robert Palmer

Said the fight to make ends meet
Keeps a man upon his feet
Holding down his job
Trying to show he can't be bought

Ooh, it takes every kind of people
To make what life's about, yeah
Every kind of people
To make the world go 'round

Someone's looking for a lead
In his duty to a King or creed
Protecting what he feels is right
Fights against wrong with his life

There's no profit in deceit
Honest men know that
Revenge do not taste sweet
Whether yellow, black or white
Each and every man's the same inside

It takes every kind of people
To make what life's about, yeah
Every kind of people
To make the world go 'round

You know that love's the only goal
That could bring a peace to any soul
Hey, and every man's the same

He wants the sunshine in his name

Caucus: vote for Marianne Case!

MARIANNE — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:57:32 EDT

Hello Obama supporters in District 46!

My name is Marianne Case, and I’m running to be a delegate for Senator Obama at the Democratic National Convention.

I, in Long Beach and my family in Chicago, have supported this fantastic candidate when he was running for the Senate in Illinois. I worked as a phone canvasser and sent out mailers regarding his campaign even though I was in Los Angeles. I’ve supported Mr. Obama for a very long time, and was thrilled when he decided to run for Presidential office. Since then, I’ve been getting the word out by making phone calls and canvassing in the neighborhood.

I have wanted to serve as a delegate for several years, but, never found a candidate who I could believe in completely. I have found that person in Senator Obama.

Please help me in my efforts to represent the 46th District and Senator Obama as a delegate at the National Convention!

Feel free to contact me to discuss Senator Obama and my efforts to support his candidacy. I can be reached at 562/212-5791 or at mariannel65@yahoo.com. I’d be happy to connect with more Obama supporters and answer any questions that you may have about me or the election and caucus processes.

Please vote for Marianne Case at the Caucus on Sunday April 13th, at 2pm. The Caucus will be held at the address below. I’ve also provided driving directions. Please come out with your friends, family and coworkers, and help me support this candidate once again as he moves ever closer to the White House!

Green Valley Clubhouse
10739 Los Jardines W.
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
http://www.mapquest.com/maps/Long+Beach+ca/10739+Los+Jardines+W+fountain+valley+ca/

Camile Paglia from today's Salon - Solid and Powerful

Plum Elements — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 11:12:52 EDT

Hillary's slick willies

Does Hillary surround herself with girly men? Obama and the experience question. Plus: Lincoln, Madonna's new face and a Bush with real authority.

By Camille Paglia

Pages 1 2 3 4 5

April 9, 2008 | I would like to get your feedback on the subject of those who end up in Hillary's orbit. Can you conceive of a strong, leader-type male ever working under her? An alpha, if you will. And if the answer is no, then why do you think that is?

The men you always see under her are to a person passive-aggressive, sadistic, mean, little, petty beta-male pieces of work who would not naturally succeed in a common male-type hierarchy. By that I mean an environment that values straightforward achievement rather than the darker political arts.

That statement is in no way meant to exclude women. In fact, I work with many women who succeed just as well in this environment. It is just a shorthand for an environment that values achievement and straight talk. Hillary's persona is simply not compatible with another strong will, male or female -- but definitely male, and that itself is a big red flag.

What kind of person would go to work for a Clinton in the first place? A naive true-believer? Everyone knows what they would be getting into: constant war rooms, personal attacks, spin, daily damage control, a boss prone to temper tantrums, placing your own integrity out on the ledge as a shill for a fundamentally dishonest person. I would argue that nobody who hasn't already sold their soul years ago would ever want to be a part of that mess.

Your thoughts?

Chris Richard
Agoura Hills, Calif.

You have succinctly expressed one of the most unsettling aspects of Hillary Clinton's character and modus operandi. There is a strangely static and claustrophobic quality to the fiercely loyal cult she has gathered around her since her first lady years. Postmortem analysts of this presidential campaign will have a field day ferreting out all the cringe-making blunders made by her clique of tired, aging courtiers who couldn't adjust to changing political realities. Hillary's forces have acted like the heavy, pompous galleons of the imperial Spanish Armada, outmaneuvered by the quick, bold, entrepreneurial ships of the English fleet.

I agree that the male staff who Hillary attracts are slick, geeky weasels or rancid, asexual cream puffs. (One of the latter, the insufferable Mark Penn, just got the heave-ho after he played Hillary for a patsy with the Colombian government.) If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Hillary is reconstituting the toxic hierarchy of her childhood household, with her on top instead of her drill-sergeant father. All those seething beta males (as you so aptly describe them) are versions of her sad-sack brothers, who got the short end of the Rodham DNA stick.

The compulsive war-room mentality of both Clintons is neurosis writ large. The White House should not be a banging, rocking washer perpetually stuck on spin cycle. Many Democrats, including myself, have come to doubt whether Hillary has any core values or even a stable sense of identity. With her outlandish fibbing and naive self-puffery, her erratic day-to-day changes of tone and message, her glassy, fixed smiles, and her leaden and embarrassingly unpresidential jokes about pop culture, she has started to seem like one of those manic, seductively vampiric patients in trashy old Hollywood hospital flicks like "The Snake Pit." How anyone could confuse Hillary's sourly cynical, male-bashing megalomania with authentic feminism is beyond me.

I have no idea whom I will vote for next November. Everything is open to me, and I am watching, listening and thinking. Regarding your comments on Sens. Clinton and Obama in your most recent article, I thought you were a little tough on Hillary in that you did not discuss any of Barack's shortcomings. No mention at all that the man who claims he will clean up Washington, D.C., was involved in a real estate transaction so questionable even my 7-year-old understands the implications.

Sen. Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, claims he did not break any laws, that he was only guilty of being "boneheaded." If I were Sen. Clinton's campaign manager, every ad would have the video of Sen. Obama saying that over and over. He claims his judgment is so good that he knew we should never have gone into Iraq, yet he had no qualms going into the real estate deal with Mr. and Mrs. Rezko. No mention that he has very little experience in politics.

I look for experience when I select my doctor, my CPA, my dentist, my child's teacher. Why can't I ask for some in my president?

Anonymity requested
Houston, Texas

Obama's Rezko embroglio is certainly troublesome. But the splotches on Obama's record are few and relatively minor compared to the staggeringly copious chronicle of Clinton scandals, a mud mountain that the media have shown amazingly little interest in exploring during this campaign cycle. For all their grousing about media bias, the Clintons have gotten off scot-free over the past year from any kind of serious, systematic examination of their sleaze-a-thon history from Little Rock to Foggy Bottom.

Obama has actually served longer in public office than Hillary has. It's very true that he lacks executive experience, but so does she. Her bungling of healthcare reform, along with her inability to control the financial expenditures and internal wrangling of her campaign, does not bode well for a prospective chief executive. Beyond that, I'm not sure that your analogy to professionals like doctors, accountants and teachers entirely applies to presidents. There is no fixed system of credentialing for our highest office. On the contrary, the Founders envisioned the president as a person of unpretentious common sense and good character. Hillary may spout a populist line, but with her arrogant sense of dynastic entitlement, she's a royalist who, like Napoleon, wants to crown herself.

I too wish that Obama had more practical experience in government. But Washington is at a stalemate and needs fresh eyes and a new start. Furthermore, at this point in American history, with an ill-conceived, wasteful war dragging on in Iraq and with the nation's world reputation in tatters, I believe that, because of his international heritage and upbringing, Obama is the right person at the right time. We need a thoughtful leader who can combine realism with conciliation in domestic as well as foreign affairs.

Full disclosure: I have contributed small sums to Obama's campaign twice this year. I was lucky enough to see him up close as he spoke at a recent rally in the Philadelphia suburbs, where he answered policy questions in great detail. I was very impressed by his easy, relaxed authority and quick humor as well as his classy elegance. I'd love to have a woman president -- but slippery Hillary, stolidly pumping and pumping her narcissistic bellows like a steam engine, just isn't it.

Notes on how to present like Obama

Plum Elements — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:03:02 EDT

I have often encouraged people, when campaigning, and especially when interfacing with those who actively oppose Obama and this movement, to ACT LIKE OBAMA. Several of my Blog entries focus on this or close with that encouragement. Well today in my email box I found the following article. It came via "The Ladders" a job search site which sponsors that sort of silly tennis commercial. There tag line is "When Everybody Plays, Nobody Wins." Perhaps that is true in job searches, I don't know. But it is not true in a democracy. If everyone plays, I am confident we all will win. So please take a moment, look at this, and think, what will you do today, to support OBAMA, and how will you do it in a manner, like his? All the best-JWZ

How to Inspire People Like Obama

By Carmine Gallo

Public speaking skills are critical to the success of every leader. Over the past several years, I have been interviewing, observing, and writing about business, academic, and political leaders who have the ability to influence their audience – leaders who fire up the rest of us. Whatever your political leanings, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is one of them. For a look at what makes Obama’s public speaking skills so effective, I outline four techniques this Presidential hopeful has mastered and explain ways to use them in your own repertoire.

1. Hold Out Hope

Like Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama speaks in the uplifting rhetoric of hope. After his defeat in New Hampshire, Obama’s political oratory was so hopeful he sounded more like a winner than a runner–up. Obama knew a hopeful message would embolden his supporters. In a speech on Jan. 8, 2008, Obama said, “We know the battle ahead will be long. But always remember, no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change… We have been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.”

You are the leader people want to believe in. Your customers and employees are bombarded by bad news – the credit crunch, a housing slump, an economic slowdown – but they are eager to hear something positive. That doesn’t mean leaders stick their heads in the sand – far from it. Inspiring leaders acknowledge the situation but also remind people of reasons to be optimistic.

2. Use Rhetorical Devices

Many observers say Obama sounds like King. This is because he uses some of the same techniques that made King an electrifying speaker.

Parallel structure. We can thank the ancient Greeks for this rhetorical tool – they called it “anaphora.” It simply means repeating the same word or expression at the beginning of successive sentences or phrases. One of the most famous examples is King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed…. I have a dream that… I have a dream…” Obama uses the same device frequently. In his Iowa victory speech on Jan. 3, Obama said, “You have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this new year.”

Anaphora’s sister technique is called “epistrophe.” It is the repetition of a word or expression at the end of successive sentences or phrases. For example, in Obama’s New Hampshire speech, the expression “Yes, we can” rallied thousands of supporters when used like this, “It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation: Yes, we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights: Yes, we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out for distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness: Yes, we can.”

Alliteration. Both Kennedy and King were fond of this device that strings together words starting with similar sounds. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote speech that brought Obama to prominence, he said, “Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics of hope?” In 2005, during a commencement speech at Knox College, Obama described America as “a place where destiny was not a destination, but a journey to be shared and shaped…” When speaking at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars in August, 2006, Obama proclaimed, “The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph.” In January’s New Hampshire speech, Obama used alliteration again: “We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics.”

Rich Imagery. Persuasive speakers have long understood the power of imagery to stir emotions – the creation of mental pictures through the words. In his 2004 speech, Obama described what he meant by the audacity of hope: “It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs, the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores, the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta, the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds, the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.”

3. Exude Confidence

In debates Obama appears unflappable, answering tough questions while maintaining strong eye contact. He doesn’t fidget or shake his head when listening to sharp attacks from his opponents. While seated, he leans slightly forward. People will make an impression of you after only a few seconds. Pay attention to what your body is saying. Communicate confidence, competence, and control.

4. Use Dynamic Vocal Delivery

A monotonous speaking style lulls the listener to sleep, regardless of the power of the content. Obama knows how to enhance his delivery. Consider these three aspects of his delivery.

Pacing. Obama varies the speed at which he speaks. Very few sentences are delivered at exactly the same pace.

Volume. In his victory speech after the Iowa caucuses, Obama raised the volume of his speech with each sentence in the following paragraph: “We are one nation. We are one people. And our time for change has come.”

Pauses. Nothing is as dramatic as a well–placed pause, and Obama knows it. He pauses at key moments to make a memorable impact.

Obama connects with millions of people thanks to his public speaking skills. Consider learning from him to influence your own audience.

Different Approaches to Lobbyists

Paul C. — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:20:01 EDT

Link from DailyKos

I went to the mailbox and found a letter from the Obama Campaign. Enclosed was a check for $100, the return of my contribution from earlier this month along with a letter explaining why it would not be accepted.

You see, I am a registered lobbyist for a non-profit organziation. We are a non-partisan, non-political membership organziation, we do not have a political action committee and strictly observe a policy of non-particpation in any event that even remotely appears political. I serve as their legislative rep, trying to ensure that expertise of our membership is heard by public officials on issues related to their area of expertise (public safety).
I guess given the fact that I was not a corporate/industry lobbyist, I never really considered that Obama's no-lobbyist money ban would apply to me, but it did! The letter thanked me for my interest in the campaign, but stated flately that my donation was not acceptable.

versus

p.s.: As a side note, last year my spouse had set up automatic monthly payments to Hillary (nothing big $10/month) but after switching to Obama, had to battle with the Clinton campaign to cancel the automatic payment. I find it ironic that one campaign won't take my money, the other won't give it back!
Updated to add: I though[t] we had finally stopped the payments to the Clinton Campaign, but after checking with my spouse, it turns out they are still taking the payments 3-4 months after we asked them to stop.

Is anyone really surprised? Show of hands.

By the way, his rejection letter - the link he provided is kinda iffy, so I've posted inline:

Hillary "Ahead In Only Count That Matters"

Paul C. — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 00:09:46 EDT

Subtitle: Wolf Blitzer is a dink.

No, he is. He regurgitates the Clinton talking point that her 14 won states have more electoral votes than Obama's 27, and that she stands a better chance of beating John McCain in battleground states. You know, with all her appeal to independents and Republicans, or something, I guess. Right at the point in his article where he's supposed to critically analyze the Clinton claims, he instead says they're controversial and apparently walks away from the keyboard to wash his cat.

There's a respectable journalistic position called "neutrality," a respectable journalistic position called "endorsing," and, in between, a frustrating, dishonest and borderline unethical position called "shilling for your candidate," in which you pretend to be neutral but present only what you want people to hear. Wolf's doing the "shilling" one; it makes him a dink.

Also, the caption under his picture seems rather arbitrary and doesn't have anything to do with the article.

Quick Thought on the Olympics

Paul C. — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:33:35 EDT

I'm not sure it would be worth Barack's time to say it (if he feels as I do), but I at least would like say that despite the fact that China is a country whose politics and culture make it abhorrantly apathetic to human rights, protests about that should not affect the running of the Olympic torch or the games.

I know during the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia spit at each other back and forth during the games, boycotting this and that, but we did a lot of dumb things during the Cold War. The Olympics are about transcending national debates and conflicts and coming together to celebrate the human spirit and honest competition. And as badly as we need human rights, we'll never guarantee them without countries and people first having the kind of basic respect for each other that the Olympics is about.

Feel free to quote me on that.

I won't vote for John McCain

Paul C. — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:15:46 EDT

For all we've been preoccupied with Obama v. Clinton in the primary race, but we should not take our eyes off the competition in November, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). I used to count Sen. McCain among the "good guys," a Republican like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) who did his job on priciple rather than on politics and would stand up against party politics whenever the situation called for.

Back when it was first revealed that the United States, through the Central Intelligence Agency, was using torture as interrogation techniques in foreign prisons, McCain was outspoken against torture as a matter of principle, and he stood strong against the Bush Administration's stance that it was allowable. McCain related his personal experience of the very same tortures the Bush Administration was using to show that they were both horrific and unreliable. It was incredibly brave of the man.

Except then something happened that seemed a bit odd: McCain sponsored a bill which still allowed the CIA to torture, including waterboarding. Now, credit where credit is due, McCain said his vote position has been tempered by the a fairly reasonable idea that the CIA shouldn't be limited to the specific techniques in the Army Operations Manual, since that is a public document. But still.

However, Sen. McCain later voted against a more narrow bill, an amended intelligence appropriations act which prohibited the use of waterboarding and other techniques almost universally dubbed "torture" (i.e. by everyone but the Bush Administration itself). This was party-line, Bush Admin-pressured, politically-motivated voting. And it was on torture, a horrific act both inhuman and quintessentially representative of human failings, a subject which John McCain once vehemently denounced and gained great sympathy for based on his own personal experience.

That is why I don't trust John McCain any more, and why he will never get my vote no matter his opposition. In a Clinton vs. McCain race, I will vote third party.

Top 10 Myths Keeping Hillary in the Race

Paul C. — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:31:07 EDT

Chip Collis over at The Huffington Post had a good editorial blog post the other day (see title).

It's mostly a good piece, and it's a good framework/set of talking points for your frustrated Hillary-supporting friends. I take exception to his semantics and semantics about semantics regarding the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters, however. He's right that the problem is with the state parties and state legislatures/governors, but if you want to get all functional and say that MI and FL votes being meaningless is the same as Republican votes since McCain clinched the nomination became meaningless, why not just go all the way and say that all of our votes are meaningless because none of us individually will cast the deciding vote?

It's not about the results, it's about what it means to the people actually voting.

Thinking out loud on FLA and MI

Plum Elements — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:34:12 EDT

Think it was Chuck Todd on MSNBC/NBC who said this weekend that there comes a point where Obama can just GIVE Hillary FLA an MI and depower a few of her arguments and be magnanamous. That is great.

I am a conflict management and negotiation consultant. It is always worthwhile before negotiating to generate lots of options. Have seen many here. Some well thought out and others not so much so.

Was hoping some of you numbers types could help me think through this proposal.

What if Obama says to Clinton - Sure lets seat FLA and MI and here is how. -

We will divide the delegates by the average of ALL the other PRIMARY VOTES in all the other states?

How does that work out? Have to believe it keeps things...just as they are on the one hand, gets FLA and MI back in the fold.

Should the HRC campaign trot out that she "won" these and therefore should not need to average them - for weeks they were calling MI a fair election - I would lump that under more fabrication by asking how is it fair if only one candidate is on the ballot.

This way he can be seen as offering a positive option and not get painted as not interested in them.

Thoughts? Problems with this?

Thanks.

JWZ

From My Friend Bill - Let The Healing Commence

Plum Elements — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:38:31 EDT

Fellow Obama supporters, it's time we all stopped bashing Sen. Clinton. It is unnecessary. The race, if not over, is clearly going to be won by Sen. Obama. Let's start reaching out to Sen. Clinton and to her supporters now. Let her campaign continue to throw the mud, the kitchen sink, whatever, if that's what they want to do. I trust Sen. Obama to handle it. Sen. McCain is the real opponent now, not Sen. Clinton. I've made the commitment to stop bashing Sen. Clinton myself. Since signing up on the my.barackobama.com website, I've had posted on my page the statement "Sen. Clinton reminds us that she spent eight years in the White House. Well, so did the pastry chef." Now I don't think that was a particularly harsh statement, but I took that statement down today anyway. Let the healing begin!

----

I would add to this that maybe it is time to create a group or two for reconciliation...some groups where folks who supported each can be decent to each other and begin exploring connections and ties.

I understand that some will feel so strongly, and hold such animosity to the other that it may not be possible...but for thos that can, there should be a space and support to help it happen.

Here is to 1Party...and the better world it should build.

JWZ

My Open Letter to PA. Feel Free to Copy, Improve and Distribute there.

Plum Elements — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:30:21 EDT

My Dear Friend PA.

It has been too long since I wrote. I do apologize.

While my visits have been few in recent years,

you continue to occupy a special place in my heart.

The school years I spent outside of Philly in Bucks County

matter as much to me as anytime in my life.

That time, and you, had a big part in making me who I am.

Writing that I think to, how much of a role you had in making our nation what we are.

You hosted the continental congress that birthed this nation.

It is a signature event our nation's past. Thank you for hosting so ably.

It could not have happened anywhere else.

I recall as well how you changed the course of our nation some 4 Score and... years later. A deep red scar. A singularly costly time. A turning point. No joy in hosting that moment. But recognition of its necessity.

And that is why I really am writing. I wanted to ask...can you do it again?

Now the "fighting" of the last few weeks can not compare to the loss of life and treasure in the early 1860s. But I find it hurts me none the less. In fact, I think it has hurt us all.

We may no longer wear blue or grey. But whether we are decked in blue of a pale or fuller hue - and even for those who would wear red - the last few weeks have hurt more than helped. All of us are less I feel

PA, can you help?

Yes You Can.

I believe.

Why don't you show us again your capacity and import.

Help us emerge into a whole new political reality and positive era.

You have done it before. Would you please do it again?

You can be THE deciders.

You can end the rancor.

You can end the acrimony.

You can make peace and foster quiet amongst that blue party.

So it and all of us, may go forward.

BUT, Only if you choose to vote for Obama.

If she wins...it goes on and I fear gets worse.

More blood spilled in PA's rich soil, no one needs.

This would not be the blood of soldiers...

but rather, the life blood of a chance too rare to squander.

If he wins...it is over.

The chance to progress would again be saved on your land.

Through your hands, hearts and minds.

So, PA, I have to ask -

What are you going to do?

Who do you want to be?

A nation turns its eyes, tired and pained by the last few weeks, to you.

I wish you great good luck and much providence in your choosing.

With deep affection and high hopes.

JWZ

Changing the foreign policy mindset - Great Article

Plum Elements — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:43:56 EDT

Obama's Sweeping Foreign Policy CritiqueBy Spencer Ackerman, The American Prospect
Posted on March 28, 2008, Printed on March 28, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/80623/

When Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama met in California for the Jan. 31 debate, their back-and-forth resembled their many previous encounters, with the Democratic presidential hopefuls scrambling for the small policy yardage between them. And then Obama said something about the Iraq War that wasn't incremental at all. "I don't want to just end the war," he said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."

Until this point in the primaries, Clinton and Obama had sounded very similar on this issue. Despite their differences in the past (Obama opposed the war, while Clinton voted for it), both were calling for major troop withdrawals, with some residual force left behind to hedge against catastrophe. But Obama's concise declaration of intent at the debate upended this assumption. Clinton stumbled to find a counterargument, eventually saying her vote in October 2002 "was not authority for a pre-emptive war." Then she questioned Obama's ability to lead, saying that the Democratic nominee must have "the necessary credentials and gravitas for commander in chief."

If Clinton's response on Iraq sounds familiar, that's because it's structurally identical to the defensive crouch John Kerry assumed in 2004: Voting against the war wasn't a mistake; the mistakes were all George W. Bush's, and bringing the war to a responsible conclusion requires a wise man or woman with military credibility. In that debate, Obama offered an alternative path. Ending the war is only the first step. After we're out of Iraq, a corrosive mind-set will still be infecting the foreign-policy establishment and the body politic. That rot must be eliminated.

Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. It cuts to the heart of traditional Democratic timidity. "It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right," Obama said in a January speech. "It's time to say that we are the party that is going to be strong and right." (The Democrat who counseled that Americans wanted someone strong and wrong, not weak and right? That was Bill Clinton in 2002.)

But to understand what Obama is proposing, it's important to ask: What, exactly, is the mind-set that led to the war? What will it mean to end it? And what will take its place?

To answer these questions, I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.

***

When considering any presidential hopeful's foreign-policy promises, it's important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of advisers. (If the press had paid better attention, the country would have seen through Bush's pitch about a humble foreign policy and realized that many of his advisers, including Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, were conspiracy-minded warmongers.) Obama's foreign-policy advisers come from diverse backgrounds. They are former aides to Democratic mandarins like Tom Daschle and Lee Hamilton (Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes, respectively); veterans of the Clinton administration's left flank (Tony Lake and Susan Rice); a human-rights advocate who helped write the Army's and Marine Corps' much-lauded counterinsurgency field manual (Sarah Sewall); a retired general who helped run the air war during the invasion of Iraq (Scott Gration); and a former journalist who revolutionized the study of U.S. foreign policy (Samantha Power). Yet they form a committed, intellectually coherent, and surprisingly united foreign-affairs team. (Shortly before this piece went to press, Power resigned from the campaign after making an intemperate remark to a reporter.)

They also share a formative experience with each other and with Obama. Each opposed the Iraq War at a time when doing so was derided by their colleagues, by journalists, and by the foreign-policy establishment. Each did so because they understood that the invasion and occupation ran counter to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda. And each bore the frustration of endless lectures on their lack of so-called seriousness from those who suffered from strategic myopia.

"There is a popular notion that Democrats have to try to appear like Republicans to pass some test on national security. The fact that that's still the case after Iraq is absurd," says one of Obama's closest advisers. "So you break from that orthodoxy and say 'I don't care if the Republicans attack me because I'm willing to meet with the leadership in Iran. We haven't for 25 years, and it's not gotten us anywhere.'"

Most of the members of Obama's foreign-policy team expressed frustration that they had taken a well-considered and seemingly anodyne position on Iraq and suffered for it. Obama had something similar happen to him in the spring and summer of 2007. He was attacked from the left and the right for saying three things that should not have been controversial: that if he had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan but no cooperation from the Pakistani government, he would take out the jihadists; that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons on terrorist training camps; and that he would be willing to meet with leaders of rogue states in his first year as president. "No one [of Obama's critics] had thought through the policy because that was the quote-unquote naïve and weak position, so they said it was a bad position to take," recalls Ben Rhodes, the adviser who writes Obama's foreign-policy speeches. "And it was a seminal moment, because Obama himself said, 'No, I'm right about this!'"

Instead of backing down, Obama asked his foreign-policy team to double down. Rhodes wrote a speech that Obama delivered at DePaul University on Oct. 2, which criticized the boundaries of acceptable discourse set by the same establishment that backed the war. "This election is about ending the Iraq War, but even more it's about moving beyond it. And we're not going to be safe in a world of unconventional threats with the same old conventional thinking that got us into Iraq," Obama said. One of his advisers, recalling the fallout from Obama's comments about pursuing al-Qaeda in Pakistan, says, "He takes policy positions that are a break from both rigid orthodoxy and the Bush administration. And everyone says it's a gaffe! That just encapsulates everything that's wrong about the foreign-policy debate in Washington and in Democratic politics."

The Obama foreign-policy team describes it as "the politics of fear," a phrase most advisers used unprompted in our conversations. "For a long time we've not seen much creative thinking from Dems on national security, because, out of fear, we want to be a little different from the Republicans but not too different, out of fear of being labeled weak or indecisive," another top adviser says. Identifying that fear as the accelerant of the Iraq War mind-set is the first step to a new and innovative foreign policy. John Kerry was not able to argue for fundamental change in foreign policy because he was consumed by that very political fear. Obama's admonition to Democrats is much like Pope John Paul II's to the Gdansk shipyard strikers -- first, be not afraid.

***

Like Obama, his defense advisers have supplemented their American views with the perspectives of outsiders. Gen. Scott Gration, a retired Air Force jet pilot, says hello to me over the phone in Swahili. He learned about the crushing misery of the world's poor by growing up in Congo, where his parents were missionaries. After the violence following Congolese independence in 1960, Gration had an experience few Americans ever will: He became a refugee. "We lost everything we owned, and what we took with us, they confiscated," he remembers.

Sarah Sewall, a Harvard professor and another of Obama's closest advisers, also knows about stepping outside of her comfort zone. A longtime human-rights advocate with the disarmament organization, the Council for a Livable World, Sewall found herself in 2005 and 2006 with an unlikely partner: Gen. David Petraeus. He and two colleagues were rewriting the Army and Marine field manual for counterinsurgency and wanted Sewall's input on how to create a more just, humane, and successful doctrine. For agreeing to help, she was attacked by some on the left. "Should a human-rights center at the nation's most prestigious university be collaborating with the top U.S. general in Iraq in designing the counterinsurgency doctrine behind the current military surge?" Tom Hayden wrote online in The Huffington Post.

Sewall's involvement may have lost her some influence within the academic left, but she has become a hero to the military's growing circle of counterinsurgency theorist-practitioners. "Her impact on the thinking about the war and the conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been significant and not without cost," says Army Lt. Col. John Nagl, one of the counterinsurgency community's luminaries. "She has shown, in my eyes, great moral courage. I think Senator Obama is listening to someone who has thought long and hard about the use of force and who understands the kinds of wars we're fighting today."

This ability to see the world from different perspectives informs what the Obama team hopes will replace the Iraq War mind-set: something they call dignity promotion. "I don't think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does," says Samantha Power, a former key aide and author of the groundbreaking study of U.S. foreign policy and genocide, A Problem From Hell. "Dignity is a way to unite a lot of different strands [of foreign-policy thinking]," she says. "If you start with that, it explains why it's not enough to spend $3 billion on refugee camps in Darfur, because the way those people are living is not the way they want to live. It's not a human way to live. It's graceless -- an affront to your sense of dignity."

During Bush's second term, a strange disconnect has arisen in liberal foreign-policy circles in response to the president's so-called "freedom agenda." Some liberals, like Matthew Yglesias in his book Heads In The Sand, note the insincerity of the administration's stated goal of exporting democracy. Bush, they observe, only targets for democratization countries that challenge American hegemony. Other liberal foreign-policy types, such as Thomas Carothers and Marina Ottaway of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, insist the administration is sincere but too focused on elections without supporting the civil-society institutions that sustain democracy. Still others, like Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, contend that a focus on democracy in the developing world without privileging the protection of civil and political rights is a recipe for a dangerous illiberalism.

What's typically neglected in these arguments is the simple insight that democracy does not fill stomachs, alleviate malaria, or protect neighborhoods from marauding bands of militiamen. Democracy, in other words, is valuable to people insofar as it allows them first to meet their basic needs. It is much harder to provide that sense of dignity than to hold an election in Baghdad or Gaza and declare oneself shocked when illiberal forces triumph. "Look at why the baddies win these elections," Power says. "It's because [populations are] living in climates of fear." U.S. policy, she continues, should be "about meeting people where they're at. Their fears of going hungry, or of the thug on the street. That's the swamp that needs draining. If we're to compete with extremism, we have to be able to provide these things that we're not [providing]."

This is why, Obama's advisers argue, national security depends in large part on dignity promotion. Without it, the U.S. will never be able to destroy al-Qaeda. Extremists will forever be able to demagogue conditions of misery, making continued U.S. involvement in asymmetric warfare an increasingly counterproductive exercise -- because killing one terrorist creates five more in his place. "It's about attacking pools of potential terrorism around the globe," Gration says. "Look at Africa, with 900 million people, half of whom are under 18. I'm concerned that unless you start creating jobs and livelihoods we will have real big problems on our hands in ten to fifteen years."

Obama sees this as more than a global charity program; it is the anvil against which he can bring down the hammer on al-Qaeda. "He took many of the [counterinsurgency] principles -- the paradoxes, like how sometimes you're less secure the more force is used -- and looked at it from a more strategic perspective," Sewall says. "His policies deal with root causes but do not misconstrue root causes as a simple fix. He recognizes that you need to pursue a parallel anti-terrorism [course] in its traditional form along with this transformed approach to foreign policy." Not for nothing has Obama received private advice or public support from experts like former Clinton and Bush counterterrorism advisers Richard Clarke and Rand Beers, and John Brennan, the first chief of the National Counterterrorism Center.

The Obama foreign-affairs brain trust balks at the suggestion that what it's proposing is radical. "He said we'd take out al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the Pakistani tribal areas if Pakistan will not. That's not, to me, a revolutionary policy," Rhodes says. "Watching him get attacked on the right is absurd. You've got guys who argued for a massive invasion and occupation of a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 criticizing him for advocating the use of highly targeted force to kill Osama bin Laden!"

Rhodes is referring, of course, to John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who recently asked of Obama, "Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan?" It's no secret that McCain, a war hero who is to the right of Bush when it comes to Iraq, hopes to make this a foreign-policy election. Conventional wisdom holds this would give him an advantage over Obama. A Feb. 28 Pew Research Center poll found 43 percent of respondents believe Obama is "not tough enough" on foreign policy. Thirty-nine percent believe Obama's foreign policy is "just right," while 47 percent say the same of McCain.

Even so, Obama's foreign-policy advisers are thrilled at the prospect of facing McCain. Had the GOP nomination gone to Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee, politicians who don't particularly care about foreign policy, an Obama victory would not provide a mandate for the sweeping foreign-affairs overhaul his campaign proposes. November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement. "We want to have this debate with John McCain," a close Obama adviser says. "[Obama] will offer this clear contrast."

Susan Rice, an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and one of the few foreign-policy-establishment luminaries to sign on with Obama, explains what's at stake: "After eight years of George Bush, when the next president puts his or her hand on the Bible to be sworn in, the U.S. is going to get one brief second look [from the world] about whether the U.S. truly learned to change from its past mistakes, recent and historic, and whether we're again the kind of America people look to lead in a constructive fashion, or whether we're hopeless. In my opinion, they'll look at McCain and decide we're trapped in our old mistakes."

Of course, it remains to be seen how voters might look at an Obama-McCain race. "The important distinction will be, does Obama come across as saying he wants to make a break with the foreign policy of the last seven years, or does it sound like he'll take foreign policy in a fundamentally different direction than that of the last twenty, thirty, fifty years?" says Guy Molyneux, a Democratic pollster with Peter D. Hart Associates. Americans are eager to put the Bush doctrine behind them, Molyneux says, but there's a danger that voters will see Obama as a "young guy who's less experienced but sounds like he's taking off in a new direction."

***

In his focus on the importance of dignity in our policy toward the developing world, Obama sounds quite a bit like John F. Kennedy, who knitted together an argument for engagement with the "non-aligned" world and began the tradition of development assistance as a foreign-policy goal. However, Kennedy's basic foreign policy continued along the Cold War lines that had been laid down during the Truman administration.

Democratic presidential candidates since Kennedy have either downplayed foreign policy or simply argued for more competence in its execution, with two major exceptions: George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1976. In the popular imagination, based on the "Come home, America" line from his nomination acceptance speech, McGovern pivoted from a striking critique of the immorality of the Vietnam War to an indictment of U.S. involvement abroad. But McGovern purposefully left this broad criticism out of most of his campaign. "I concentrated on Vietnam," McGovern says in a phone interview, "because I thought it would be difficult to sell a comprehensive rewriting of American foreign policy." Carter is a more ambiguous case. In the wake of Watergate, he made a full-spectrum argument against the Washington establishment. Rethinking foreign policy was a part of that, and his aide Hamilton Jordan remarked, "If, after the inauguration, you find Cy Vance as secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of national security, then I would say we failed." Both men, of course, received precisely those posts.

Obama is doing something braver with foreign policy than McGovern or Carter. Much, of course, could go wrong. Right-wing demagogues are already implying Obama is a Muslim terrorist. Conservatives are using Obama's argument about the inextricability of international prosperity and U.S. national security to portray him as a "post-American globalist." Jewish right-wingers in the U.S. have begun a smear campaign not just about Obama, but also about Power, as writers for Commentaryand National Review have baselessly implied that she is an anti-Semite. Expect more of this for the duration of the primary season, and, if Obama wins, beyond.

If he wins in the general election, he will face a crush of foreign-policy problems so enormous that they risk overwhelming even the most competent, experienced national-security team. Iraq is, of course, a nightmare, and al-Qaeda is not just sitting still in its Pakistani safe haven. To propose rebooting U.S. foreign policy now is, to say the least, ambitious. Many military leaders consider Obama an unknown quantity. At a recent talk, Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks said that officers and soldiers serving in Iraq thought that McCain and Clinton would both pursue a foreign-policy commensurate with Bush's, but Obama left them puzzled. Once in office, Obama might feel compelled to turn his back on the critique he makes on the trail.

But while the doubts about Obama contain fair points, they also, to a certain degree, reflect a triumph of the Iraq War mind-set. Why not demand the destruction of al-Qaeda? Why not pursue the enlightened global leadership promised by liberal internationalism? Why not abandon fear? What is it we have to fear, exactly?

"He goes back to Roosevelt," Power says. "Freedom from fear and freedom from want. What if we actually offered that? What if we delivered that in the developing world? That would be a transformative agenda for us." The end of the Iraq War mind-set, it turns out, may be the beginning of America's reacquaintance with its best traditions.

Reprinted with permission from Spencer Ackerman, "The Obama Doctrine," The American Prospect, Volume 19, Number 4: March 24, 2008. The American Prospect, 2000 L Street, Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036. All rights reserved.

Spencer Ackerman is an associate editor at The New Republic.

Let's Go After McCain!

Marc — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:48:07 EDT

With all the recent talk of politics and religion, the mainstream press has pretty much ignored the strange bedfellows that John McCain has. Let's put the spotlight on McCain. Look at the bigots who are supporting him.

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/hagee_mccain.html

A Line for the Media...of all types...

Plum Elements — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:31:31 EDT

"A man may dwell so long upon a thought it may take him prisoner" - Lord Halifax.

You have dwelt more than long and dotingly enough upon Rev Wright and this whole matter.

Part of why the story lives, is you keep breathing life into it.

Some of the breath - purposely agitating (See Fixed Noise <Thank you Keith Olberman>.

Others of it less targeted to destroy, meant only to sell copy or ad time - but by that, no better in quality.

You cut away from Obama's economic speech this morning.

But not last weeks Race speech.

Tell me why?

Race matters more to this country than the economy? I think not.

While Race matters, I think it is not as central as the current and deepening economic tumult we are enduring.

Let it go.

So we all may go forward.

Think on that which does in now matter.

And build toward a better and clearer choice.

The right one being...Obama.

JWZ

Another Classic Line PERFECT for this moment.

Plum Elements — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:28:41 EDT

"Keep cool, and you command everybody." Louis De Saint-Just

One key aspect of Obama's appeal is his calm demeanor, at almost all times.

I do believe, that a piece of what got so many of my kind (color-less that is) worked up about the Rev. Wright, is not only what he said, but how he said it.

One thing that thrills so many of all types about Obama is the cool way he says so much...especially the very difficult, the very challenging, the very most necessary. That is in part where his "command" comes from.

When I hear hrc say things, I always hear this...grinding, scratchy, edgy, angry quality. It is part of why I can not believe in her...her voice belies the inner turmoil I believe she is now and has almost always been in.

Barack's "cool" makes me more comfortable - that he is aligned with himself and that others can therefore align with him.

I ask you...can you do it as you work on his behalf? Can you muster the resolve and the cool to be strong, smart, careful, and clear in the face of adversity and support alike? Can we all be that "cool and commanding?"

I am game to try...how about you?

JWZ

A useful classic line?

Plum Elements — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:37:39 EDT

" Know how to listen, and you will profit, even from those who talk badly." - Plutarch -

Given the language of others - opponent, detractors, media, etc. I do see this as a great challenge.

But many many many people I talk to site as Obama's greatest strength, his ability to listen and include the thoughts of others, even those with whom he does not agree.

It is exemplary in my opinion. Which is why I so often here, encourage and exhort all of us who support him, to behave more like him.

What will you do today to help Obama?

and

How will you do it? Like him? or in some other (lesser) way?

JWZ

Conservative Thinker's Endorsement of Obama - Why I am WITH Obama

Plum Elements — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:27:31 EDT

The following is from the WSJ's Law Blog.

The Pepperdine Professor in question, D Kmiec, has taken a courageous stand.

Looking at the comments he is being widely savaged by conservatives in the field of law.

He stands fast. That is what is required today. Courage combined with Hope and Intellect.

Prof. Kmiec in his opening answer states elequently what brought me to this campaign...

A man, capable of respectful disagreement, and the ability to explain, what he is thinking, why he makes the choices he makes. I do not agree with Obama on everything either. That is not whay I need in a President. What I do need is to understand why he reached the decision he reached. What I need is the chance to present my ideas and have them respectfully heard, whether they are in fact adopted or not.

This is why I am with Obama.

I encourage all of us as we go forward to work with this set of principles...

Listen

Be respectful

Explain your own thinking after learning of the others

Be patient

Stay open and engaged

Be hopeful.

Yes We Can. And with each passing day I feel more and more, both that we MUST and that we will.

JWZ

March 25, 2008, 2:13 pmDouglas Kmiec, Conservative Professor, Defends Obama EndorsementPosted by Dan Slater

Yesterday, the Law Blog mentioned that the Pepperdine con law prof, Douglas Kmiec, had endorsed Barack Obama’s bid for the presidency on the Slate Convictions blog – a surprising move for the high-profile Republican who was a lawyer in the Reagan and Bush I administrations.

In Kmiec’s endorsement letter, he confirmed his belief in “traditional marriage,” a “limited judicial role” for the Supreme Court and that “life begins at conception.” Kmiec went on to write: “In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced . . . . he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.”

News of the endorsement quickly ricocheted around the blogosphere, eliciting moans from conservative legal bloggers like L.A. lawyer Patrick Frey, who writes the Patterico’s Pontifications blog. “Prof. Kmiec, that’s all very nice,” Frey responded. “But, you see, there is a candidate — his name is John McCain; you might have heard of him — who actually supports the principles for which you claim to stand. Why are you refusing to support him?”

The Law Blog caught up with Professor Kmiec to get a response to his critics.

Hi Professor. Thanks for chatting. Many have criticized your Obama endorsement, arguing that, based on your stated beliefs, Senator McCain would be a better candidate for you.

I have nothing against McCain. Indeed, he was my candidate in 2000, and I would still think him the better choice in 2000. But, perhaps like my time, his time has passed. John’s understanding of warfare is the understanding of, as Tom Brokaw put it, the greatest generation. Just as shock and awe did not prevail in Iraq, McCain’s under-estimation of the cost of deployments both in terms of money, life, and international standing, make him not well suited to protect our national security in a time of terrorist threat.

You worked as a lawyer in the Reagan and Bush I administrations. Do you see any qualities in common between Obama and those past presidents?

I actually think Obama and Ronald Reagan have more in common than not when it comes to qualities of leadership, communication and ability to call us to our better selves. President Reagan used to tell all of us in his administration, and the public generally, that his proudest achievement was making the country feel better about itself. I believe Obama is committed to giving us reason to feel better about ourselves. I’ve seen it in the classroom. I’ve been teaching for 40 years, and have not seen a more electric and engaged atmosphere with regard to the democratic process. We’ll be saying something quite disappointing to that generation by saying we want to continue the politics of the past.

One of your former students, writing on a conservative blog, says he can’t understand how you reconcile your beliefs with Senator Obama’s. Take abortion, for example.

Senator Obama has the interesting capacity to go to people and emphasize the values of self responsibility. So when he goes to Planned Parenthood, he says the usual things the Democrats say, but then he also emphasizes that we need to teach young people to have a reverence for what sexual intimacy means and how it’s necessarily linked to new life and parenting. That’s remarkable for someone on his side of the world to say. It’s not enough to satisfy my concerns as a Catholic and conservative who believes the Court had no business in that territory. But it is a kind of federalist reminder – that these problems get solved first in family, church and the community.

Can you talk a bit about Obama and Supreme Court appointments?

One of the hardest things to reconcile was my concern with the Supreme court, which I do think President Bush, somehow miraculously, deserves credit for. The Chief Justice and Justice Alito are unparalleled. But I view those appointments not as partisan appointments, but rather appointments that, as Roberts tried to articulate, are designed to take politics out of the Court. So when my fellow conservatives say that even thinking about Senator Obama betrays the importance of Supreme Court appointments, I think they’re smuggling in an improper premise – that there aren’t people of integrity from both parties that can do constitutional interpretation in the vision of a limited judicial role.

On blogs, some of your fellow conservatives have been quite outspoken and critical of your position. Have you received any direct responses?

I’ve received some e-mails which have been quite thoughtful. It’s a curiosity that people write in a tone on the blogosphere that they wouldn’t say to the person themselves.

Angry John McCain

Marc — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:03:04 EDT

I am really concerned about the past statements and "shoot from the hip" remarks of John McCain. It is just a matter of time before Hillary recognizes reality and pulls out. We should be going after McCain now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-ymHdbd_tU

We need a president, not just a commander in chief.

Plum Elements — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:35:40 EDT

From a book by Joe Brewer and George Lakoff

The conservative view of the world as a dangerous place where military threats always lurk nearby is not conducive to the tasks that make our world safer: communicating effectively with leaders of other nations, building trust and forging lasting alliances across the globe, promoting peace through diplomacy and engaging in efforts to ease suffering through initiatives that build secure communities at home and abroad.

We need a president, not just a commander in chief.

This is a workable and usable line.

I do not wish for someone ready to be Commander in Chief.

I want someone to be President.

There is only one.

OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA

JWZ

Two More Adams' Exonerations

Plum Elements — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:52:59 EDT

When people talk of the freedom of writing, speaking or thinking I cannot choose but laugh. No such thing ever existed. No such thing now exists; but I hope it will exist. But it must be hundreds of years after you and I shall write and speak no more.
John Adams

It is now hundreds of years after Adams wrote this.

And I ask you...are you speaking or writing or thinking freely? truly?

Are you exercising the essential faculties of democratic liberty within the representative structure?

Or are you, reacting to small minds and deeds of others? Are you falling pray to that which can be brutish and bruising within us?

I ask you again to write, speak, in all its modern forms, but also those of the past, pen and paper, face to face, one person to a group...and do so freely, properly, respectfully, and hopefully.

As you do so please keep this in mind.

The happiness of society is the end of government.
John Adams

That is all there is. I wish to be happy again, proud again, of my society. I like Michelle have too long gone with too little to be proud of or happy with.

That said, I would be happy with this campaign FIRST. Happy with its tone, demeanor, purpose and passion.

I would rather be happy with the way each of us, for we are the campaign, holds ourselves, and speaks, writes and thinks, then win at the cost of that.

Be happy in what you do today for Obama and otherwise.

It may well make all the difference.

In Hope.

JWZ

Hope - The Ultimate Renewable Resource.

John Adams' lines for this OUR moment

Plum Elements — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:03:30 EDT

If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?
John Adams

Who indeed. To much of late has been done in the service of corporations, (who are of course only collections of some people) but not people in the purer sense.

Too much done in the name of a few, not all.

In politics the middle way is none at all.
John Adams

Have you already tired of hearing Obama painted as the MOST liberal Senator? It will become louder.

I like the line at this moment though that give we are in "Uncharted Waters" we are not in a time when the middle path makes sense. We are in a place, where in response to the rash and flawed reality of the last few years, as extreme as that was, to gain some balance we need not the middle path, but something as extremely human, intelligent, and hopeful, and the last many years have been monstrous, thoughtless, and fearful.

Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge.

Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.
John Adams

This line makes me weep. It speaks to each of us RIGHT NOW. We must DARE to read, think speak and write. To be silent is tantamount to treason or worse, a commitment to fail.

Ever wondered why education is always talked about in Presidential elections, but rarely acted on?

I do hope this time will be the dear and rare exception. For if we can elect this man, and begin on the process of again making education relevant, intellect desirable and the thoughtful use of language pertinent we have a chance to make not only our world better and safer, but our nation a finer democracy than it has ever been.

For as Adams also said -

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people.
John Adams

Please my friends, the time is now.

We may not have the chance to birth a new nation, but we can in fact deliver this one from one of its darkest periods, into a moment of great rediscovery and glory.

I am with Obama for that very purpose.

Are you?

JWZ

Adams, Obama and Us.

Plum Elements — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:51:24 EDT

I have been listening of late to the Audi Version of the Biography of John Adams.History has rarely held my attention.This does.Until recently, politics did not either hold my attention.Now I am riveted. I am also thrilled that the two events seem so intertwined.So many lines from Adams seem as relevant today as they were 200 plus years ago. I offer you as evidence this -

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."

John Adams Adams, perhaps more than any other singular person, helped our nation,in both its beauty and awfulness, to be what it is.With this in mind I intend to introduce here many of Adams' lines that I think might be of value and use to each of us here and now. Obama, I believe, has a similar chance. He is much more Jefferson that Adams, More JFK than RFK. What that means to me is this - those of us who care not for a public life, but yet desire a great and good nature, must speak...loudly, fully, with intent and passion about this moment. About what we know to be right and to be of value to this nation in this moment. I feel Mr Richardson did such a thing.Hope that I may, and you too, also do so. Speak.Email.Blog.Donate. Do that which you can and that which we must.
Do it with honor and intellect.Do it with hope and the highest of your character.Do it as if no other can nor will. For if you do not, you do not know that no other will. With all hope and encouragement.JWZ

Noonan again "gets it," endorses and helps

Plum Elements — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:49:58 EDT

Prior to this campaign, I did not follow or read Peggy Noonan. She has become essential reading in my opinion. I have posted on her here before. Her column this week is again insightful. It is also balanced suggesting improvements along with providing praise. But here is what I believe is most important - Look at her close, and her line about hrc and McCain "should try" giving a thinking man's speech. This is an educated, thoughtful, careful conservative thinker. She gets Obama. What is more, she WANTS to get Obama. We can count on that in the Fall with him. She does not want the woman candidate for woman's sake, nor the candidate of color for America's soul's sake. She wants what is best, brightest and most valuable for America and its future. She, like me, wants Obama. Thank you Ms. Noonan. I will work harder for Mr. Obama with your words in mind. JWZ
DECLARATIONSBy PEGGY NOONAN

A Thinking Man's Speech
March 21, 2008; Page W16

I thought Barack Obama's speech was strong, thoughtful and important. Rather beautifully, it was a speech to think to, not clap to. It was clear that's what he wanted, and this is rare.

It seemed to me as honest a speech as one in his position could give within the limits imposed by politics. As such it was a contribution. We'll see if it was a success. The blowhard guild, proud member since 2000, praised it, and, in the biggest compliment, cable news shows came out of the speech not with jokes or jaded insiderism, but with thought. They started talking, pundits left and right, black and white, about what they'd experienced of race in America. It was kind of wonderful. I thought, Go, America, go, go.

You know what Mr. Obama said. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright was wrong. His sermons were "incendiary," and they "denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation." Mr. Obama admitted that if all he knew of Mr. Wright were what he saw on the "endless loop . . . of YouTube," he wouldn't like him either. But he's known him 20 years as a man who taught him Christian faith, helped the poor, served as a Marine, and leads a community helping the homeless, needy and sick. "As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me." He would not renounce their friendship.

Most significantly, Mr. Obama asserted that race in America has become a generational story. The original sin of slavery is a fact, but the progress we have lived through the past 50 years means each generation experiences race differently. Older blacks, like Mr. Wright, remember Jim Crow and were left misshapen by it. Some rose anyway, some did not; of the latter, a "legacy of defeat" went on to misshape another generation. The result: destructive anger that is at times "exploited by politicians" and that can keep African-Americans "from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition." But "a similar anger exists within segments of the white community." He speaks of working- and middle-class whites whose "experience is the immigrant experience," who started with nothing. "As far as they're concerned, no one handed them anything, they've built it from scratch." "So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town," when they hear of someone receiving preferences they never received, and "when they're told their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced," they feel anger too.

This is all, simply, true. And we are not used to political figures being frank, in this way, in public. For this Mr. Obama deserves deep credit. It is also true the particular whites Obama chose to paint -- ethnic, middle class -- are precisely the voters he needs to draw in Pennsylvania. It was strategically clever. But as one who witnessed busing in Boston first hand, and whose memories of those days can still bring tears, I was glad for his admission that busing was experienced as an injustice by the white working class. Next step: admitting it was an injustice, period.

* * *

The primary rhetorical virtue of the speech can be found in two words,endemic and Faulkner. Endemic is the kind of word political consultants don't let politicians use because 72% of Americans don't understand it. This lowest-common-denominator thinking, based on dizzy polling, has long degraded American discourse. When Obama said Mr. Wright wrongly encouraged "a view that sees white racism as endemic," everyone understood. Because they're not, actually, stupid. As for Faulkner -- well, this was an American politician quoting William Faulkner: "The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past." This is a thought, an interesting one, which means most current politicians would never share it.

The speech assumed the audience was intelligent. This was a compliment, and I suspect was received as a gift. It also assumed many in the audience were educated. I was grateful for this, as the educated are not much addressed in American politics.

Here I point out an aspect of the speech that may have a beneficial impact on current rhetoric. It is assumed now that a candidate must say a silly, boring line -- "And families in Michigan matter!" or "What I stand for is affordable quality health care!" -- and the audience will clap. The line and the applause make, together, the eight-second soundbite that will be used tonight on the news, and seen by the people. This has been standard politico-journalistic procedure for 20 years.

Mr. Obama subverted this in his speech. He didn't have applause lines. He didn't give you eight seconds of a line followed by clapping. He spoke in full and longish paragraphs that didn't summon applause. This left TV producers having to use longer-than-usual soundbites in order to capture his meaning. And so the cuts of the speech you heard on the news were more substantial and interesting than usual, which made the coverage of the speech better. People who didn't hear it but only saw parts on the news got a real sense of what he'd said.

If Hillary or John McCain said something interesting, they'd get more than an eight-second cut too. But it works only if you don't write an applause-line speech. It works only if you write a thinking speech.

They should try it.

* * *

Here's what didn't work. Near the end of the speech, Mr. Obama painted an America that didn't summon thoughts of Faulkner but of William Blake. The bankruptcies, the dark satanic mills, the job loss and corporate corruptions. There is of course some truth in his portrait, but why do appeals to the Democratic base have to be so unrelievedly, so unrealistically, bleak?

This connected in my mind to the persistent feeling one has -- the fear one has, actually -- that the Obamas, he and she, may not actually know all that much about America. They are bright, accomplished, decent, they know all about the yuppie experience, the buppie experience, Ivy League ways, networking. But they bring along with all this -- perhaps defensively, to keep their ideological views from being refuted by the evidence of their own lives, or so as not to be embarrassed about how nice fame, success, and power are -- habitual reversions to how tough it is to be in America, and to be black in America, and how everyone since the Reagan days has been dying of nothing to eat, and of exploding untreated diseases. America is always coming to them on crutches.

But most people didn't experience the past 25 years that way. Because it wasn't that way. Do the Obamas know it?

This is a lot of baggage to bring into the Executive Mansion.

Still, it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former.

A great quote - and our great hope

Plum Elements — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:42:37 EDT

“Never let go of hope. One day you will see that it all has finally come together. What you have always wished for has finally come to be. You will look back and laugh at what has passed and you will ask yourself... 'How did I get through all of that?”

I do believe we are through one more challenge.

There will likely be others.

The good news?

Hope - The Ultimate Renewable Resource!

JWZ

Right WRONGED - Let us all work to right this wrong - The BEST Way

Plum Elements — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:39:30 EDT

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

This is being repeated often on the site and it should be.

Take a look at the fact that the Reverend was siting another person A WHITE person.

Think about this.

Think about the passport files being accessed.

Then breathe.

then take POSITIVE, SUPPORTIVE HELPFUL action.

DO not go down inthe mud with HRC or FOX or any one.

Be calm.

Be strong.

Be Positive.

Be assured....

Supporting Obama is the right thing to do...now more than ever.

JWZ

To Earl - On the Moral Compass

Plum Elements — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:18:41 EDT

I have been reading the comments/blog posts of

Earl from West Mifflin, PA.

Here is one he wrote and my response

Joseph (another poster),

Your words reflect the ideal person for the job of president, "I WANT THE PRESIDENT TO HAVE A GREAT MORAL COMPASS." A racist minister (Wright), a terrorist friend (Ayers) and a shady business associate (Rezko) indicate a compass pointing south rather than north.

And here is my response -

I think Obama's compass is so much better than most.

Easily better than Clinton's. Likely better than McCain's.

WAY WAY WAY better than Bush's.

What is also important is to recognize that all these people are human and SHOULD in fact make mistakes. If they are not...they are not trying, they are not risking, they are not creating.

It becomes imperative what one does in response to errors.

Each time, I have seen Obama stand up, be responsible, and honest, and speak to the issue. The others, possibly excepting Mccain, have not. Where was HRC on ferraro? and the list forBush is endless.

I wonder if you have looked at the full text of the Reverand's comments. Have you seen that the most incendiary line re 9/11 was in fact a quote of a Senior Official (white) in the Bush administration?

Wonder if you have also seen that more of REZKO's fellow indicted partners contributed to Clinton and McCain than Obama. And NO money from Rezko was given for the Presidential Campaign.

So going back to what happens when someone is wrong...

Tell me why you pick the compass direction of "south" to equate with wrong? Is it a habit? a phrase? does it make you think for a moment...about racism...the embedded habits and behaviors that may not seem wrong or costly, but in fact can be quite...destructive?

Think about it.

_______

Glad you are here Earl.

You remind me of how much work there is to do in order to help Obama help this nation regain its position, its hope, and its direction.

JWZ

And think about engaging in the conversation here with more than empty accusations fed by limited information. I feel all three of your examples show a lack of full consideration.

I would be proud to have Obama, his moral compass in hand, navigate our ship of state. It is not only the lesser of evils as so many politcal choices of late have been, it is in my mind, a sterling example of a new paradigm that could again allow America to fulfill her promise, not just her heritage.

John