Posts with the tag John Kerry

Attack advertisements are in the planning . . .

"NERVIE" — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:53:42 EDT

One of my public option friends says that we should pay attention to the recent polls in order to see the progression of activities on revealing the positions of the Democratic leadership that appear to be “riding the fence” on the immediate need for healthcare reform. She tells me that legislatures should understand what Americans needs and put those needs before their own, although we all know that legislatures receive the Rolls Royce of healthcare policies and benefits which the tax payers are paying for. So why aren’t American taxpayers healthcare not given the same consideration when the legislators collectively representing us? Don’t they still work for us? Aren’t the constituents in their area paying close attention to legislatures behavior? Here are the results of The Progressive Change Campaign Committee & Democracy for America poll. Please note also that the poll was Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC at www.boldprogressives.org , and they offer in their campaign disclosure that they are “not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.” So for those seeking alliance with other public option sites, here is one. . . Max Baucus, MT 15231 23%Evan Bayh, IN 5068 7%Kent Conrad, ND 3381 5%Dianne Feinstein, CA 8820 13%John Kerry, MA 13271 20%Mary Landrieu, LA 3398 5%Joe Lieberman, CT 9349 14%Ben Nelson, NE52908% Note that Max Baucus attack advertisements are already lined up in Montana and airing . . . Will John Kerry be next? --------------------------------------------------------------REFERENCE: 76% American’s polled is referencing the following article: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/090617_NBC-WSJ_poll_Full.pdf

Barack in the house

Jay Williams — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:06:04 EDT

I just read that Sen. Obama WILL be coming to Madison before election day.

Email from John Kerry: What will we say on November 5th?

Zachary Scott Edwards — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:30:16 EDT

Senator John Kerry just sent out an email to our Iowa supporters encouraging them to get involved in this final push before November 4th. He also stresses the importance of early voting, and we hope that you take just a second to find where you can vote early, and then go out to vote early for the change we need.

Dear Zachary,

Imagine this: It's election night. The polls have closed and the results are in. One candidate will be the 44th President of the United States.

If we don't step up our efforts right now in Iowa and reach out to as many voters as possible about Early Voting, the winner will be John McCain.

But I also know we have a great opportunity right in front of us to elect Barack Obama. If we all work together to tell our friends, family, and neighbors about Early Voting, we will win Iowa in 2008.

Don't wake up on November 5th wishing you'd done more.
Sign up now to connect with voters in your community.

With less than 23 days until Election Day, Republicans are kicking their attack machine into high gear, launching every dirty smear and guilt-by-association attack they can at Barack.

They're going to try and distract us from the important issues facing our country, but we can't let them succeed.

I'm doing everything I can this year to make sure this election doesn't slip away from us, but I can't do it alone -- and neither can Barack, or you, or anyone. But working together, we can reach enough voters to make that difference.

Iowa voters have a unique opportunity to build momentum for change by voting early, but it's up to us to reach out to them about Early Voting.

Make a difference today. Sign up to volunteer:

http://iowa.barackobama.com/WinorLoseIowa

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. -- You can take this campaign into your own hands with the Obama campaign's Neighbor to Neighbor tool. Reach out to fellow Iowans and make sure they know about Early Vote:

http://iowa.barackobama.com/n2n

Truth Fights Back ::: Stop the Smears

Brandi Lou — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:13:49 EDT

Kerry: McCain-Palin's "Hate Filled" Crowds Should Disqualify Them

Sam Stein October 10, 2008 11:12 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/10/kerry-mccain-palins-hate_n_133584.html

http://www.truthfightsback.com/page/content/smearpolitics

Four years ago, John Kerry flirted with the idea of making John McCain his running mate. Today, he is denouncing the Arizona Senator for "a stunning failure of leadership," and running a nasty, hate-filled campaign.

In a letter to supporters, the Massachusetts Democrat -- no stranger to smears himself -- ramps up his criticisms of McCain to new heights. In addition to airing disgust with the tone of the McCain crowds, he rips Gov. Sarah Palin for making "outrageous charges that only a few years ago would have disqualified someone from serious consideration for national office."

The letter reads:

John McCain has shown a stunning failure of leadership. His campaign, in a time of economic crisis and foreign policy drift, has degenerated into a negative and nasty campaign of smears.

The reports are piling up of ugliness at the campaign rallies of John McCain and Sarah Palin. Audience members hurl insults and racial epithets, call out "Kill Him!" and "Off With His Head," and yell "treason" when Senator Obama's name is mentioned. I strongly condemn language like this which can only be described as hate-filled.

According to reports, every ad paid for by the John McCain campaign is now a negative ad -- every single one! McCain allows his running mate to make outrageous charges that only a few years ago would have disqualified someone from serious consideration for national office.

We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to fight back, spread the word about what kind of low campaign he's running, and make sure people know the truth.

Kerry, like Obama, has set up a website to debunk smears in real time. And he directs supporters to the link: http://www.truthfightsback.com/page/content/smearpolitics

His strained relationship with McCain serves as a reminder of how much the political dynamics have changed in the past four years. It also begins to raise the question: what kind of reception will McCain receive either if he goes back to the Senate as a campaign loser or has to work with Congress as the next president?

Join & spread the word about John Kerry's effort to stop political smears against Democrats:

"Truthfightsback.com tracks, debunks, and counters the smears of the right wing against Democrats. We are dedicated to trying to end smears of all sorts, working against a style of politics that have become too prevalent, where emotional push-button attacks substitute for vigorous debate on the issues.

It is our hope that we can play a role in exposing the methods and goals of those who smear Democrats so that we can decide our elections on the issues and values that matter to Americans."

also from the site:

Download, Print, and Post Signs

We've created signs that you can print off from your own home computer. Post the signs at your home, in your car window, and around your community... then take a picture and send it to us! We'll feature some of the photos on TruthFightsBack.com.

NO SMEAR POLITICS/NO MCCAIN - NO PALIN

http://www.truthfightsback.com/page/content/smearpolitics

Sweet revenge for the Democrats

Daniel Baker — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 10:49:31 EDT

In 2004, George W. Bush did not run against John Kerry. He ran against Michael Moore. That would be the guy who looked at the pro-Saddam Iraqi insurgents who slaughter unemployed Iraqis and their children wholesale and saw Minutemen. The guy who openly entertained the idea that 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy, and who was and is unable to understand the U.S. economy in any other terms than a vast conspiracy of the rich, who somehow all work together harmoniously against the rest of us. John Kerry, who for all his faults was clearly the better candidate, didn't dare denounce Moore and his faction for fear of splitting the Democratic party, and that cost him the election.

The Democrats couldn't have dreamed up a better revenge scenario. For now, Barack Obama is not running against John McCain, but against that far weaker and more vulnerable candidate, George W. Bush. Obama's policy is complex and well thought-out, but his campaign is brutally simple: "McCain = Bush." Two nouns and one verb; that's as simple as it gets, and extremely effective when Bush has a 25% approval rating.

First blog

Robert from Las Vegas, NV — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 01:36:38 EDT

Our economy is in trouble. We have an energy crisis. a housing crisis, a financial crisis, a food shortage at every food bank, and a war that we are "winning" but losing lives money and assets. We should elect another Republican in any office? It's unfortunate that some folks vote for the same old people doing the same old thing. Come on people, vote for change, not the change McCain offers, but change that Obama has had the guts toget on t.v. and spell out. talk to your friends and neighbors and get them to read the plan at, barackobama.com/plan

I would like to see PayPal be accepted on this site and the johnkerry.com site for donations...hint, hint

From The Onion...

Beth from ColoradObama — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:08:52 EDT

What's Hillary been up to lately? This is a HILLARious must-read!!!!!!!!!

173,651

Michael in Ohio — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 18:58:55 EDT

The Campaign for Change had set a mighty goal for itself this weekend: it aimed to knock on the doors of 118,602 voters--one more than Bush's margin of victory in Ohio in 2004. But volunteers not only met the challenge--they busted through it and kept on going... This weekend, the tireless people of Ohio committed to changing this country knocked on no fewer than

173,651 doors.

That means that 1 out of every 45 registered voters got a knock on their door this weekend from an Obama supporter ready and waiting to talk about Barack's vision for the country. To outline his issues, to clarify misunderstandings, and to express what his presidency could mean personally and to the nation.

But you don't need to drive to a field office or wait for the weekend to get in on the action. Through groundbreaking technology called Neighbor2Neighbor, the campaign now has a simple program to provide you with everything you need to talk to your own neighbors--a list of addresses, flyers, and easy instructions on how to talk to voters. It's all explained in this handy video, from Nicole:

You can use Neighbor2Neighbor by clicking HERE. What's it like going door-to-door, you might ask? Don't take it from the campaign--take it from this first-hand account, recently posted in the blogosphere, from volunteer Heidi, in Northeast Ohio:

I live in a suburb of Cleveland and "white, working class" would probably be the best description. After a brief training we were sent out in pairs with our packets of turf. My canvass partner was a woman in her 60s (I'm 40 years old) and we hit it off right away...
We approached the last house together... and the woman who answered the door was friendly and told us she was undecided. She didn't like John McCain but just didn't know enough about Barack Obama. We started discussing different ways the current economy had affected all of us, her positions on issues, our positions on issues and you could feel the connection forming between the three of us... At the end of conversation she said she felt like she knew a lot more about him and would most likely vote for him.
I felt so happy as I tallied my canvass sheet back at the office. This is what canvassing is about - the informed voter sharing information with the less informed voter, neighbors sharing their stories with other neighbors, and all of us realizing what's at stake in this election.

Such an expansive door-to-door effort this weekend was the perfect way to cap off Heartland Issues Week, since canvassing brought Barack's message to many small towns and rural areas that wouldn't typically get attention from past campaigns. Signs of the overwhelming field presence in the state are everywhere--below is a picture of volunteers at an office opening in tiny Mount Gilead:

Our moment is now... and it's happening everywhere.

118,602

Michael in Ohio — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:16:16 EDT

That's one more than the number of votes by which John Kerry lost Ohio in 2004... and thereby lost the race for President. George Bush went on to give us 4 more years of terrible policies and partisan bullying.

118,602 is also the goal for the number of doors that Campaign for Change aim to knock on this weekend in Ohio. That's right: 118,602 doors. Ohioans are just that committed to make sure their state goes blue this time.

We can't afford a repeat of 2004. Knock some doors. Talk to some voters. Help the campaign go above and beyond 118,602. Join a canvass in your area, right now, by clicking

HERE.

The Plight of the Single-Issue Voter

Ethan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:19:00 EDT

A striking example provides for how narrowly supporting one and only one cause can lead to voter disrepresentation among the larger electorate. Despite the large portion of Roman Catholic Christians among the American demographic, few high offices have been set upon by Roman Catholics in the United States. Late after the conception of the United State, the first Catholic nominee of a major party for president was Alfred Emanuel Smith of the Democratic party in 1928. More than thirty year later, John Kennedy was the first Catholic president of the Democratic party. Almost half a century later, John Kerry was the only other Catholic nominee for president, also of the Democratic party. Understandably, Democrats were the first party to accept Catholic immigrants and push to give them equal rights and worker compensation and conditions. Smith, Kennedy, and Kerry believed strongly in equal civil liberties and opportunities for Catholics, blacks, Jews, and women, forging a major divergence from the Republican party and even Southern Democrats. In the late 1980s, the Christian Coalition was founded to wield great power within the Republican Party and help shape the Republican majority in congress. However, the Christian Coalition and Christian right have never supported a Catholic nominee for president. Paradoxically, the most successful and influential Catholic politians of today, such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, are ostracized by the Christian right and even fellow Catholics. While some of the Christian right would agree that theology should not be introduced into policy making, abortion has become the single-issue that sways most Catholics, synergically with the Christian right, from ever helping to elect a Catholic president. Through the use of Catholic voter guides, the Catholic church acutally encourages one-issue voting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61wj4tJICcc The abortion stance becomes the Catholic voter litmus test and gold standard to weigh above all other issues. Being wary of any church that instructs it's members how to vote and the strong reliance on a religious hierchary, Republican protestants expound on their basic mistrust in voting for Catholics. Republican protestants won't vote for a Catholic leader, and Catholics won't vote for a pro-choice candidate. This virtually ensures we won't see a Catholic president from any party besides the Democratic Party. A Catholic Republican will never be president as long as Catholics remain one-issue (Abortion) voters and the Christian right remains intolerant. This in and of itself does not denigrate the Catholic Church. Rather it points out the collective thinking of the Catholic right with the protestant right which explains a poltical anomaly. The current political environment has prevented Catholic politicians in the highest offices from enjoying the wide spread support of the greater Catholic right. Sam Brownback's attempt at the White House would be explained by this theory. A bigger theme emerges that single-isse voting in many examples disenfranchises the single-issue voters themselves. It is quite likely we will see more Catholic nominees for the Democratic bid of the presidency, but the Catholic right will not vote for them.

For more see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17catholics.html?em

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/18/churchgoing-catholics-returning-to-gop-fold/

McCain's swiftboaters, old, moldy politics

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 00:02:58 EDT

I don't know,
but I've been told,
McCain's swiftboaters,
reek of mold!

The Democratic National Convention 2008 –Highlights

Stephanie Williams — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:59:23 EDT

My previous blogs have VANISHED (apparently into thin "web" air)!! Oh well, I am not going to spend anytime crying about that. I am also not going backwards (i.e., trying to repost items lost) because the election is less than 60 days away! That being said, I have few exceptions: highlight speeches of the historical 2008 DNC, Obama's acceptance speech, Fact Checking Gov. Sarah Palin and Republican Pres. Nominee John McCain's RNC Acceptance Speeches. With respect to the highlights of the 2008 DNC, I have compiled a list of my favorite speeches with links to the video. The list is in reverse chronological order. If, for some reason, a link is broken, you can always Google the speech or search for it on YouTube.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION

Denver, CO (August 25-28, 2008)

Pres. Nominee Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZCrIeRkMhA

Sen. Joe Biden’s VP Acceptance Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVH58DeUThg

Beau Biden Introducing his father, Sen. Joe Biden:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFNdA6fxKpo

Sen. John Kerry’s Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dO2PAm4iCtE

Fmr. President Bill Clinton’s Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3r6xvwPGcY

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=268ncnoitEc

Congressman Dennis Kucinich “Wake-up America” Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_eKhUC9rI

Gov. Deval Patrick (D-Mass) Speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAwKHriAj5Q

Michelle Obama’s Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTFsB09KhqI

Ted & Caroline Kennedy’s Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE_eKhUC9rI

About the Republican Tactics, a Message from John Kerry

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 11:42:12 EDT

This is what I learned in 2004.

When Republicans go on the attack with their lies and innuendo, Democrats need to hit them back twice as hard.

That is why I am asking you to join thousands and thousands of Democrats across the country to help the DSCC fight back against the Swift Boating that has already begun against our Senate candidates.

Republicans know we're poised to put Barack Obama in the White House. They know we have a real shot to achieve a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority. That is why GOP interest groups have spent over $5 million going after Colorado Democrat Mark Udall. Seven shadowy independent groups are working to tear down Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire.

It won't work this time, folks. With mere weeks until the election, Democrats are strongly competitive in at least eleven battleground states and we must give our candidates the necessary resources to ensure their message of change is heard over the din of constant GOP attacks. Every dollar matters, and even as little as $5 from you can make a real difference.

At last week's Republican convention, you saw on national TV the nastiness, the anger and the smears that our Democratic Senate candidates have been dealing with for months.

And it will only get worse. One anti-Democratic group is planning on spending $50 million to peddle partisan nonsense before Election Day.

One of the group's spokesmen recently said, "Our basic objective is ... we want to keep enough people in the Senate that we can sustain a filibuster."

That's no surprise considering that these Republican senators have filibustered more bills than any Congress in history.

Now, Republicans are hoping two months of distortions will cover up their failures and keep them in power.

Only this time, the schoolyard bully act won't work. The DSCC has already harnessed the commitment and energy of tens of thousands of Democrats to counter the smears by spending $28 million in 17 states. In the weeks ahead, we will need millions more.

We are outworking them. Outmaneuvering them. And the American people overwhelmingly favor Democrats on issue after issue.

The only thing standing in the way of the change we need is a wave of constant partisan attacks funded by GOP special interest money. This election is too important to allow the same tired politics of the past to work once more.

Today, we stand on the brink of the greatest opportunity of our generation to move this country forward.

With Barack Obama in the White House and a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate majority, we can finally make progress on universal health care, fighting global warming, fixing our schools and all the other pressing issues that have been left to fester for eight years.

But that's not all.

This election is a chance for America to stand united and tell the merchants of fear and division: you don't decide who loves this country; you don't decide who is a patriot; you don't decide whose service counts and whose doesn't.

This is the chance to take America back.

Sincerely,

Sen. John Kerry

WILL WE FIGHT OR SHOULD WE THROW IN THE TOWEL

Caldarone — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:41:59 EDT

First of all the American people are NOT SMART... so you can kill that crap. Its a pompus way to think, Come on Obama you have travel all around this country but talking to people who already support you, don't just drink that water.. You need to get out there talk to those people who DO NOT support you, and look at the reasons.. its because of ignorance or because they do not understand you.. YOUR TALKING OVER THEIR HEADS..

YOU GOT TO DUMB DOWN YOUR MESSAGE SO EVERYONE GET ITS.. YOU ALSO NEED TO CALL THE BASTARDS OUT ON THE LIES .. THEY ARE LYING.. there is no way around this. This taking the HIGH ROAD , you can NOT do that with SLIME.

They are making this election into a MUDDY WATER CAMPAIGN FULL OF DISTRACTIONS , no issues. This is turning into a nightmare with everyday, KEEP SAYING JOHN MCCAIN voted with George Bush 90% of the time.. OK WE GOT THAT ALREADY. YOU GUYS HAVE SAID THAT .... .. Now you got to tell us about the LIES, FLIP FLOPPING ON HIS OWN WORDS OF RUNNING AN HONORABLE CAMPAIGN, NOW THEY ARE IN FULL FORCE KARL ROVIAN DIVIDE AND CONQUER .. they are going to divide the country to win this election..

GET UP AND FIGHT BACK.. THIS HIGH ROAD CRAP WORKED IN THE PRIMARIES BUT NOW YOUR IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, AND THE FAR RIGHT WING IS ENERGIZED, AND THE INDEPENDANTS ARE DUMB WILL GO WITH THE POLLS..

I am so discouraged, I am going to bed.. This is the farest right ticket to run for office , its worse that George Bush, and it looks like we are about to elect that back in again based on BS. I can not believe the O campaign is allowing this shit to happen.

Today is the beginning!

John — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 12:29:45 EDT

9:13 am PST, September 4, 2008. Near 16th and Mission. I am ready to begin.

I volunteered in the Obama campaign during the primary. I wanted her to win over Clinton. However, since Obama has clinched the primary, I have done nothing.

I was thinking about leaving the country when Bush beat Kerry. I didn't do it, but I was thinking about it. It's unbelivable when you think about it: Gore won in 2000, yet Bush got elected. Bush won in 2004, yet I still dispute the result. I remember watching the results come in on the internet and seeing Kerry ahead in the polls and projections. I have to admit I was really discouraged by this country at that moment in time. To even get to the point where it was close meant that I disagree with so many other voters. Now I am really proud of the Democrats. To elect Obama was great. BUT WE ARE NOT FINISHED YET AND NO ONE SHOULD BE SATISFIED!

Hillaryites are insulted by McCain's VP pick.

chuckwin08 — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 00:32:51 EDT

I am a man and a PhD fusion energy (clean energy) researcher who feels that it is urgent that Barack Obama is elected the next President of the United States of America. I was a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton largely because I felt the Clintons could best withstand the onslaught of the vicious extreme right wing of the republican party and the cancer in America that are the Talk Radio Bullies such as Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity.

Barack and Hillary and Biden have superb credentials for the presidency of the US. As a Hillaryite I am insulted by McCain's VP pick. Palin has no experience and has zero travel and international experience. She can only claim experience as a hockey mom! We Hillaryites must show McCain that we are not shallow as he thinks we are. We supported Hillary because of her experience, intelligence, and integrity and not just because she is a woman! McCain's poor judgement and reckless gambling are becoming more apparent every day. We cannot put the country in the hands of such an irresponsible political impression of George Bush.

It is obvious that McCain is a hypocrite, he and his dirty tricks brigade led by Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh have been saying for months that Obama is not experienced enough. Yet in a reckless gamble at 72 years of age he turns around (in panic) and selects someone who is light years less experienced than Obama and especially less experienced than her counterpart, Joe Biden! We cannot allow this duo of a foggy minded, grumpy old man, bowing to the extreme right wing, and a total zero credentialed extreme right wing (complete elimination of abortion and pro choice) VP pick assume control of the White House! John Kerry said in an interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN (Sunday August 31, 2008) that McCain has bowed to Limbaugh and the extreme right with his pick of Palin. We must elect Obama/Biden in November. We must fight on and never ever give up! We (Obama/Biden) shall be victorious in November!

Daily Gallup Tracking

Michael Wells — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:27:35 EDT

Nice to see the bump from the most recent Daily Tracking poll by Gallup.

Gallup Daily: Obama Moves Ahead, 48% to 42%

Couple of thoughts on Last two nights:

Hillary speech was an A
Mark Warner speech a B+
Bill Clinton A+
John Kerry (where the hell was this speech and tone in 2004?) B
Joe Biden A- (good content - good delivery, not enough)

The GOP campaign is negative and as much as I had to say this, it's time to play their game.

John Kerry

4u2love — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:43:29 EDT

The Boston Globe went to bat today for John Kerry as Obama's Secretary of State.

Where's Johnnnny....

Bill F — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 10:36:48 EDT

I was thinking...

Does anyone else find it strange that the man that gave Barack Obama a huge break -- the keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention -- endorsed him early along with Ted Kennedy giving him big name credentials before his nomination seemed to be a foregone conclusion, and has spent his own PAC's money to defend Barack against "swiftboat" type attacks does not have a speaking slot at the convention. Of course we're talking about Vietnam War vet Sen. John Kerry. I'm just saying! I can hear the convention speech now, "Four years ago I stood before you and proclaimed 'help is on the way'. Well, today I am hear to proudly say.. help has ARRIVED and HIS NAME IS BARACK OBAMA!"

I've read many detractors of the idea on various posts, but they all seem to be Republicans using lines like "I hope it's him; that will kill Obama." If Republicans don't like it, there must be a reason. I like it (thought I've liked almost all of the picks) for several reasons.

He's a superstar that the liberal base can get behind. Sure, he seemed lame while running, but like Gore, has acheived a new branding and new star status since losing to The Evil Empire. He has been true to his word and become a strong combatant to the Bush administration, making him popular in the party.
He forces the hand on Mitt Romney. Having a Mass guy on our ticket makes McCain think about what it would mean to have a Mass guy on his ticket. Of course Obama will win Mass, but what about New Hampshire? I'm not sure if this would encourage or discourage McCain from picking Romney and which way we would want him to go, but I do know it makes him react instead of act.
He may not win any swing states, but there's no evidence that any VP could do that -- see Edwards; hell, Gore didn't even win his own state! What he might do, though, is keep two states McCain is trying to turn red in the blue colomn -- Massachusettes neighbor New Hampshire and Pennsylvania (don't forget the Heinz connection).
He has tons of experience to offset Obama's inexperience, has already been THE key attack dog, and showed he get votes. He earned more votes in 2004 than any other Democrat has won ever.
He already has a nationally recognizable name. Besides Hillary, he is the most recognizable national name to voters -- even more so than McCain. He was a candidate in the general election for president for crying out loud.
The "Collective-conscience-for-Gore" theory. America gave the presidency to Bush. Since then, the world and this country has gone to hell in a handbasket. Americans, collectively in some sort of Transcendental conscience, feel they owe something to Gore -- especially since he really WON the election. Some psychologists believe if Gore ran, he would win based on this principal. They say America would feel like they could go back to that moment in 2000 as if none of this ever happend, and the country and world could move forward in the right direction. Why not the same for Kerry. Bush's second term has been much more harmful than his first. We could excuse some of his insanity because of the trama of 9/11. The second term, however, has just been one big scandal. I think America may feel the way to heal is to give Kerry a chance since they didn't the first time. And with the swiftboat garbage proven to be just that, they may be willing to listen this time around.

All in all, I think this would be one of the top picks. Right now, though I predicted heavily Clinton, my list of who ought to be veep goes as follows...

1) Wes Clark -- vetran status, military experience, and change to Washington

2) John Kerry -- see above

3) Joe Biden -- many of the above for Kerry, but without the intangibles of just having been in the race four years ago

4) Hillary Clinton -- read other blogs for this one

5) Bill Richardson -- tons of experience, good speaker, good debater, western swing states

All the rest really don't even come close to this top five. I know we want change, but we don't need more inexperience, and we don't need a boring, expected announcement (AKA Bayh).

Just a thought.

Will You Let ANOTHER Election Be Stolen - THIS ELECTION?

Dane from Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:19:23 EDT

Greetings!

Everyone reading this should understand that the Republicans are the robots of the warlords and billionaires of this universe and do not play fair and are right now toiling into the wee hours trying to figure how to steal THIS ELECTION FROM US! Like the LAST ONE AND THE ONE BEFORE THAT – just for example. These are facts and can be verified by simple research. As they see it, there is far too much to lose to RISK giving up the power that goes hand in hand with absolute power of WAGING AND CONTROLLING WAR – PRIVATE CONTRACTORS – OIL – RAPING THE ENVIRONMENT – OCEANS – AIR – FRESH WATER AND FORESTS.

The main of these were the primary reasons why our own government along with rich and powerful oil men from Texas (exactly where the Bush dynasty is from) and central criminal elements at the time conspired and successfully assassinated the LEADER of OUR OWN GOVERNMENT – one of the most beloved and inspiring leaders this country, in fact the entire world, has ever known. He died because he wouldn’t play ball. He was in process of ending the war which hadn’t really gotten out of control yet AND signing an OIL DEPLETION ALLOWANCE – which was waiting for his return to Washington to be signed into law. The allowance would have “robbed” the oil companies of millions in additional profits and that combined with the abrupt end to all the wartime profiteering is something that the REAL powers that be could just not live with.

To those with a functioning mind it is ludicrous to believe that anyone would go to such risk if they did not KNOW that the replacement would play ball. This is why the FACT learned from a documentary where many of the attendees and associates to the actual meeting THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ASSASINATION included among numerous right wing luminaries, several oil billionaires, Nixon and the replacement himself – LBJ – who was the poster boy for Texas Oil and their political machine (and someone BTW who NEVER LEGALLY WON ANY ELECTION AT ANY LEVEL – AND BECAME THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD on the heel of THE SALACIOUS MURDER OF THE RIGHTFUL KING. – This fact makes us all Hamlets in a sense because our rightful, brilliant, compassionate and caring leader and father figure was murdered so a lame, heartless, soulless flunky conspirator could take his place and insure billions in profits for his mostly Texan cronies)

Any similarities come to mind???

The New Yorker Cover

guidebookauthor — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:34:40 EDT

Okay, I've only seen the cover, not the story.

I feel this is an opportunity for Obama to talk about the very things that are being satirized on the cover. I have received e-mails in the past that were forwarded by someone who has a relative in the military. There must be a lot of right-wingers in the military (mostly retired military) because these e-mails said things like Obama is a Muslim, that he trained at an Madrasse school, that he did not take the oath of allegiance on the Bible, etc., etc.

I pointed this out to the Obama campaign when I could finally e-mail and they directed me to a page on the Obama site where he refutes these charges.

Listen, people, the 13% of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim are not going to check his website! I know the prevailing wisdom of the advisors has been to ignore this stuff. I think that is dead wrong!

There should be TV ads about destructive e-mails and how they affect a family and only bring in tangentially the Obama gossip and how wrong it is.

John Kerry lost the election because he listened to his advisors to ignore the swift-boat ads or just demand that they be retracted. That didn't work.

What works is to get out there and define who you are rather than let other people define it.

The cover was a satire. Steven Colbert does this stuff all the time and no one complains.

Obama should commend the cover and hold it up and say, "This is what some people would have you think my family is like. This is what the smear campaign is saying.

I thought the Obama campaign was so smart! Doesn't look like they are now. When someone throws a ball at you you have to know how to run with it.

Yes, it would have been better if there had been a caption underneath the cover that said: "How the Right Wing sees the Obama Presidency".

But since they didn't do it, the Obama campaign should: They should take that picture and say this is the way the Right Wing is smearing us. And then answer every charge in the picture. If they call him Barack Husseim Obama he has to explain how common a name that is.

JFK had genius writers like Ted Sorenson who could knew how to use PR to assuage a situation like this. I hope Obama gets a top writer who knows how to make lemonade out of lemons. Asking to retract a cover just sounds childish--besides you get into the freedom of the press issue.

The campaign has been dodging this issue all along, under the assumption that the American people are more interested in economic issues and the war. Sure they are, but they also want to feel secure about the man who becomes president. Stacking ten American flags behind him every time he speaks isn't going to do it while this vicious e-mail campaign still goes on. He must face the issue head one and the New Yorker cover gives him a prime way to do it!

Its Time For America To Graduate

Scott Foval — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:56:26 EDT

For a while now numerous American leaders have called for a change from business-as-usual politics. Barack Obama arguably has the most star power of this new generation. In reality, though, he is boiling down the complex web of issues that America needs to address into a core message for a mass audience to digest. “Change” is the mantra, because in these days of “sheeople” that can't pay attention long enough to see the train that's about to hit them, one word is just about all that can get through the noise coming from their iPod.

His advisers understand this intimately. His top “commander” is David Ploeff, a member of my own generation of political operatives who grew up with TV, worked for the old school candidates, and cut our teeth on Baby Boomers' perceptions of the world – often having more than a few misgivings about how the old ideas were working out. Barack Obama himself straddles the two generations, but is arguably more “Next Generation” than “Boomer.” To put it in TV terms, our parents liked Captain Kirk, but our generation knew that Jean Luc Picard was better.

So now the next generation political campaign is setting records in nearly every area of American politics. Ploeff, with a ripened, old-school mentor in strategist and media guru David Axelrod, is hatching a plan to be competitive in 50 states, many that haven't voted for a Democrat in two to three generations. They are raising money that out-paced even the money machines of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush using a hybrid of small donors and big money supporters woven into a symbiotic patchwork, rather than big lobbyists just running the table. Finally, and this may be the most important part, they've managed to boil the campaign down to “change” and make it stick.

Yes, they are stealing a page from Bill Clinton's own playbook. Anyone who's seen “The War Room” remembers the two mantras that James “Semper Fi” Carville (a.k.a. “Copperhead”), Paul “Motormouth” Begala (a.k.a. “The Texan”), and George “The Whiz Kid” Stephanopolous (a.k.a. “The Greek”) drilled into staffers' heads. “Change vs. More of the Same” and “It's the Economy Stupid” are as famous now for how closely they followed the good old P.R. rule of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid), as Bubba is for actually taking it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When you remember this factoid it might explain why the former POTUS was more than a little hurt and uncharacteristically hypersensitive when Obama kicked him and his wife in the tail on the campaign trail.

The fact remains, when Barack Obama was a young “Barry;” he was exposed to the lessons that were taught during the Reagan and Clinton eras. What he and his own “War Room” understand now is that those political lessons need to be improved upon and revised for the next generation. They understood at the campaign's outset that K.I.S.S. was going to have to be boiled down even further for today's “Ritalin Kids” to absorb. The result of their work is that he has a bigger army of diverse, excited, and energized young activists joining his campaign organization (i.e. the “movement”) than anything modern American politics has ever seen.

If you take the 100,000-foot view of the two major Presidential campaigns, there is a stark contrast between the messages preached out on the stump. It is so simple, really; but not everyone is seeing it -- either because they are blinded by the hubris that got them where they are today in the first place, or they are just part of a different generation. John McCain is a product of an older generation, the Clintons are Boomers (and so are Al Gore and John Kerry, mind you – part of the reason they never captured the next generation's imagination), while Barack Obama is recognized "one of us” in the minds of these young activists. He “gets it” and “means it.”

The older folks don't believe it though, because they think they've seen this dog-and-pony-show before.

They're right. His name was John F. Kennedy, and if you've been paying attention you'll quickly remember that Kennedy's brother Ted and daughter Caroline are major players in Barack Obama's kitchen cabinet of advisors. So is Gore, and hopefully so will be the Clintons if the former POTUS can put his ego in his pocket.

The JFK comparisons have been all over the place, but most commentators haven't quite been able to nail the “why.” What is it about Barack Obama's candidacy that reflects John F. Kennedy's? The reason is simple. It's the “movement,” not the particular candidate, something the older generation was unable to achieve in the post-JFK-assassination political landscape. The people who were there for the inside discussions in some of those aforementioned campaigns know and privately might even admit -- it has been tried numerous times.

So Obama is going for it, not for himself, but for “the movement” and this time the Secret Service is hopefully going to keep him alive to actually make it happen. Hopefully the Clintons will go the way of Gore and Kerry and work with the Obama juggernaut to bring the Boomers into the fold. Obama's folks will hopefully keep just enough independence there to insure that the next generation campaign continues adding independent voters, Reagan Democrats, and maybe even a few Republicans willing to cross over and vote for “change.” If that happens (and the polls are looking like McCain doesn't have a snowball's chance in his supporters' favorite tax-dodging land of Barbados), the Obamakins will have proven they have learned all the lessons necessary to go out and lead. They will have earned the right to “graduate” to The White House.

The question is, are the American people ready to graduate from the new school of political and diplomatic leadership? I think so; otherwise people wouldn't be so passionate about crossing over in the first place. They are tired of the divisive ways of George Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove, and Jesse Helms is now gone (R.I.P. to the 'ol hate-monger). They're tired of being looked at as “those people,” with a pariah as a leader, by other countries. In this economically connected global community, it is time that we start acting as the 232 years our country has aged. In short, it is time for the United States to graduate into genuine long-term leadership.

We're no longer the new kid on the block that needs to prove its greatness to the rest of the world. We don't need to lead by shoving “our way” down the throats of those who don't understand that Democracy is better. We need to adapt a higher level of leadership than even our own country has been called to deliver before. It's called “demonstrative leadership,” and it is how truly great societies go from historic to legendary. Rather than having to invade to get what we want, as George W. Bush has attempted and failed to do, we are going to have to raise the bar of democracy and show that it works for the long term. This is arguably the single greatest challenge for any society in human history, and even the great ones don't always make it.

Of all the times in our country's still young life, though, it is time that “America” stands for a unified and flexible definition of a democracy that works well, innovates, and really leads the world rather than representing an ideological slice of the past. People like Obama are pushing us in this new direction, not because they don't like America as it is, but because they understand that our country must evolve to survive. Like everything in our young country's fast ascension, our adolescence was painful and difficult, and sometimes reckless. It is time for us to prove that we are ready to leave behind the imperialism, the nukes, the Cold War, and the Culture Wars. We have learned enough now to know that pushing our way upon others isn't authentic leadership.

As an adult nation, ready to “graduate” from those ideas and actions, we must show the world that we know how to behave, be responsible, and truly lead as the great country we profess to be. After all, there are a lot of other adolescent countries out there who are learning from the lessons we must teach.

John McCain and Swift Boat Vets

D. Jones — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 02:24:44 EDT

Why has Senator John McCain aligned himself with the likes of the Swift Boat group? John McCain's supporters include members of the notorious right wing hate group, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Not only is this group responsible for causing damage to the political reputation of Senator John Kerry during the 2004 Presidential election, they are also responsible for damage to McCain's own bid for the white house during the 2000 and 2008 primaries.

Change for Ohio

Gaelic Gal — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 17:17:04 EDT

I am a transplant from the great city of Madison, WI, now living (due to husband job at P&G) in one of the most conservative areas I've seen. In 2004, I was the only one in my neighborhood with a "Kerry / Edwards" sign in my yard. Unfortunately, and I'm sure there are more of you out there, my husband Rodney voted for "King George" both times. So, we had to compromise and he had his "Bush" sign out in the yard too, to the delight and laughter of the neighbors. God, do we need change! Are there any other Ohioans out there like me?

Keep the Momentum Going

Leonard Horthy — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:58:15 EDT

Most of the polls I am hearing about in the last few days have Obama ahead of McCain anywhere from 3 to 20 percentage points. This sounds good, but no one should relax. Remember this time four years ago. It seemed that Kerry was a shoe in. The war was going badly, the economy was in the dumps, and Fahrenheit 911 was showing what a terrible president G W Bush was. It seemed inevitable that Kerry would win the election (at least to me).

But then the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth happened. I don't know what is in the heads of the Americans who believed this stuff, but it worked. Kerry who was a soldier and a patriot was shown to be less that honorable, but Bush who was a waster and did everything he could to avoid active service over the same period had his record ignored.

Don't think it can happen again? I am sure that there are groups putting together equally destructive ads about Obama showing him in muslim garb, talking about the 'Muslim' schools he attended and it will make it seem like he is Osama bin Laden's chosen candidate.

There are two things that are different this time though. The first is the money. This campaign's ability to raise money is unprecedented and that is really important. If you have not donated recently make sure you donate soon as the campaign will need a lot of cash to counter the ads that will be coming out in the next couple of months. Kerry did not have any money to spend when the swift-boat ads came out and it really hurt him.

The second thing is this campaign's ability to respond immediately and decisively to false rumors and attacks. I remember thinking when both Al Gore and John Kerry were attacked in this way how feeble their responses were. This is not so with Obama as soon as he is attacked he comes back with a clear and unequivocal response. Make sure you keep up with these arguments because we all need to counter these attacks. When someone tells you they can't vote for Obama because of false rumor X, Y or Z you will be able to set the record straight with the same arguments that Obama has used.

So stay involved and stay current; there is still a lot of work to be done. This will be a fight to the finish because the Republicans have no intention of letting this one go. Many people have gotten very rich in the past eight years and they will want to continue Republican rule so they can carry on fleecing the rest of America.

A Two Dollar bottle of wine A French Chateau and John Kerry Crucified. It's a sign!

Nick Danger — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:49:36 EDT

I lifted my head from the pillow at at 5:45am this morning, rolling over and turning on the television to political commentary from an author I wasn't familiar with. He told the tale of the Swiftboat campaign against John Kerry, which played out in the media for 30 days before Kerry responded. By that time the damage had been done. The author went on to say that Karl Rove was involved with the Swiftboat campaign and that he knew as an insider that John Kerry suffers from Post Traumatic Stress disorder, which Kerry isn't comfortable sharing with the general populace. As with many of you I'd suspected Rove's involvment in the Swiftboat ads but I'd never heard of Kerry suffering from Post Traumatic Stress disorder. The Swiftboat campaign, though based on falsehoods and out and out lies cost John Kerry the election. I cried the day after it was all over... Let this be a reminder to all of us on the left side of the aisle that we must not lay down, even in green pastures cause someone may decide to cut the grass.

We Smear for Obama

DrCat2013 — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:07:14 EDT

Ever gone to gop.com? Chances are that you haven't, and you're missing out. Really. If you delve deep enough into the Bible, surely there is something about "Know thine enemy" lingering somewhere, and if you go to the website you will immediately see that the G.O.P knows this all too well. In fact, the entirety of the site isn't even directed at the issues themselves, it's all about smearing Barack Obama. Apparently that is all they can do to try to make themselves look better at this point. As the Republican party is being abandoned by the Old Money that embody the nickname "Grand Old Party", as well as the neo-Evangelicals and other conservative Christians that have come to realize that war wasn't on Jesus' mind, and now by poor people who realize that they need things like health care and jobs, the best they can do is try to run Obama through the mud and hope that anyone still cares.

John Kerry's Future

4u2love — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:23:33 EDT

Last week, the LA Time's blog, Top of the Ticket, reported that John Kerry's congressional seat was being challenged in this year's election. Now, Newsweek says that Kerry really wants to serve in Obama's Cabinet as Secretary of State.

McCain: Bringing Troops Home From Iraq "Not Too Important"

jgabriel — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:22:07 EDT

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/mccain-iraq-comments-brin_n_106468.html

Includes Democratic response and McCain team rebuttal.

John Kerry: A Senator For Massachusetts

John From Cape Cod. Ma — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:01:50 EDT

John Kerry: A Senator For Massachusetts

John Kerry, with long roots in Massachusetts, has worked hard to improve the lives of Massachusetts residents. From his work trying to improve the economy as Chair of the Small Business Committee to working with the Senate to bring projects and jobs to Massachusetts, John Kerry takes his responsibilities as the Senator from Massachusetts very seriously.

And the trust the Massachusetts voters have shown John Kerry by re-electing him to the Senate 3 times has placed him in a senior position in the Senate, giving him even more opportunities to do what he can to improve the state that has been home to his family for generations.

Here are just a few of the most recent things Senator Kerry has done for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

May 23Senate passes Kerry-Obama legislation to close KBR tax loophole, provide tax relief for troops
May 22Kerry’s Disaster Reform Law Will Benefit Massachusetts Businesses, Homeowners
May 19Kerry announces Waquoit Bay to receive $555,000 for research, education
May 16Kerry: Farm bill will provide immediate help to Massachusetts farmers, consumers
May 09Kerry: President signs into law three conservation bills for Massachusetts parks
May 02Massachusetts Small Businesses Hurt by Drought to Get Help from Kerry Law
April 29Kerry endorsed by Human Rights Campaign for his leadership on GLBT rights
April 28Kerry earns 100% rating from anti-poverty advocates
April 23Democrats Highlight Big Wins for Small Businesses During National Small Business Week
April 22Kerry Congratulates Wilmington Small Business Owner Award Winner
JOIN JOHNKERRYFORSENATE.COMSubscribe for email updates:

CONTRIBUTE

Powerful interests sustain our adversaries. We depend on your support.

VOLUNTEER

Imagine what we can accomplish together.

Email volunteer@johnkerry.com , and tell Terri you want to volunteer!

JohnKerryForSenate.com
129 Portland Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02114-2014
(617) 227-1460
Email support@johnkerry.com

Paid for by John Kerry for SenatePrivacy Policy

obama/clinton dream ticket fraud

jonathan | cvg — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:42:19 EDT

With Obama officially clinching the nomination, we must unify behind him. Now's the time to remember that the differences between policies Clinton and Obama proposed are not nearly as significant than the policy differences between Obama and John McCain. This is now a Democrat versus Republican policy battle and we already know where the policies of the republican party have led under Bush. As Obama pointed out in his speech Tuesday night, we must remember that McCain is perceived as a maverick or moderate within his party. He continues to point to the one or two differences he has had with Bush in the last eight years. Yet, to become his party's nominee in 2008 where he failed many times before, John McCain bought into the Republican party with his heart and soul as he saw his chances faiding and has, in fact, voted over 90% of the time in agreement with George W. Bush. A vote against Obama is a vote for Bush's Third Term. While some dissappointed Clinton supporters will act and speak out of emotion, already many admit that they intend to vote the the selected Democrat.

There has been much speculation of a "dream ticket." Clinton, as I note in an earlier blog, breathed life into this idea because the time came when even she recognized she could not win in a general election without Obama. However, as I note in an earlier blog, this is not true when Obama is the nominee. There are many well suited candidates for a running mate that will benefit Obama greater with respects to the electoral map and reaching out to working class and potentially to woman as well.

The truth remains that Obama has won for many reasons and this end result astounds me, someone who strongly backed my candidate since researching him in December. He overtook the lead from the "establishment's candidate." Clinton is someone that as first lady was rumored to run for senate in a big state to help support her future bid as president. The Kerry campaign was so poorly executed that many were left believing that the Democrats were throwing the election for a Clinton run and a Clinton win in 2008. The Clinton branding was strong and it's longevity made is seemingly impossible to overcome... 20 years of market share domination and now a new little enterprise would fend for not some, but the majority of that share. Today, it hard to believe anyone could pick off Coke or P&G. But, that is exactly what Obama accomplished. Not only did he run one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns in my time, he succeed where no person of color has succeeded in a leading nation. While some leading nations have appointed women, what I recently realized is that Obama broke a barrier that extends long past the United States.

There are petitions and emotional claims to defend the "dream ticket" and most of which stems from Clinton circles. Let's not forget that Obama won as the "change candidate" and he has brilliantly represented "new politics." Many of Obama's supporters, and rightly so, believe that the addition of anyone who epitomizes "old politics" would jeapardize our mission and cloud the message, leaving a obvious weak point of attack for McCain like the small thermal exhaust port that left the Deathstar in Star Wars open to destruction. I can almost see McCain now, "Clinton on this ticket... that's not change we can believe in." * insert insidious smirk*

Among the emotional pleas I have read are these, and given that I label them as emotional, I assert that they lack logic:

"The only way that Obama is going to reach out to the working class, Hispanics, and win the swing states is with Clinton on the ticket (he ignored Kentucky and West Virginia, so those states he has already lost without her)."

FALSE

First of all, Puerto Rico is not a state and that is precisely the contest that made Clinton's popular vote neck and neck with Obama. Puerto Ricans don't vote in the presidential election. They voted against being a state a decade ago, as they have voted twice before that when given the chance to enter into the union. I am boggled why they are awarded more delegates in the primary than many real states that do vote in the general election. Richardson and Clinton can reach out to Hispanic voters even without being on the ticket.

There are four governors in key states that each would help reach out to such voters and bring along a needed swing state. Among these four easy picks are Governor Richardson who has served under Bill Clinton, yet he may be my least favorite of the four easy picks. Ted Strickland could help with rural working class as he helped Clinton in Ohio because he is from rural Ohio and has served in the church and military. Strickland may sit at the top of my list.

Clinton does not come with a key state. Arkansas can be won by the Clinton's campaigning on behalf of Obama without her being on the ticket... as can other communities. Clinton does not need to be on a ticket to endorse and campaign heavily for a candidate to unify her party... a party, some assert, she invoked much division.What Clinton does need to do is embrace Obama for America and throw as much heart and resilience into this campaign as she did when she remained in the running for reasons I point out in my earlier blog.

Pennsylvania voted for Kerry due to the strong campaigning by governor Ed Rendell who is the same governor that campaigned for Clinton. It is widely believed that with similar campaigning by Ed Rendell in his state, any democrat can pick up the winning numbers that Kerry picked up against Bush.

New York and California are key states democrats win by wide margins as did Kerry. Although it is true Clinton won in the primary it is illogical deduction to believe that any democrat, unless that democrat was running against Ronald Reagan, could fail at winning both states handedly.

A presidential race is not won with West Virginia or Kentucky. But, if Obama is able to turn the Carolinas which Kerry failed to do even with Edwards on his ticket, that would make a difference. Obama won more votes in North and South Carolina against Clinton than the number of votes cast for McCain and Huckabee combined. The states Obama wants to tun in addition to the Carolinas are the Western States of Colorada, etc. Obama polls better in the west than rural areas like West Virgina and Kentucky where inevitably some degree of fear applies. But as I mention above, Ted Strickland comes with a key swing state and could easily reach out to the working class and Christian voters... perhaps more effectively than Clinton.

Governor Bill Ritter, a popular, young democratic in a historically conservative state, would be a better choice to aid in the West and Governor Kathleen Sebelius would successfully reach out to the identical segments that were fascinated by Clinton without compromising the message of new politics: again working class and women. Most female voters in exit polls admitted that gender was a significant impact on their decision. No other voting segment admitted to gender or race affecting the vote. Add almost any woman to a republican or democratic ticket and you will likely lure a great percentage of those voters who responded this way in exit polls.

"It would be a guaranteed 18 million votes for the Democratic party, and there is no way John McCain would have a chance."

FALSE

With this logic, or lack thereof, Obama could win with almost any running mate. While it is true that Clinton won over 17 million votes, so did Obama. In many states, Obama won more votes than Huckabee and McCain combined. To suggest that all democrats that voted for Clinton will literally stay home or vote for McCain, is not plausible. Throughout history the results in the primary does not necessarily translate into similar results in the general. That is why at this point there is no guarantee that Obama can turn the Carolinas away from Republican grasps. But, based on the primary numbers, it is the best chance the Democrats have had in decades and decades. Already, Obama's grass-roots activity is kicking up to register new democrats. This is how he closed the gap in states that Clinton was leading by 20points or more and this is how Obama won the majority of contests and clinched the democratic nomination for president. A historical achievement not only for the United States, but something that many leading nations have never done before... appoint a person of color to lead their nation.

Am I against Clinton? Not entirely, but partially. She does represent everthing I dislike about Washington Politics as usual and I don't think her record of success outweighs her record of failure to follow through with promises made to the nation and later to New York. While putting her into a position of Vice President may realistically strip her of all power, I don't want her a heart beat away from seizing the most powerful position in the world.

Now it is your turn. I selected four easily identifiable candidates for a VP nomination: Strickland of Ohio, Ritter of Colorado, Sebelius of Kansas, and Richardson of New Mexico. As Governors, each brings executive leadership and management that no senator can honestly claim with the exeption of Obama who, as I note in an earlier blog, was the only senator among Clinton and McCain to exemplify extraordinary executive leadership by leading his multi-million dollar enterprise, Obama for America, to success. However, who do you think Obama should select? If it is Clinton, then please have better support than the emotional defenses I discount above.

If Polls Could Determine Who Will Win, Kerry Would Be President

Cindy in Salt Lake — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:49:59 EDT

This was taken from Ben Smith's blog at Politico. This poll of the electoral map is from May 28, 2004. Clinton is making the claim that, based on polls and analyses, she is the stronger candidate against McCain in the general election. Well, so was Kerry four years ago and we all know how that went.

Barack-ing Away

K. Robert Oristano — Fri, 16 May 2008 22:33:50 EDT

This is just a first post to get my BarackBlog up and running. Not much to say today that Rachel Maddow hasn't already said.

As my blog description says I worked for Kerry in Oregon, in the communications department, and am frankly still licking the scars from that battle, but we delivered Oregon handsomely, and despite the crushing blow of that election day (how sure were you that he was going to win at about noon that day?) Most of my memories of that time are strongly positive.

Just to kick off the conversation, here are some things I think are different and in our favor this time around:

1) The media landscape has changed. No one accused MSNBC of liberalism in '04, I can tell you. And whether you think that's true now or not, as you look at the state of media then and now you have to feel good about the volume with which BO's message will get through.

2) GWB had not dipped under 45 approval since 9-11 when he was re-elected (can barely type that word.) Now he'd sell his mother for 35. I almost wish he was up for a third term. They'll say you can't run against the outgoing incumbent succesfully, to which we will reply, "That's right you can't. That's why Bush lost in 2000."

3) Our candidate has been against the Iraq war since the beginning, and for all the right reasons. He's not a McGovernik pacifist, he knows a wrong war when he sees one.

4) The other guy is the flip-flopper. Seriously, where are the guys in big flip-flop costumes stalking McCain? I would gladly don a comically large shoe and brave the ire of the McCainiacs to push that meme in to the mainstream.

So that's more than enough for now. Any other carryoregoners out there hit me back with a comment or friend request. I miss you guys and gals. Even the ones who were for Clinton.

Why does this blog editor not have a passive spellcheck?

From Gallup - "Obama's Support Similar to Kerry's in 2004"

Cindy in Salt Lake — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:14:41 EDT

Obama’s Support Similar to Kerry’s in 2004
Similar levels of support exist across white, black, blue-collar voters
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Barack Obama's current level of support among white voters in a head-to-head matchup against John McCain is no worse than John Kerry's margin of support among whites against George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

Much of the talk following Tuesday's Indiana and North Carolina primaries has focused on just how electable Obama -- now the highly probable nominee -- will be in the general election. The Clinton campaign has argued that Obama's weaknesses among white voters and blue-collar voters will hurt him against McCain in the fall.
But it appears that the way Obama stacks up against McCain at this point is similar to the way in which Kerry performed against Bush in 2004 within several key racial, educational, religious, and gender subgroups. That is, the basic underlying structure of the general-election campaign this year does not appear to be markedly different from that of the 2004 election. This conclusion is based on an analysis of exit-poll data from 2004 compared to the Obama-McCain matchup in 4,000 Gallup Poll Daily tracking interviews conducted during the first five days of May.

(Go here to read the full article)

Electabull

Larry — Sat, 03 May 2008 01:46:44 EDT

It was inevitable. The Republican party has their nominee and the Democrats are still in a fight to find out who it will be.

Naturally as an Obama supporter I believe that having won the most pledged delegates should automatically make Sen. Obama the presumptive nominee but, as a Democrat, I also believe in rules so we march on to the convention.

So in the middle of this fight between Sens. Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination, the main stream media has begun their favorite game of prediciting whom would be more electable. I love this time of year because it forces the pundits to finally pick a horse! Perhaps the DNC should have a third set of delegates called pundits? Just kidding!

So the premise here is that either Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton is more electable, nay, can beat Sen. McCain in the fall. So apparently the point of the campaign has been all wrong for the more than 15 months we have been going! Instead of trying to improve people's lives, ending the war in Iraq, lowering taxes for the middle class - we should have campaigned on beating John McCain! Now we would have looked really silly had Ron Paul been the nominee.

Of course the notion of electability has one major flaw - YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GET ELECTED to be electable! If you think about it, George W Bush had zero electability in 2000 and became President, John Kerry had oodles of electability in 2004 and lost! So lets focus on the issues and the people and maybe, just maybe 100 years from now - the MSM will stop talking about it :)

Kerry Kicks MSNBC Arse

Jasmine D — Thu, 01 May 2008 13:29:46 EDT

F*ck yeah:

Television needs to stop dwelling on something that is in the past. I thought Barack Obama yesterday gave America his second big presidential moment of this campaign. The first when he spoke out about the issue of race. The second yesterday, when he made it clear, every one of the statements of the minister are just unacceptable. They're not the person that he knew before. Now let's move on to how we'll put people to work.

Kerry Rips MSNBC on Wright: "You People Need To Let Go Of This" [HP]

Senator Clinton's Nomination is C-H-I-M-E-R-I-C-A-L

Thatcher — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:42:34 EDT

(cross-posted on The Dead Guy)

chimerical

Main Entry: chi•me•ri•cal
Pronunciation: k?-?mer-i-k?l, k?-, -?mir-
Variant(s): also chi•me•ric -ik
Function: adjective
Etymology: chimera
Date: 1638
1 : existing only as the product of unchecked imagination : fantastically visionary or improbable
2 : given to fantastic schemes

Thanks to a friend, I was able to attend tonight's musical at the Des Moines Civic Center - "The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee" (Spelling Bee). It was a fun night, but as I drove home, a bell went off in my head (and no, Spellers, it wasn't Vice-Principal Panch), I recognized that Senator Clinton and her campaign for the Democratic Presidential Nomination can be encapsulated using many of the lyrics from the musical.

How can we keep this from happening again?!! Was the 2004 Election Stolen? - Rolling Stone

Mary from Vermont — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:49:27 EDT

I don't know about you but I'm pretty much of the mind that the Republicans will stop at nothing to stay in the Whitehouse and oppress us with their very Right wing agenda (to put it mildly). Scary! I live in Vermont and feel that we are considerably lucky to live in a fairly progressive and inclusive landscape. I have a two year old and can't get out much but I have been writing post cards for undecided women in PA to let them know why I support Barack. I'm trying hard to do my 'little' part for Barack because I believe in him and us so much!

I told my husband that come fall, I would like us to spring into action by either going to a state which needs us (Vermont clearly does not) ie. FL, OH, so on, or at the very least phone bank until the cows come home (No pun intended).

Here is an article written by Robert Kennedy, Jr. about the prospect that the 2004 election was stolen. It's articulate and detailed and drew me right in. I, of course, believe it as do I believe that the 2000 election was stolen too. Please read and start thinking about how we all might stop anything like this from happening again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

First, Do No Harm

Naomi — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:11:38 EDT

There are a number of things I feel confident I can do for this campaign. Right off the top of my head, and in no particular order, I can think of:

Voting for Obama (OK,so, being from Michigan I could not actually do this, but I voted uncommitted and hold a lot of hope that I will get to cast and actual, real live vote for him in November)
Proclaiming publicly that I am voting for Obama
Giving money to the campaign
Asking others to give to the campaign (although that isn't going too well, either. Anyone out there in the blogosphere want to go to my page and help me out?)
Asking other if they plan to vote for Obama
Reminding Obama voters to vote

What all of these have in common is that I am unlikely to hurt Obama's chances of being elected by doing them. I may or may not help, but I won't make things worse. But here's the thing -- I'm terrified of trying to convince people to vote for Obama, because I'm terrified I'm going to screw it up. Something that happened today brought that fear home.

A critique from within...

Larry — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:47:43 EDT

I grew up in a political family in New York. I helped my mother run for local office several times. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. What I was most proud of in these campaigns was that my mother refused to be something that she was not. She believed, perhaps naively, that one person could make a difference, and instilled that belief in me. She also believed that politics was only a place where people of good morale character came together to wrestle with the problems of the day - and this is what made her either the best or the worst politician I have ever seen! By the end of her first term, even her own party was conspiring against her as they saw her as a threat to the status quo.

What was ironic - on the refrigerator in our kitchen since the first campaign had been the following quote - "Don't wrestle with pigs, the pigs love it and you just get dirty!". If only she had headed the simple piece of advice.

I was thinking of that quote today as I read through more of the 'expert' analysis of the 2008 campaign. For the past couple of weeks Senator Obama and his campaign have allowed Senator Clinton and her campaign to frame the debate. Sometimes this is unavoidable in the course of events but I believe that enough is enough!

Most recently former President Clinton made some comments that implied that only his wife and Senator McCain are Patriotic enough to be President. Now, I won't get into the ridiculousness of the comment because I believe that has been discussed ad nauseam. What I want to address is what I believe to be a grave mistake on behalf of the Obama campaign by responding to it at all. Remember - don't wrestle with pigs!

Responding to it gives it merit! There are some who might think that because the Obama campaign is responding to this ludicrous remark that perhaps they are concerned about it because it might be true!
By responding you are allowing the press to keep reporting on it. Now it goes from a comment at the VFW to a national story for a week!
You get dirty and the pigs love it! You don't think for a minute the Clinton campaign isn't getting exactly what they wanted out of this? They get extra play out of this patriotic crap aimed at white voters.

I would like to recommend and alternate strategy when dealing with anything from the Clinton campaign in the future - ignore it! They are irrelevant to the process now. After-all - they have in fact lost. They exist in the race because of three potential reasons:

Hillary really believes that she can still win the nomination
Hillary is setting her self up for 2012
Hillary believes that the best way to save the country is to make it even worse by guaranteeing an extension of the Bush presidency.

I'll get back to the third reason in a minute because I think it is actually an interesting subject.

First, let's talk about what Hillary might actually believe her chances to be. Forget for a moment the numbers and let's say that Senator Clinton and Obama are just about equal in delegates and votes closing in on Denver. Hillary would need to convince super delegates that she is the most electable in a general election. But this argument has gotten the Democratic party in trouble for a very long time. The question must be who should represent the Democratic Party to the country and the world? That is not a simple question because it is not just about who can beat McCain - it's who shares Democratic party values and ideals. One could argue that Senator Clinton is a formidable opponent to Senator McCain in the fall in the same way that folks argued that Senator Kerry was a formidable opponent to President Bush. We know how those contents came out.

Second - It has been suggested that Hillary is bloodying up Barack so ensure a loss in the fall to McCain. While this strategy is not beyond the scope of possibility I prefer to give Senator Clinton the benefit of the doubt. Not only would this be beyond the pale and a political death sentence but if Senator Obama losses the White House to some extent based upon Senator Clinton's primary strategy - she will share some of that blame. She will not be able to quicly charge back in on a white horse after running a vicious campaign where she attached Senator Obama, the presumptive frontrunner, and say "I told you so" and "Follow me now to victory"!

Now I want to address the third reason - I know it seems "out there" so please indulge me a moment. If Senator Clinton is willing to throw the kitchen sink at Senator Obama, a member of her own party, with whom she basically agrees on major policy then you have to ask; Does Senator Clinton actually agree with the policy she is putting forward? Does Senator Clinton actually stand for the platform of the Democratic party? Here's why I am asking these questions...

For nearly a month now Senator Clinton and her campaign have been suggesting that Senator Obama has not passed the Commander In Chief test, that he's not ready to answer that 3am phone call, that he does not have the experience to be President, that he is not patriotic enough...At the same time Senator Clinton and her campaign have talked about her 35 years of experience, her time in the senate, her time in the white house. On the stump, Senator Clinton loves to say that "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and might take a Clinton to clean up after the second Bush".

So this leads me to ask, Senator Clinton, if you had a lifetime of experience, before your husband became President, as First Lady, as Senator. Hillary, if you feel that you possess superior leadership and judgement - why did you not run for President in 2004 when the country might have needed someone of your skills most? Certainly that was a time when your lifetime of experience and fight-to-the-death campaigning style would have made it's most impact? We might all have been saved a second Bush term!

Was it because Bill was too busy playing golf with Bush 41? Was it because your unfavorables were as high then as they are now? Was it because you thought your 2002 Iraq war authorization vote was too fresh in the minds of people?

Or was it because your moments are choreographed and poll driven and not based upon when the time calls for them. Your husband had the right timing in 1992. He was a little known governor but he pressed on and I know a great many of us were better off for it.

Senator Obama also understands timing. "I am running because of what Dr. King called “the fierce urgency of now.” I am running because I do believe there’s such a thing as being too late."

Senator Clinton is four years too late. And now she is 30 days too late in suspending her campaign. She is hurting the party but, ironically, she is not hurting Senator Obama. I am of the firm belief that Barack gets stronger and better from all of this - as long as he learns from it.

Senator Obama, will you continue to wrestle with the pigs?

Super Delegates: The Reluctant "Elder Statesmen"

Mark Wiznitzer — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:09:50 EDT

We all know that this play looks increasingly like a Greek tragedy. I've already suggested the worst-case scenario. That's the "Train Wreck in the Station" that turns the Denver Democratic Convention into a modern-day "Chicago '68". There is also the more insipid, but similarly destructive possibility for which there is already evidence in the tone of the campaign and polls of Democratic voter attitudes. That is the nominee is selected "free and fair", but fails to win a significant share of other contender's support, allowing McCain to slide through in November. The chances for this outcome could improve the longer this race drags on.

No wonder the pundits are now wringing their hands in search of an elder statesman to save the day. Albert Hunt sees the need for someone to sort out the Michigan/Florida mess. After all, if George Mitchell can hammer out a plan for Northern Ireland and the Middle East, as well as professional baseball, he can certainly work out something for the DNC. I concede that these renegade states are important to the Democrats’ electoral total in November. But solving the problem created by the queue-jumpers may not solve the Clinton-Obama stalemate, only prolong it.

Clinton's Bogus National Security Claims

Manya4Obama — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 11:53:33 EST

John Kerry and Paul Abrams put forth great arguments as to why Senator Clinton's claims of superior National Security expertise are ludicrous. The strongest being that during her years as First Lady in the White House, Mrs.Clinton never had national security clearance and therefore could not have been present when any major decisions where discussed let alone made.

From Paul Abrams:

"Appearing on Sunday morning's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Senator John Kerry was asked to address the question of Barack Obama's foreign policy crisis experience compared to Hillary Clinton's. Here are the points he made about what the popular jargon calls the "red phone moments":
1. Hillary Clinton never had to answer the phone on a national security crisis at all.
2. She had her red phone moment on the Iraq War and got it wrong.

3. She had another red phone moment most recently on Iran. (He might have added that 5 years after her disastrous Iraq War Resolution vote, Hillary Clinton voted with Bush/Cheney on an Iran measure that could provide them a pretext for launching war against Iran. Not only was this another failed red phone moment, she seems not to have learned her lesson, or, perhaps may be she did not really mean it when she said she wanted her Iraq vote back.]

4. Barack Obama has more foreign policy experience than Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had before they took office.
Wolf was without a comeback question.
But, there is an even larger question, not about Barack Obama's experience but Hillary's suggestion just by airing this ad is that she has had to answer the red phone in a real foreign policy crisis moment.
How could she? She never even had a national security clearance. Hence, not only could she not have been involved in national security discussions, she could not even have been in the room when they were being considered.

Why was it that Hillary Clinton did not have a national security clearance for the entire time she was in the White House? And, why do the media not ask Senator Clinton about that?
Finally, why does Wolf not ask the Clinton people why they are trying to mislead people about Hillary's red phone experience?"

Fear vs Hope Bill Clinton

MaryGJ — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:52:01 EST

In Bill Clinton's own words:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

So why is Hillary Clinton playing upon our fears like Republicans have been doing for the past 7 years? Why is she trying to take down Barack Obama's campaign? I have my theory do you?

I think this is one of the most effective statements Barack Obama can use against Hillary Clinton.

McCain, Iseman, and the "Swift Boating" of the Fourth Estate.

Erik — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:03:04 EST

A blog posted by Empty Wheel at Firedoglake.com ponders the confluence of media consolidation, and the Swift Boating of John Kerry in 2004. Vicki Iseman's unexplained metoric journey from receptionist to partner seems to have taken a short cut right through Senator John "Straight Talk" McCain's office. Curiously, it seems that the Presidential aspirations of Senator John Kerry may have been a "hit and run" victim of of Ms. Iseman's pedel to the metal ride to the top of the lobbying world.

-snip-
Stolen Honor, you'll recall, was a 45-long propaganda piece, repeating the allegations the Swift Boaters made against John Kerry. It came out in September 2004 (as Republicans have promised a smear against Hillary or Obama will come out at precisely the same time this cycle). Shortly thereafter, Sinclair Broadcasting ordered its stations to pre-empt normal broadcasting to play the "documentary." Sinclair also fired one employee who complained about the order.
After a blogswarm in response, Sinclair's advertisers started pulling their advertising, which eventually led Sinclair to cut back its plans for the "documentary," showing clips of it as part of a program on Vietnam POWs on just 40 of its stations.
-snip-
In the same time frame, Paxson Communications aired the entire "documentary" a number of times in the days leading up to the election, supported by NewsMax.
As FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein described, the two companies were two disturbing examples of politicized broadcast policies.
-snip-
These two companies (which in 1999, when Iseman's relationship with McCain was in question, accounted for two of just 15 companies she represented) happen to be the two that aired right wing propaganda combating Kerry's election.
Incidentally, McCain condemned Sinclair's refusal to air the Nightline tribute.
-snip-
But he resisted appeals for him to condemn Stolen Honor, in spite of its arguable violation of campaign finance issues. When finally asked formally about it, he declined to make any statement about the "documentary" itself. Though in a statement that is height of hypocrisy, McCain stated that it was a problem of media consolidation.

It seems to me, allegations of sexual misconduct may be the least of John McCain's ethically questionable headaches he's going to get from paling around with Vicki Iseman.

Tisk tisk just doesn't do it.

Repost from my LJ from 1/9/08

Margaret from Madison, WI — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 14:52:03 EST

I'm thoroughly aggravated by the coverage of the presidential campaign right now. I'm not SURPRISED by the way this is playing out, by the fact that the MSM (god I feel like a tool using that abbreviation, but it's useful in this case) creates a "narrative" for these campaigns rather than actually covering the FACTS and the ISSUES. Hillary's a cranky old witch and nobody likes her! Obama is the new incarnation of Martin Luther King and is UNSTOPPABLE! Oh but wait, Hillary kinda sorta almost cried a little bit and then the boys were all mean to her! Hillary pulls off a STUNNING upset of 2 percentage points; even though she was leading here in double digits for a year this is STUNNING and it's because all the women in New Hampshire came out and voted and burned their bras and spit in mean ol' John Edwards' pretty pretty face! (Did we mention that Edwards is stunningly beautiful? And Obama is, too? And Hillary is an ugly hag with LINES IN HER LIPS! Why can't the pretty men stop the unattractive woman?!?)

So, yeah, I knew that was how the papers and the stations rolled. I wasn't really expecting insightful coverage. I've been through the Dean Scream and the Gore Sighs and the Kerry Windsurfing Robot with the Foreign Ketchup Heiress Sugar Mama Who Dares to Speak Foreign Languages in the USA! USA! USA! I know. But I think it's almost different this time. In the past, I thought they did it all because it's a catchy way to sell papers, or get eyeballs on the screen for their eighteen different news tickers. But now...I think they're lazy. I seriously think the reporters on the campaign trail are writing things up this way because they really, really, REALLY wanted the campaign to be over in two states. It's so much easier that way. These reporters have already been following these chuckleheads around boring-ass Iowa and New Hampshire for a YEAR already, because the higher-ups decided that the race started as soon as the Diebold machines were being rolled back into the closets from the 2006 election. Can you imagine how boring it is to follow Mitt Romney around for a year through cow pastures? Or those poor people who had to stay up with John Edwards through his 36 hour tilt at windmills? The reporters want a break. If Obama had forced Hillary out last night, they would have gotten a damn nap. That's why there are so many Rudy-trashing articles right now. All the reporters are like, "You're kidding me, right? We've got to wait for your delusional ass to get whooped in FLORIDA before we can go home? Where can we find some more city-billed mistress taxi cab rides? Bernie Kerik probably molested children at some point, right? Can we dig that up?"

Last night I saw their laziness in action. I was reading through the New York Times lead article on the website last night after the election had been called for Hillary. STUNNING UPSET, yeah yeah whatever. But as I read down, I realized that they had just stuck a new lede graph at the top of the article they had written earlier in the day! If you continued through the whole article, you would find a paragraph that still talked about how Hillary's advisers were trying to regroup after her LOSS and whether or not she'd drop out! That is absolutely the worst editing, the LAZIEST editing, I have ever seen in the damn Gray Lady. If you were lazy enough to write out the post-election article hours (possibly days) before the election even took place, and then it turns out that you were completely wrong, MAN UP AND RE-WRITE THE ARTICLE. The media is not supposed to create the news, they are supposed to report the news. Do it right.

The Times has written a puff piece on every one of the major candidates at this point (John McCain bonded with his children at barbecues so it's OK that the rest of the time he was a totally cold PTSD-ed out dad; Mike Huckabee plays the bass in some kind of Christian rock band with Chuck Norris so let's ignore that his son rapes puppies and smuggles semi-automatic weapons onto planes or whatever...), but only ONCE have I seen them actually finally write out a chart of where each of the candidates stands on, you know, the myriad of issues at play in this election. If you read just the front page of the Times for the past year, you would know absolutely nothing of use about any of them. You would know that one or the other was grumpy and defensive at a debate, or that somebody spent a ludicrous amount of money on some sort of cosmetic procedure or luxury transportation, or that Bloomberg is maybe running but not necessarily but maybe and then wouldn't that be interesting and awesome and it could be three New York candidates vying for the legacy of 9/11 and then we can have some sort of flag graphic. YES. Oh, and don't even get me started on this new, ridiculous speculation that Lou Dobbs might decide to run on an independent ticket. The Xenophobic Hair-Dye-Addict party! Let's make Lou Dobbs a candidate, and let's have Chris Matthews talk some more about how he wants to make sweet gentle love to Barack Hussein Obama, and let's just make the campaign all about the cable newscasters and how they personally relate to the candidates, rather than about anything of substance. It's easier for everyone that way. Writers won't actually have to write anything beyond Mad Libs-level fill-in-the-political-blanks, and the newscasters can look pretty and advertise their next "Live Your Life Like a Campaign" or "Liberals are Doodyheads" book currently on the front table at your nearby Barnes and Noble (10% off for Barnes and Noble cardholders!), and the candidates can stop worrying about any ideological heavy lifting and just protect their rear flank against 527 neo-Swift Boating. And the rest of the country can watch American Gladiators and get their homes repossessed. And I can rock here in the corner in the fetal position. Everybody wins.

Yes, John McCAN!

Bigname Scientist — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:35:22 EST

The public mind loves virility more that it hates infidelity. Doubts about a candidate's manliness is one of the strongest subconscious negatives in human psychology. Nobody wants a president who is a girly-man, or a walking ad for Viagra.

I think the NYTimes fell for an old trick, with its story that knocked Lindsay Lohan's breasts off the front pages.

In 2003, John Kerry was operated on for prostrate surgery, which carried a risk of "impotence or incontinence". All surgeries down there are scary, and I remember thinking that Rove would use a push-poll to confuse prostrate surgery with vasectomy or castration.

Then, in 2004, Drudge spreads a rumor that Kerry had an affair with young AP reporter Polier. A media storm arose to track her down in Kenya. After it blew over, doubts about Kerry's virility were put to bed.

Now that 71-year-old McCain has been linked to Vicky Iseman, a 40 year old Blond Bombshell, this principle is in effect. His virility index is up, and so are his donations, and competitive stance against the 46 year old Obama with 2 young children as evidence.

"Most Liberal Senator" EXPOSED

Michael Blackburn — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 00:06:45 EST

I love how when John Kerry was the nominee, HE was the "most liberal" senator. And wasn't Al Gore the "most liberal" when he was running? Now that Barack Obama is the threat, suddenly HE's the "Most liberal senator." Anyone ELSE see a pattern here? Are we really supposed to believe that Obama was more liberal than Russ Feingold? How about Bernie Sanders, socialist from Vermont?

The Republicans try the EXACT same okey-doke every year, and I think the American public is smart enough to take a reasoned look at this. Check out mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com:
http://mostliberalsenator.blogspot.com/

They have an analysis of the John Kerry attack from four years ago I'll summarize over the break. Let's just say John & John went to number one faster than a boy band in the 90's.

Let the Convention Decide Whether Obama or Clinton Take Public Funding for the General Election

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 11:49:23 EST

Should Obama or Clinton Take Public Funding for the General Election? Let the Convention Decide

by Paul Abrams

Posted February 16, 2008 | 08:39 AM (EST)

".....John McCain is taunting Barack Obama to agree, now, to take public financing for the general election and eschew private funding. We know already that "FreedomWatch", a rightwing 527 managed by former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, is raising money to launch its attack on whomever the Democrats nominate. And, they will raise much more than $38 million............"

ARTICLE- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/should-obama-or-clinton-t_b_86973.html

John Kerry Posts on DailyKos

Sarah Ramey — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:40:39 EST

John Kerry posted on DailyKos today...check it out:

"Working for Barack Obama"
I’m heading off to Pakistan with Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel this weekend to observe their long awaited elections and make it very clear that the United States and the world are watching what happens there – but before I leave, I wanted to report back to you a few thoughts on the other election the world is watching, right here at home.
No denying that this election has been personally exciting – in my travels for Barack I’ve seen general election sized crowds (and I know something about what those look like!) coming out because so many people – and so many new people – are looking for something different.
But momentum’s a funny thing; you have it until, well, until you don’t have it. So, you bet things are going well, you bet there’s a head of steam – but Barack Obama also needs a big push and he needs it now: the next 3 weeks can be decisive in this campaign if you make it so. (Wisconsin is close, and as yesterday’s public polls underscore, he’s the underdog in Ohio and Texas.) So today, I'm asking for your help.
As soon as I’m back, I’ll keep doing what I can do, keep traveling and campaigning, carry the message on TV and the radio along with Ted Kennedy and a whole bunch of folks who are burning up the phones for this campaign, and yesterday I emailed the johnkerry.com community and asked for their help by contributing to Barack Obama’s campaign.
But I also wanted to come here and ask the help of this community at Daily Kos. I know many of you have already given, but this is a critical time, as Barack is taking incoming fire not just on the Democratic side, but from John McCain as well, who thinks the surest way to fix his conservative base problems is by trying to galvanize the right-wing noise machine to ramp up their attacks on Barack.
So, if you can, contribute today.
...I haven’t been this optimistic we can get real change for quite a while. There’s a storm of activism gathering out there. Barack Obama is leading it, but it’s made up of all of us – Barack, me, you, all Americans who are working for this change.
But, again, we all need to do what we can. So, contribute today, if you can..
And if you can't give money, give time. And also talk to your friends, neighbors, and family members.
I’ve rarely asked this community for money for anything, but today, I am in the asking business because I care a hell of a lot about a candidate who I want to help stay in the hope business and deliver. So please do contribute to Barack’s campaign.
Thank you for all you’ve done. We’re getting closer.

Click here to see the full post from John Kerry.

And please take a second to donate -- keep the momentum going:

Obama the uniter...

Chad — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 18:50:33 EST

Barack talks about uniting people...why does it seem like he has taken solid democratic support and divided it by 2. Just like Claire Mccaskil in Missouri did before we had a republican win the governorship. Nice work you two. I want a democrat in the Whitehouse...by dividing strong support for dems that doesn't happen. Kennendy thougth he could change Washington too. He didn't. Barack won't either...that is a pipe dream. Hillary Clinton has worked 35 years to get to this spot. Why is Barack "the uniter" drawing support from "us" to him. He is NOT the answer, "WE" are. I will not vote for Barack Obama and thousands of other dems won't either. The funny thing is most Obama supporters would be happy if Clinton got the nomination. This reminds me of the hope of the 2004 election when (Obama supporter) John Kerry won (oops! He didn't) the election and I was sick inside to think that Bush won. Don't do that in 2008! Keep in mind you are responsible for the results of your vote and the rest of us have to live with it. The Clintons are good people that have worked very hard to make America a better place and "they" did. What has Barack really accomplished? I pray that something speaks to your hearts and you all get it... This election isn't about Hillary and Barack...Its about US Americans (Democrats) fighting for what is right in the world. Thanks Barrack!

Yes we can!

Ange — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:50:18 EST

I absolutely love the Yes We Can video. I think I've watched it at least ten times this morning. I think it's a revolutionary idea to pull a presidential candidate's speech and put it to something so simple yet memorable. Apparently it was done on a tiny budget of $30,000.00. Amazing.

This is SO much better than PDiddy's campaign for Kerry "Vote or Die" slogan.

Obama Road Show Raises the Roof in Boston

Jonathan from Acton, MA — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:16:01 EST

In a late night rally on February 4, 2008, Senator Barack Obama returned to Boston, the city where four years ago his political career soared to national prominence when he spoke at the Democratic National Convention.

At a downtown convention hall on the eve of Super Tuesday, Obama electrified a capacity crowd of nine thousand. This was no mean feat, considering that many in the crowd had already stood on their feet for five hours outside the World Trade Center, patiently waiting in a line that stretched for many blocks through the streets of South Boston.

FACT: Real Quotes from Barack Obama Supporters

Inspired Voter — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:37:24 EST

JUST A FEW OF OBAMA'S ENDORSERS AND WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HIM BELOW. (VIDEO LINKS INCLUDED.)

Senator Ted Kennedy - 1/28/2008 Source

VIDEO HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Eawu8pQxRI

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy called him a "man with extraordinary gifts of leadership and character," a worthy heir to his assassinated brother. "I have marveled at his grit and grace," he said of the man a full generation younger than he is. He is expected to campaign actively for Obama in the days before a string of delegate-rich primaries and caucuses across 24 states on Feb. 5.

Caroline Kennedy - (Daughter of President John F. Kennedy) - 1/27/2008 Source

VIDEO HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJaGXDhTnAw

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them," Caroline Kennedy wrote in an op-ed posted Saturday on the Web site of The New York Times. "But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

February 3rd, Super Sunday

Lydia Allotey — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:18:03 EST

This morning I received an email from John Kerry letting me know that he would be flying back from California where he had been campaigning for Barack Obama. He said he wanted to get a few hours sleep at home in Boston and then would come to Bridgeport and New Haven, CT, in an effort to get out the vote. I had many things planned for this Sunday, an important day for me to take care of things at home, and be ready for my work week, but I put all aside and got ready as fast as I could and got out to make the second stop in New Haven, at the home of Dr. Reginald Mayo on Stevenson Avenue. The directions I got from the internet got me into New Haven from Danbury quickly enough, but the directions to the house were all wrong, and I missed a good ten minutes of the address by Senator Kerry. The group that had gathered was a relatively small one, less than 100. In addition to the neighbors, and probably some who had followed from the first stop, which was the New Hope Missionary Baptist church, there was some local press from Channel 6 News, and grassroots volunteers with a meager amount of signage. They informed me that they did not have any lawn sings available as money was tight, but I was impressed with the number of young volunteers who were present and how they held an impromptu meeting after the address by Kerry. They were talking about the gathering in Hartford, CT, on Monday, February 4th, at which Barack Obama will be present. John Kerry was one of the first Senators that I am aware of who supported Barack Obama, I was very pleased, because I knew from the time that he ran for President that he had quite an internet network set up and I felt sure that Barack Obama would now benefit from that as well. Kerry looked tired, but his voice and words were strong and enthusiastic. He really conveyed his excitement for Barack’s campaign. He spoke of many red states governors and other politicians who had thrown their support behind Obama. This was news to me, although C-Span is on quite a bit in my house, I had not managed to capture this piece of news from that source. I shook hands with Senator Kerry and thanked him for all that he was doing on behalf of Barack Obama’s campaign. I was glad that, I took the time to show up at this little gathering today to hear first hand an insiders report from the field. I had a smile on my face as I drove home, I felt excited at this new hope and wonder! I am very hopeful and cannot wait for the results of Super Tuesday to come in!

Kennedy & Kerry Events in California

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:14:41 EST

Please, if you are in any of these cities, or not too far from there, take the time to stop by these important campaign events by Barack's superstar surrogates in California Feb. 1 & 2...

CNN POLITICAL TICKER: Kerry blasts Bill Clinton for 'abusing truth'

Dr. Susanne Hussein Freeborn — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:16:03 EST

January 25, 2008Posted: 06:27 PM ET

Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry in 2004 (Photo Credit: Getty Images)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — John Kerry, the Democratic Party's 2004 nominee for president, took aim at Bill Clinton Friday, telling the National Journal the former president does "not have a license to abuse the truth."

The Massachusetts senator, who endorsed Barack Obama's White House bid earlier this month, said Clinton's criticisms of the Illinois senator have been "over the top," and suggested the former president is getting "frantic."

Targeting Clinton's recent spate of attacks on Obama, Kerry said, "I think you had an abuse of the truth, is what happened. …I mean, being an ex-president does not give you license to abuse the truth, and I think that over the last days it's been over the top.

"I think it's very unfortunate, but I think the voters can see through that," Kerry added. "When somebody's coming on strong and they are growing, people get a little frantic, and I think people have seen this sort of franticness in the air, if you will."

The former president has faced criticism for aggressively interjecting himself into the race between his wife and Obama of late. On Monday, Obama said he feels as if he is running against both Clintons, a charge the New York senator’s campaign said was borne out of frustration. The former president himself later dismissed Obama's comments, saying “I thought he was running against me.”

Campaigning in South Carolina Friday, Obama said the Clinton campaign has stepped up its attacks since his Iowa win, and joked that it's good practice for him, so "when I take on those Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."

Kerry formally endorsed Obama on January 10, saying then that Obama "isn't just going to break the mold….Together, we are going to shatter it into a million pieces."

The endorsement was seen as a blow to both John Edwards — Kerry's running mate in 2004 — and both Hillary and Bill Clinton, who had campaigned on behalf of Kerry's presidential bid.

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

John Kerry is a Star

sh — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:36:36 EST

In this interview with John Kerry he talks about why he supports Obama, and gives his opinion on the recent media circus of the primaries. One of the good lines is:

"Are we the country we say we are? Are we the country that holds certain truths to be self-evident, words which incidentally were written by a 33-year-old named Thomas Jefferson. You know, are we the country that judges people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin -- words that were written by Martin Luther King when he was about 34 years old."

John Kerry is now officially awesome in my book, not because he supports Obama (which is great), but because he lays it all out on the table in such a sensitive way that it just makes tears come to the eye. I don't want to talk about the Clintons too much on this site, because frankly, they depress me. But on a side note, John Kerry, says about Hillary's "experience" with the economy of the booming '90s:

"...but people again need to be able to distinguish. Look, I supported the programs, a lot of things that we did in the 1990s, but I think everyone understands we had a technology boom in the 1990s which was unprecedented, and everybody benefited from that. We made some tough decisions and we ought to be proud of them, about the budget and the deficit. But the fact is, that was not Hillary Clinton making those decisions. It was a different team, at a different time."

Ouch.

John Kerry Kicks Off Canvass in North Las Vegas

Zachary Scott Edwards — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:28:02 EST

Several dozen supporters met up with Senator John Kerry this morning to kick off a canvass of North Las Vegas neighborhoods as we prepare for the caucus tomorrow at 11 AM. Senator Kerry fired everyone up as he talked about his reasons for coming out to Nevada, and his decision to endorse Barack. You can see the respect that Las Vegas residents -- including several local veterans who showed up -- have for Senator Kerry It’s quite powerful, the younger supporters are staring admirably as the veterans talked with Senator Kerry—it’s a real testament to his leadership abilities.

There is a shared sense of urgency among our supporters and Senator Kerry—as if everyone realizes that moments like this only come along once in a generation. This group of canvassers is a perfect reflection of our campaign—there are young people, old people, retired people, businessmen, mothers, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and yet—they all have the same determined look in their eyes. This is the moment, and the movement that can change this country and it’s clear that people here in Las Vegas sense this unique opportunity.

Our supporters are starting to get really excited down here and seem more than ready to stand up and work hard these lat important hours. People are brining sack lunches out into their precincts so they can get in as much face to face contact time today with their neighbors. The phone lines were packed—even as Senator Kerry gave his appeal to the canvassers.

Things are heating up in Las Vegas and it’s time to get involved. Find your caucus location, find your local office, and make sure your friends, family, and neighbors know about the caucus tomorrow morning at 11 AM. Stand up with our grassroots and join this movement—it’s our moment to change the world.

John Kerry and Michelle Obama Stand Up for Change

Zachary Scott Edwards — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 01:40:51 EST

Today all across Las Vegas, Michelle Obama held house parties with supporters and undecided Nevadans to talk about the honesty, integrity, and experience that she and Barack will bring to Washington. For several of the parties, Senator John Kerry joined Michelle to talk about working with Barack and the reasons why Barack is the best choice for president. Senator Kerry also talked with supporters in Boulder city and volunteers at several of our Obama Head quarters in Las Vegas.

Both brought inspiration with them at every stop, and fired up our supporters for the final push before we caucus on Saturday. Here is a short video from one of their house parties:

Here are a few pictures from the event as well:

Things are certainly heating up here in Nevada, and we need everyone to get out and caucus at 11 AM this Saturday. Use our lookup tool to find your caucus location, and help us get our supporters out to caucus. This is our moment for change!

John Kerry on This Week with George Stephanopoulos

CarolJ — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:02:52 EST

John Kerry was on This Week with George Stephanopoulos today discussing his endorsement this week of Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. View the video here.

Video: John Kerry Endorses Barack in Charleston, SC

T. Neil Sroka — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 17:50:31 EST

Yesterday's rally in Charleston with John Kerry and Barack was pretty amazing. In fact, the Charleston Post & Courier said, with over 4,500 supporters present, it was "the largest political rally in Charleston in recent memory."

Check out the video of the historic rally below:

More on Endorsements

Dr. Mark Elrod — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:10:46 EST

It seems interesting to me that in the three days since Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary, Barack Obama has been endorsed by:

Nevada's Culinary Workers Union, Local 226
The Nevada chapter of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the last Democratic to run for president
Rep. George Miller (D-CA) as close as you can get to an endorsement by Speaker Pelosi
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin (D)
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (D)

I can’t think of any group or significant political leader who has endorsed either Hillary Clinton or John Edwards since Tuesday.

It begs the question: if HRC “won” the New Hampshire primary – where’s the love from the party? Is it possible that like many Americans, the leadership and supporters of the Democratic party don’t consider HRC to be electable in November?

My bold prediction of the moment: If Al Gore endorses any candidate for the nomination, he will endorse Barack Obama and he'll do it before February 5.

Letter from John Kerry

Asher Heimermann — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:22:04 EST

Martin Luther King said, "The time is always right to do what is right." So I'm choosing this time to share an important decision I've made, one I believe is right for this country.

The JohnKerry.com community has been very important to me and very important to the Democratic resurgence over the last couple of years, so I wanted to let all of you know my decision before I confirm it with anyone else. I want to share with you my conviction that in a field of fine Democratic candidates, the next President of the United States can be, should be, and will be Barack Obama. Each of our candidates would make a fine President, and we are blessed with a strong field. But for this moment, at this time in our nation's history, Barack Obama is the right choice.

I'm proud to have helped introduce Barack to our nation when I asked him to speak to our national convention, and there Barack's words and vision burst out. On that day he reminded Americans that our "true genius is faith in simple dreams, an insistence on small miracles." And with his leadership we can build simple dreams, and we can turn millions of small miracles into real change for our country.

At this particular moment, with our country faced with great challenges in our economy, in our environment, and in our foreign policy, and with our politics torn by division, Barack Obama can bring transformation to our country. With Barack, we can build a new majority of Americans from all regions who can turn the page on the politics of Karl Rove and begin a new politics, one worthy of our nation's history and promise. We can bring millions of disaffected people - young and old - to the great task of governing and making a difference, child to child, community to community.

The moment is now, and the candidate for this moment is Barack Obama. Like him, I also lived abroad as a young man, and I share with him a healthy respect for the advantage of knowing other cultures and countries, not from a book or a briefing, but by personal experience, by gut, by instinct. He knows the issues from the deep study of a legislator, and he knows them from a life lived outside of Washington. His is the wisdom of real-world experience combined with the intellect of a man who has thought deeply about the challenges we face.

History has given us this moment. But we need to decide what to do with it. I believe, with this moment, we should make Barack Obama President of the United States.

Thank you,
John Kerry

Barack & Sen. John Kerry Rally for Change in Charleston, SC

T. Neil Sroka — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:38:05 EST

Senator John Kerry joined and endorsed Barack this afternoon at a jam packed rally here in Charleston, SC.

Senator Kerry announced his endorsement of Barack noting that change has often been won by young Presidents and leaders with experience defined by more than years in Washington or terms in office.

"Today we still draw on the "truths" that we believe to be "self-evident"--but how easy it is to forget that Thomas Jefferson was just 33 when he wrote them into our Declaration of Independence. How easy it is to forget that Martin Luther King was just 26 when he led the Montgomery Bus Boycott, just 34 when he inspired America with a powerful dream.

My friends, when we choose a President, we are electing judgment and character, not years on this earth -- and it is the moral compass I see in Barack Obama that gives me confidence he will steer our country in the right direction. He was, after all, right about the war in Iraq from the very beginning!"

Following Senator Kerry's endorsement, Barack took the stage to huge cheers and thanked the former Democratic Presidential Nominee for his service and support.

"This is a man who knows how much people who love their country can change it... John Kerry is a man of courage; a man of conviction; and a man whose life story has given him an intimate understanding of the kind of change we need right now."

We need that kind of change, Barack said, to unite our country, heal partisan divisions, and discover hope again. But, as he reminded the diverse crowd of students, teachers, parents, and professionals,

"...we have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've 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. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we've been told that we're not ready, or that we shouldn't try, or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.

Yes we can."

John Kerry Endorsement

Tory from Gilbert, AZ — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:26:21 EST

I think that John Kerry's endorsement of Barack Obama will definitely motivate people who didn't take him seriously prior to this point! Maybe we can get John Edwards endorsement also??? John Kerry gave a historical speech to introduce Barack Obama...Check it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uOuhNSyEkI

Leadership That Unifies and Empowers

CarolJ — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:22:39 EST

Today, January 10, 2008, John Kerry announced his endorsement of Barack Obama as the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate. The formal announcement was made at today's Obama rally in Charleston, South Carolina. The new release cites that Kerry's decision was based on Obama being the candidate who can "best unite the country and has the potential to create transformational change."

The speech Kerry made was powerful. Listening to John Kerry in this setting, as opposed to seeing him on the Senate floor on CSPAN, brought back painful memories of the 2004 presidential campaign. But it also gave me hope. I saw the man that I had supported so strongly in 2004 standing alongside the man I am whole-heartedly supporting in 2008. The image was healing and hopeful. It was like John Kerry's voice was strong and empowered again. Stronger than even before. Obama's leadership has once again empowered John Kerry's voice - and John Kerry is raising his voice in strong support of Obama.

Here is a quote from the speech taken from the NY Times article covering the endorsement:

Who better than Barack Obama to bring new credibility to America's role in the world and help restore our moral authority? Who better than Barack Obama to turn a new page in American politics, so that Democrats, independents and Republicans alike can look to the leadership that unites to find common ground? ... There are other candidates in this race with whom I have worked and whom I respect. Each of them could be president tomorrow. But I believe that more than everyone else, Barack Obama can help our country turn the page and get America moving by uniting and ending the division that America faces. He has a superb talent, as all of you know, to communicate the best of our hopes and aspirations for American and the world.

And here are some exceprts taken from a letter that John Kerry sent out today to his JohnKerry.com supporters:

At this particular moment, with our country faced with great challenges in our economy, in our environment, and in our foreign policy, and with our politics torn by division, Barack Obama can bring transformation to our country. With Barack, we can build a new majority of Americans from all regions who can turn the page on the politics of Karl Rove and begin a new politics, one worthy of our nation's history and promise. We can bring millions of disaffected people - young and old - to the great task of governing and making a difference, child to child, community to community.

The moment is now, and the candidate for this moment is Barack Obama. Like him, I also lived abroad as a young man, and I share with him a healthy respect for the advantage of knowing other cultures and countries, not from a book or a briefing, but by personal experience, by gut, by instinct. He knows the issues from the deep study of a legislator, and he knows them from a life lived outside of Washington. His is the wisdom of real-world experience combined with the intellect of a man who has thought deeply about the challenges we face.

History has given us this moment. But we need to decide what to do with it. I believe, with this moment, we should make Barack Obama President of the United States.

Thank you John Kerry. Good to see you back again.

Update: Here is an excerpt from a Daily Kos diarist, segseg, who was at the SC Rally, and heard John Kerry and Obama speak today.

Sen. Kerry gave one of the best introductory speeches I have seen. Full of passion, simple yet inspiring language, true conviction for the host he was to introduce. Simultaneously folk around us asked "where was this guy four years ago." Kerry laid out why the naysayers were wrong. How Jefferson was in his twenties when he wrote the Declaration of Independence and how MLK was a mere 34 years old when he marched on Washington.

He conceded that youth inspires and the old politicians must make way for young new exciting passion and ideas. He knew Obama would end the swiftboaters and change tone which he tried to do four years ago.

(Then like Kerry, he went on a bit to long, but what are you going to do.)

Obama then spoke. I had seen most of the speech he gave before on TV, but live, the guy is a leader and a rock star.

I now believe hope alone can breed new ideas and ultimately success. I will not let my ex-favorite politician Bill Clinton to tell me to stop believing in Fairy tales. As the Senator put it, that is what the dream of a country from Sea to shining sea was to many: a fairy tale. But thousands upon thousands went west anyway. Putting a man on the moon: a fairy tale, but Kennedy inspired hope to go and we did.

The Hope to change and make things better–that is what is missing from our country. Bitter over 9-11 we have digressed into grumpy finger pointing doom and gloomers. It must change and change now. Obama can, we can.,,

Hoping the fairy tale of a greater America comes true.....

Endorsements

Dr. Mark Elrod — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:13:24 EST

When you're running for president, celebrity endorsements may or not be important but you can't hardly stop them.

On the other hand, endorsements from other politicians can be very important, particularly with Democrats. After all, there are all of those Super Delegates to consider.

So, if you were running for president which of these would be best and which would be worst?

To be a Democrat and have the endorsement of John Kerry? (has endorsed Barack Obama)
To be a Democrat and have the endorsement of Al Gore?
To be a Republican and have the endorsement of Joe Lieberman? (has endorsed John McCain)
To be a Republican and have the endorsement of George W. Bush?

John Kerry Backs Obama

Kevin Florida — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:50:50 EST

Remember folks, even with the "loss" in New Hampshire (a delegate tie of 9 delegates each), Obama is currently winning with the most delegates. With the loss of Bill Richardson in the race and several endorsements coming through, things are looking up.

John Kerry now Endorces Barack Obama:

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

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Democratic Party's 2004 presidential nominee, will endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in South Carolina today, Democratic sources told Politico.

Kerry is flying to South Carolina for an event to be held shortly after 11 a.m. in Charleston, the sources said. Obama is holding a "Rally for Change" at the College of Charleston ahead of the Democrats' South Carolina primary on Jan. 26.

Kerry's endorsement message will focus on Obama's ability to bring the country transformational change, the sources said. The endorsement also represents a sharp elbow at former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who was Kerry's running mate in 2004 and also a South Carolina native.

Kerry, who had contemplated another run of his own this year, remains one of the Democratic Party's most popular figures, and gives Obama a big boost as he is trying to regain his momentum after finishing second to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.

For Obama, this endorsement fills a particular need: In addition to winning the nomination in 2004, Kerry is considered a strong voice on national security issues and a respected elder of the Democratic establishment.

Neither of those factors would do much for Clinton, who is strong on both.

But Obama needs to show donors, voters and activists that he can attract more traditional support and win over the decision-makers in the party.

Thus far, he has succeeded mostly at bringing young voters and independents into the fold.

Moreover, Kerry maintains a pretty strong fundraising network and impressive e-mail list of potential donors.

Kerry is putting an e-mail list with millions of addresses at Obama's disposal, according to party sources.

The e-mail list will be very helpful for fundraising as well as organizing.

However, endorsements — even one like this, which will get huge news coverage — rarely transform a campaign.

They provide good momentary buzz, and a surrogate with star power for campaign stops. But it is rarely the reason a voter chooses a candidate.

SOURCE: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7830.html

John Kerry Endorses Barack

Shawn O'Donnell — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:12:52 EST

After all we did to help him in his unsuccessful race for the White House, I'm pleased today to read that Senator John Kerry endorses Barack Obama for President. This time the outcome will be reversed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_po/obama_kerry

2004 Dem nominee Kerry endorsing Obama

Andrew Lietzow — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:47:55 EST

Awesome. Simply Awesome.

Yesterday, the Culinary workers of Nevada, and the Nevada SEIU. Today, Sen. John Kerry!

The list goes on and on. We are going to see real change in this country coming soon, all being brought about by an inspiring leader whom we have come to know simply as, "Barack".

2004 Dem nominee Kerry endorsing Obama

I love it, I love it, I love it!

Richardson Out - What Does It Mean For Utah? [Update 3]

Misty F — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:36:11 EST

Many elected officials and others on the "Who's Who of Utah Democrats" have previously signed on to support Bill Richardson. Which is understandable, considering he's from the West, and knows many Utahns personally. Now that he appears to have dropped out, or will be dropping out today, where will those supporting him go?

At least one elected official has come over into the Obama camp. Yesterday the following emails were sent through the Utah for Obama ListServ:

It appears that Richardson is poised to announce that he will pull out of the presidential race tomorrow. Conflicting reports in the media, but overall it looks true.

This opens up the possibility that many Utah political leaders could switch their support to Obama. We need to start working them! -JANET

And a reply:

Janet,

I was a Richardson guy but I am now supporting Obama.

Sen. Scott McCoy

I've heard rumors of some others who will also be turning to Senator Obama, and I can't wait until they are publicly confirmed.

[Update] On a related note, the AP is reporting that John Kerry will be announcing his endorsement of Senator Obama today.

[Update 2] Gregg wrote to me about getting our officials to endores Barack. Here's a good place to start if you're in Utah. Thanks, Gregg!

Let us know if you hear anything back from writing or calling your officials. We need to make sure that Ann, our new Utah State Director is made aware of all endorsements.

[Update 3] John Kerry's endorsement has arrived. And Edwards seems to be taking it in stride.

Our country and our Party are stronger because of John's service, and I respect his decision. When we were running against each other and on the same ticket, John and I agreed on many issues. I continue to believe that this election is about the future, not the past, and that the country needs a President who will fight aggressively to end the status quo and change the Washington system and to give voice to all of those whose voices are ignored in the corridors of power.

Kerry's statement is here.

South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson and Congressman George Miller (D-CA) have also announced their endorsements of Senator Obama. First Read has some interesting commentary on Miller's endorsement.

The case for character

Scott A. Giordano — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:29:15 EST

Why voters may place more emphasis on a candidate's character than Iraq ...

talk the talk, walk the walk!

Jeremy Johnson — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 02:40:50 EDT

I worked on the John Kerry campaign and noticed that many people were extremely excited of his chances of ousting Bush. They wanted change in the white house, but didn't endure the long days with yard signs, flyers, bumper stickers, and emails and blogs. Then at the end of the campaign, the same people angry about Kerry's defeat were the people that didn't put forth the extra effort to take the election. I want this election to be different. If you REALLY want a change then please vote. Please spread the word. Please spend at least a few minutes forwardind emails and blogs. Organize small rallies. Every little bit helps. We, the voters, are "the deciders" in the long run, and the majority counts a lot. (Except in the case of Al Gore). Its time for a change, so let's take back the white house.

Spinning out of Control

Karanja "Hussein" — Mon, 07 May 2007 15:09:34 EDT

While our candidate continues to amass support due to his brilliant message, I find myself seeing more and more vividly the clear path to the White House for President Barack Obama.
In fact the biggest hurdle in my opinion is Spin Doctors whom I have a healthy distrust for. I feel they spend too much time talking to and watching Chris Mathews and Tucker Carlson and other such types rather than listening to the real pulse of Main Street. The political pundits get it wrong time and again, as they did in their assessment of the MSNBC primary debates, whereby they touted Hillary as the winner, while the most favorable ratings in fact went to Obama.
I think that the Spin Doctors were in overdrive again, earlier this spring when Obama was rebuked by the White House and the Right in general for issuing a statement saying that “Soldiers Lives were being wasted in Iraq”. I believe they were responsible for making Obama revoke and apologize for the statement, which I felt marked Obama’s first cardinal sin of this campaign. In fact, high level Republicans, including , I believe Chuck Hagel went on to reiterate exactly what Obama had said soon after.
Obama, your instincts are and were correct on this occasion. There was never a need to lend credence to the Right’s views and opinions, and thus giving them free publicity by rescinding your commenets. In fact the real news was the apology rather than the comments or what the right wing media were saying. The real gaffe in my opinion, is the revoking and rescinding of comments, not the actual statement. I hate to hark back time and again to one particularly unlikely source, President Bush, whose administration has successfully deflected the now famous millions of gaffes issued by the beloved clown president. I had not heard of the so-called gaffe until Obama made headlines by apologizing or re-clarifying what he had meant to say.

Clear values could turn around war doubts

fang2415 — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:50:41 EDT

Plain words and clear ideas are a candidate's best friend. They convey the candidate's message, make the campaign less vulnerable to quibbles, and define the candidate's identity.

Surprisingly, Barack Obama is beginning to get into trouble over his past record on the Iraq war. The vulnerability has the potential to develop in a familiar way. It's roughly the same flip-flop-flap that Republicans used to mock John Kerry in the 2004 general election. Then and now, it's a problem that can be avoided -- and even made into a strength -- with the use of simple, strong language.

Don't shoot the messenger...

::nico — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:28:46 EST

I was raised by a liberal democratic mother and a socialist father (he is Belgian), so I consider myself far to the left of the democratic spectrum...and here in lies the problem.

Neo-Cons are a singular group, so much so that their language is even tested on focus groups by Frank Luntz to such an extent that they all sound the same and can talk for hours without actually saying anything. They have singular goals and go after them with such ferocity it is impossible for the average american to not see and think in the terms Luntz has set forth.

The Democratic party on the other hand represents a *FAR* broader spectrum of people, all with very specific agendas. We have always had trouble getting together on single issues and quite frankly, this is why we keep losing.

While I support Barack Obama 100%, I think it is too soon to run for president...remember, whoever becomes the next pres gets the country at its most divided since the civil war and economically distraught (reminds me if Jimmy Carter). Who do you think the Neo-Con controlled media will blame? Certainly not the GW Bush administration, but whoever follows.

This is why as democrats we *MUST* compromise on how we get this country and its people back on track to the international respect and economic booms of the 90's (thanks Bill!!!). Here is what I propose, and most likely everyone here will hate it, but it is the only chance we have at even beginning to create a sustainable society.
Hillary Clinton should get the Democratic Parties *FULL* support as our candidate for president, and Barack Obama should take the role of Vice-President.

I know how this sounds, especially on this website, but hear me out. Mrs Clinton has the experience to be president, not to mention 51% of the population of the country behind her. Barack Obama needs the time to develop greater and deeper networks inside the political game which 8 years as VP would allow him. With a Clinton/Obama ticket we COULD NOT LOSE.

The most important thing to be done in such a situation is to work on single issues at a time. Universal Healthcare...take 2 years, make it happen. CAFE standards...auto manufacturers can *easily* produce cars capable of 10x the gas mileage we get today, so lets make them...not forgetting we can use BioDiesel and Ethanol in the meantime. Reducing the US' pollutant emissions by a great amount..again, we *can* do it, we simply choose not to. Making our public schools safer and better...this can be achieved by simply removing all of the soda machines and serving full course *HEALTHY* foods. Reduce our energy use by giving tax credits to people that switch to LED lighting...even municipalities, since traffic signals, street lamps and road signs can be lit by LEDs.

All of these things are crucial if we are to bring America from the brink of destruction it is on now (someone needs to send GW a copy of the book 'A Path Where No Man Thought'...the TTAPS study on nuclear winter showing how a handful of the powerful nuclear weapons we have now would ruin our environment to the point we could no longer live in it (the Earth would go on unphased...the Bees would take over in a couple million years)), and while I hate to say it, neither Barack or Hillary could do it alone...together we could have 16 years of sound and productive policy, not 'Cowboy Diplomacy'.

My vote is Clinton/Obama '08, Obama/Gore '16, Gore/Kerry '24 and so on...
You can start throwing things now ;¬)

Newsweek Evaluates Obama's "Oppo Team"

V, aka VCubed/Virginia V — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 08:11:31 EST

Link 2007 MSNBC.com/Newsweek: Handicapping Obama’s Oppo Team

He’s been through the first minor skirmish of the ’08 wars. Does Obama’s team have the dirt-diggers, the counterpunchers, and the wise guys he’ll need to go the distance?WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARYBy Richard WolffeNewsweekUpdated: 4:36 p.m. AKT Feb 27, 2007

Feb. 27, 2007 - It was Obama’s first taste of 2008 blood. After Hollywood mogul David Geffen took a shot at Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Clinton camp hit back—demanding that Obama return money Geffen had raised for him, and calling on the Illinois senator to disavow Geffen’s remarks. Obama declined the invitation, and an aide pointed out that the Clintons, too, had benefited from Geffen’s largesse. But the incident left the chattering classes asking: does the rookie have enough muscle and experience in his entourage to trade blows with the battle-tested Clinton crowd?

The answer to that question leads, inevitably, to David Axelrod. “We all view it as a lesson in how easy it is to slide into the muck,” says Axelrod, Obama’s media adviser and chief strategist, of last week’s dust-up. “We are a 6-week-old campaign and we’re going to learn a lot of things along the way.”

He may be trying to help steer his candidate to a new kind of politics, but Axelrod knows plenty about the old ways. He covered politics for the Chicago Tribune before becoming a consultant, helping first Harold Washington and then Richard M. Daley win the Chicago mayoralty. And he’s punched his ticket nationally, having worked for Sen. John Edwards's 2004 White House bid and a number of rising Democratic stars at the state level—including newly minted Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. Perhaps most helpful for the challenge ahead, he even did a stint inside enemy territory, working on Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign. In fact, he’s the only operative out there to have logged time with the top three Democratic contenders in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Axelrod says he’s ready to rumble. “There’s no doubt that there are times when shots are going to be taken at us that are going to require a tough reaction because they are on substantive things that directly relate to something Barack has said or done—or some distortion of what he’s said or done,” says Axelrod. “As my old friend Harold Washington used to say, politics isn’t beanbag.”

But his team is still in the process of figuring out when to fire, and when to keep the powder dry. “It’s a question of assessing the incoming and deciding, ‘Is this heading for the main engine or is it going to pass by?’ That is the process. If you are going to respond to something, respond to something substantive and real, not something contrived and meaningless.”

So what counts as “substantive” and “real”? Take a look at how Team Obama responded to a recent Los Angeles Times story about the candidate’s early work as a community organizer in Chicago. The L.A. Times quoted locals who said Obama had oversold his role in helping to improve a Chicago housing project—strongly suggesting that Obama had overplayed his part in his own memoir, "Dreams From My Father." The Obama campaign’s response: a point-by-point, annotated rebuttal, entitled “Just Because Someone Writes It, Does Not Make It True.”

That rebuttal—complete with testimonials from fellow community activists—was the work of the campaign’s research department. The group is headed by Devorah Adler, a former DNC research director who worked for the Clinton White House, and for then-Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle. (She later joined the DNC’s research operation under Mike Gehrke, who headed up the "oppo" research effort for the Kerry campaign in 2004.) Axelrod says the team will do as much research into its own candidate as its rivals. “We have a long record—actually a longer record in public life than several of the other candidates—and the first order of business is when representations are made about that record, we are completely informed as to what Barack has said and done and written,” says Axelrod. “You’d be foolish to have a campaign without that operational capacity.

“Second, it’s important for us to know what other candidates have said and done because you need to understand where there are similarities and contrasts. The difference is about using your opposition research as a kind of offensive weapon on a day-to-day basis to try to besmirch your opponents.”

In selling that message, Axelrod will have help from a team that does not have deep ties to the candidate. Robert Gibbs, his communications director, is the longest-serving staffer, having joined Obama in 2004. Bill Burton, national press secretary, was at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for last year’s elections. He started the 2004 presidential cycle with Dick Gephardt, before joining the Kerry team after the Iowa caucuses. Dan Pfeiffer, another press secretary, worked for Daschle in 2004, and was part of Evan Bayh’s brief presidential bid. Loyal Democrats all—but a crew assembled from the ashes of other presidential campaigns faces a tough challenge against the wily veterans of Hillaryland.

Can Obama stick to the high road, and win? It’s an admirable goal. But his posse will be hard-pressed to stay that course once the serious dirt-dishing begins. Candidates, after all, sling mud for one reason: It works, much of the time.

Who do you want to be your next president?

Citizen Renk — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:04:49 EST

This is the first of my posts to a blog I'm writing here at BarackObama.com. Thank you to all of you who are interested in this candidate and who are taking your time to read what I have to say! I’ve decided to save my first post for today (it's still the 19th in central time) – President’s Day. This is not just a day to honor and remember our presidents and their accomplishments, but perhaps it’s a time to plan for the next presidency, a time to think about what it is that we value, and more importantly, what we NEED from our next president. This begs the question:

“Who do you want to be your next president?”

I have the utmost confidence in and respect for Barack Obama. Like many of you, the more I learn about him, the more I’m convinced that he should be our next president. In my first post I’d like to lay out why I believe we can only win the presidency by nominating our strongest candidate.

You might say to me “That’s silly Citizen, Bush was nominated and elected over McCain in 2000 because of money and name recognition, and he wasn’t the best candidate.” My response to this is simple – lack luster candidates don’t get progressive voters to the poles. It just doesn't work. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the last election.

THE GREAT MISTAKE OF 2004

With all due respect to John Kerry and his distinguished career of service to this country, he should never have been the democratic nominee for president in ’04. Democrats were excited about Howard Dean. He’s a person of ideas, he’s a doctor, and he’s the governor of a respected and innovative state.

Somewhere we lost our way. Someone said, “Dean’s too liberal, he can’t be elected.” Someone else said “We’re in a war, we need a war candidate.” Out of our party’s pessimism came the nomination of John Kerry.

This is the visible spectrum. If it represented the 2004 election, Howard Dean would be near blue, and George W. Bush would probably be Red (though in front of some audiences, he might try to seem infrared). The left wanted Howard Dean, but we didn't choose blue, we went with Green, and that shift made all the difference.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against moderates (being able to cooperate and make meaningful concessions is the only thing that will lead to progress on the hill, and it's one of the Senator's greatest assets), nor do I really believe that one's unique set of social beliefs can really be boiled down to this red/blue nonsense.

What I'm saying is that we elect people, not colors on the political spectrum. They are not just defined by their political persuasions, but by their character. You can’t just tune the dial a little to the right to a different candidate in the spectrum and expect to automatically pick up votes from the right. We shifted to a less exciting candidate, in a cowardly attempt to win votes. We shot ourselves in the foot by going with a candidate that we thought was “more electable”, instead of the one we wanted most to elect.

We need a candidate who can match vision with conviction, someone who is willing to dream big dreams for America, and work for them. We need a candidate that excites the democratic base, and has the credibility to remind America of its progressive values. Our candidate cannot be a product of our pessimism, but MUST be a product of our hope, our values, and our pride if we are going to vote with confidence and encourage our friends to do the same.

-Citizen Renk