Posts with the tag Kerry

The Care and Feeding of the Wealthy

James — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:27:47 EDT

It is difficult for 'common' Americans to understand the mindset of the wealthy in our country. For one thing, we common folk do not encounter these people very often. They travel by private air, boat, and yes, sometimes, even private rail. They eat out at exclusive clubs or special parts of restaurants dedicated to them. They limo, or have drivers. They live in chateaus which are penetrable only by their coded limo devices or from the air, by their private helicopters. It is a sneaky quiet dimension layered above the dimension we ordinarily inhabit, so we just don't see them. Occasionally, very occasionally, they come out for public events. You will know them by the looks of discomfort on their faces. The forced good will. The nodding paternalistic smile downward toward the rest of us. That we allowed their creation, existence and continuance is never even mentioned, anywhere. It is a truly secret world they live in.

I know some of them. I work for Hollywood, so sometimes I am graced by their presence. It can be delightfully humorous to listen to their chatter about these tough economic times. I actually listened to one man discuss how he was going to fly to Florida on his G-5 Gulfstream jet (12 passenger) instead of his Canadair Challenger (28 passenger wide body). He honestly and openly stated that he was trying to do his part for the economy and to be more green. I did not laugh. I worked on my chunk of prime rib looking down. Here is another one. Different dinner. This time the host almost broke down and cried. We were dining in his five million dollar chateau, by the way, one of three which he owns that I know of. He was terribly emotionally upset about discharging his long time driver of his limo. I spoke up on this issue, and complimented him for his obvious discomfort over the driver's loss of his long-time job. The table went quiet. The man then went on to explain in detail that the driver was a good man. He would find another job. The grief the man was experiencing was due to the fact that everyone was going to know that he no longer had a driver. That he was having to drive himself.

Now can you understand why the executives flew to Washington for bailout money in their private jets? When they were called on it, what did the do in reaction? They were extremely angry! They do not live in our world. They do not even have any comprehension of our world anymore. They are like Regis Philben on Regis and Kelly in the morning t.v. show. Regis can't remember anything anymore. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pelosi, Kerry, McCain, Kennedy...the party affiliation does not matter. What matters is the wealth and the overpowering "God meant me to have this because I am special" mentality. Those people feel that is is part of their obligation to God Himself that they be kept wealthy and, and this is the really hilarious part, that the rest of us be kept poor. Or in our place, at least. You see, God meant us to be poor. And there it is.

Watch closely, after reading this short article, and see what you can pick up about those people. You will begin to frown, then smile and maybe even snarl, if you watch long enough.

http://www.from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com

http://www.jamesstraussauthor.com

http://www.themastodons.com

Save the Economic Recovery Plan! Send a message to Congress!

LindaC — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:59:51 EST

Now is the time to let Congress know your opinions and concerns about the Economic Recovery Plan, and the sense of urgency regarding passage of a bill that will address not only short term stimulus but will also provide for ongoing recovery and long term growth!

The bill is currently under consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. Please contact as many members of the committee possible to send a strong message. See below for names and contact information:

Click on this link to search contact information for all Senators:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Click on this link for the names of all members of the Senate Finance Committee:

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm

Finance Committee home page: http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/committee.htm

See below for links to all Senate Finance Committee members:

Saturday: John Kerry Returns to Granite State

Anne Marie @ NH HQ — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:12:01 EDT

MANCHESTER-- With less than 3 days until Election Day, Sen. John Kerry will be on the Seacoast of New Hampshire this Saturday, November 1st to rally voters in support of Sen. Barack Obama, Jeanne Shaheen, and Democrats up and down the ticket.

Saturday, November 1st:

5:00 p.m. Unity Rally with Sen. John Kerry, Jeanne Shaheen, and Democratic candidates
Portsmouth Public Library- Levenson Community Room
175 Parrott Avenue, Portsmouth

answer McCain's robo-ads!

Jonathan — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:35:53 EDT

In 2004 John Kerry prepared an ad that he did not run, though it got out. He did not run it at John McCain's request. The ad showed a segment from a Republican presidential primary debate in 2000. Obama should now use this ad against McCain now ...

More Madison, WI Rally - John Kerry

Jay Williams — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:17:34 EDT

I've finally gotten the headliner of the Madison, WI rally up on YouTube.

Sen. Kerry in Oshkosh

Wiley — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:15:04 EDT

What an experieince! A great energy exuded from Senator Kerry yesterday as he got the croud of students and residents of the Oshkosh area fired up for a greatly Democrat senate and four years of Democrat leadership in Washington come November.

All the issues were mentioned in astounding vigour and promise as the croud cheered on Senator Kerry early afternoon on Tuesday. The weather was perfect for a nice walk to to voting booths for an early voting extravagnza. At least a half dozen cameras surrounded Senator Kerry and a few UW Oshkosh Political officials that helped to put on the amazing event.

Upon arriving at the polls faces were aglow with the hopes that a democrat would come to office in Washington after eight long years of republican occupancy. All seemed well in a fleeting moment that was meant to feel like Senator Barack Obama was already president the United States of America.

Let us not loose the faith or the hope that we don't deserve another four years of the same.

It's the Hypocrisy of the Right that Generates Distrust

Chuck — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:15:43 EDT

John McCain does not wear a flag pin, but there are no outcries as there were about Obama, who wears one now. It doesn't matter to me -- flag pin wearing is a silly issue. But this shows the hypocrisy of the right wing. Flag pins mattered when it was Obama, not when it's McCain. Having a rich heiress wife who hasn't released tax returns mattered when it was Kerry, not when it is McCain. Questionable military history is okay to attack when it's Kerry, not when it's McCain. Bill Clinton's marital indiscretions mattered, but McCain's affair does not. Being a strong Christian mattered for Bush over Kerry, but Obama's stronger Christianity than McCain's doesn't matter now. Experience matters when it's Obama, but not when it's Palin. See the pattern? This is why America does not trust the Republican Party anymore.

The Debate Expectations Game And Why We Must Demand Substance This Time…

John A — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:18:58 EDT

Here we go again… Every four years during the Presidential Debate cycle we hear about how the Democratic nominee for President must not falter on any topic but that because expectations are so low for the Republican nominee that all the Republican must do is avoid a major gaffe.

There's more...

SNIDE BROOKS

Giddian from Fairview, NJ — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:55:38 EDT

Dr. Drew Westen, professor of psychology at Emory University, has written, “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation,” (457 pp. PublicAffairs. $26.95) in which he offers explanations for the Democrat’s relatively poor performance in elections.

On Aug. 26, NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote “Stop Making Sense” a derogatory review. In his review Brooks asks several snide questions. Here are those question and my snide answers:

“First, why did someone with so little faith in rational inquiry go into academia . . .?” THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE ELECTORATE IS NOT RATIONAL, IS POORLY INFORMED AND IS RECEPTIVE TO SUPERMARKET-TABLOID-TYPE JOURNALISM DOES NOT DEVALUE RATIONAL INQUIRY.

“Second, the states of upper New England and the Pacific Coast regularly used to vote Republican in presidential elections but now they generally vote Democratic. Did people in those states become less emotional, and therefore more amenable to the Democrats’ rational appeals over the past few decades?” NO, THEY REALIZED HOW MUCH THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS FUCKED UP THE NATION!

“Third, how did John Kerry beat Howard Dean in the Democratic primaries? Was it because of his Oprah-esque displays of emotional intensity?” DEMOCRATS WERE OVERWHELMED, PANICKED ACTUALLY, BY THE REPUBLICAN-STOKED WAR HYSTERIA. THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED A GENUINE WAR HERO WHO HAD, AT THE TIME, SUPPORTED THE INVASION OF IRAQ.

“Fourth, is it possible that substance has something to do with the political fortunes of parties?” NO, IT’S NOT SUBSTANCE THAT’S PROPELLING THE MCCAIN CAMPAIGN. “Could it be that Democrats won in the middle part of the 20th century because they were right about the big issues — the New Deal and the civil rights movement?” ABSOLUTLY! “Is it possible Republicans won in the latter part of the century because they were right about economic growth and the cold war?” NO. CARTER WAS INEFFECTIVE. REGAN COULD SELL SUGAR TO CUBANS, AND REPUBLICANS HAD PERFECTED THE TECHNIQUES THAT WESTEN COMPLAINS ABOUT. “Is it possible Democrats are winning now because they were right about whether to go to war in Iraq?” THEY’RE NOT WINNING LATELY! “And if substantive policies correlate with political fortunes, what does that say about the human mind?” THERE’S LITTLE CORRELATION ONCE CAMPAIGNING BEGINS, NONE AT ALL IN THE PAST EIGHT YEARS.

“Finally, if voter decisions are driven by the sort of crude emotional outbursts Westen recommends, and if . . . “a substantial minority of Americans hold authoritarian, intolerant ideologies driven by fear, hate and prejudice that are fundamentally incompatible with Democratic (and democratic) principles,” then shouldn’t we abandon this whole democracy thing?” NO, WE MUST HOPE THAT ONE DAY REPUBLICANS WILL STOP PANDERING TO THE LEAST INFORMED AND MOST GULLIBLE.

“It’s rare that one comes across a book that raises so many questions.” BUT NOT THE ONES BROOKS ASKS. HE IGNORES THE OBVIOUS. HIS QUESTIONS ARE EXAMPLES OF THE VERY THINGS HE SEEMS TO SAY DO NOT EXIST. “Of course it’s rare that one comes across a book that so avidly flatters the prejudices of its partisan readers.” WHAT NONSENSE! NEW ONES ARE COMING OUT ALL THE TIME, MOSTLY, BUT NOT EXCUSIVELY, BY REPUBLICANS.

“The core problem with Westen’s book is that he doesn’t really make use of what we know about emotion. He builds on the work of Antonio Damasio, without applying Damasio’s conception of how emotion emerges from and contributes to reason.” REALLY?? MOST EVIDENCE INDICATES OTHERWISE.

“In this more sophisticated view, emotions are produced by learning.” RIDICULOUS! IT’S MOSTLY BY BIOLOGICAL IMPERITIVES AND ACQUIRED PREJUDICES!

“ . . . It’s not necessary to dumb things down to appeal to emotions.” BUT, IF YOU DO, YOU GET MORE VOTES! “ . . . “The best way to win votes . . . is to offer people an accurate view of the world and a set of policies that seem likely to produce good results.” THEN, WHY DO REPUBLICANS PEDDLE BULLSHIT A LA CHENEY & ROVE?

CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT AT ALL AS BROOKS IMAGINES. HE REALLY NEEDS TO GIVE UP POP-PSYCHOLOGY.

Treatment of Service in Vietnam--Marker of Party's Decency?

Ken in Squirrel Hill — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:43:03 EDT

Has anyone else noticed the extreme difference between how Democrats are treating John McCain's service in Vietnam, versus how Republicans in 2004 treated John Kerry's service in the same war? Obama and Biden never forget to salute McCain's "heroic service," while Republicans backed the Swift Boat smears and handed out "Purple Heart" bandaids at the Republican convention to ridicule Kerry’s wounds. That disparagement of Kerry’s service was in support of a President and VP who were totally for the Vietnam war as long as they did not actually have to serve there. Talk about putting party ahead of country! Anyone who really cares about honesty and decency in campaigns cannot vote for Republicans without being totally hypocritical.

Talk with your heart...not with your head!

Conrad from Chicago, IL — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 22:53:54 EDT

Barack; you're doing the same thing Kerry did...nothing!!! I've been a lifelong Democrat but the last 3 presidential elections and this current presidential campaign have left me very angry..no very Goddammed angry. How do you expect to convince the country that you can be a forceful leader, a forceful protecter, a forceful president when you let mccain/palin slap you in the face time after time with your continued whimpy, passionless responses? I want a president who, though is capable of restraint, but will not let his restraint allow himself to become a whipping boy. Look, I too am an intellectual. I have 3 undergraduate degrees and one masters but I will not let someone slander me interminably without picking up the gauntlet and slapping the SOB hard across the face. Yes, you do not want to alienate voters who you fear would cringe at such a response but let me tell you they will not. I live in Chicago, which as you know is a town of Democrats but everyone I talk to is, like me, very angry to see their Presidential aspirant being interminably slapped around and want you to start slapping back and slapping back hard. There is so much "truthful" information out there to slap back with its ridiculous to continue with intellectual retorts. Also, stop holding the independent political groups that want to start slapping back and punching when you're punched. I find it outrageous that you have reined them in. Let them do what they will. If I had a 527 under my rein I would not listen to you if you tried to stop me...you couldn't HELL NO! When someone I respect and care about is attacked the SOB that's attacking will regret the day he merely fantasized about his first attack. How can you expect the American people vote you to become president if they can't see you have the balls to attack back when attacked by people for whom diplomacy is a whimpy option. I saw your speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and you inspired me and millions of others because you had the guts, no more than guts, the balls to say what had to be said and I keep waiting for you to show the same courage and passion you showed then. Hell, the whole country is waiting for you to show that same passion and courage!!! Stop letting your head dictate your responses...start using your heart. Come on guy, you've got the balls...start using them, again.
Conrad

60 Days and Counting

Oblogama from San Francisco, CA — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 03:00:07 EDT

I am tired of losing. Though I consider myself an independent, I have voted for a Democratic Presidential Candidate in every single election since 1984 (Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry – pretty slim pickings when you see it in print). Unfortunately, the Obama campaign is heading towards a train wreck unless it initiates a drastic change in its approach. It’s quite possible they will be the biggest losers of all time – and so will we. Here is why:

Mild-Mannered, Nattering Nabobs, Do Not Win Elections: Bill Clinton didn’t win simply because he had a bluntly effective Economy Stupid message – he won because he had aggressive political pit bulls able to get that point across to the Average Joe. The fast evaporating Change message, easily co-opted by the Republicans, and coupled with Robert Gibbs as overly domesticated poodle, does not cut it (there is no doubt that he means well; however, his bland, uninspiring television appearances gives me cause, without pause, to tune out and change the channel to seek out Karl Rove discussing his tactics – I learn more from Rove than I could ever learn from Gibbs). I have yet to see an Obama campaign spokesman who talks like people do in Peoria, let alone rough and tumble Chicago where during cold winter scotch drinking nights, they speak their minds. I cringe every time I see a highly intelligent surrogate miss a highly important moment – it occurred throughout the Republican Convention to the point of embarrassment. Just one instance – though there are many – in a response to Wolf Blitzer, about Senator Lieberman's appearance at the convention, Gibbs said, "You know, Wolf, let me take a big whack at that. I think Joe Lieberman ought to be ashamed of himself. He looked into the camera and he was speaking to the American public about cynicism in politics. And then walks out on the very stage behind me and just makes something up, and lies about Barack Obama. I wish I could say something softer, but that's actually what it was." Something softer? Are you %*&%$^ kidding me? Lieberman took a swing at your buddy and that’s all you got? Have you heard of clout – the thing that the Obama campaign has a little bit of these days? For starters, a kindergartner could have mustered enough rightful indignation to say that Lieberman was a pig who spit on the face of 51 MILLION American voters in 2000. This election needs a memorable, talented James Carvillesque character that can counter the toxic crap that comes out of McCain’s henchmen (Graham, Lieberman, Giuliani, Ridge, Romney, and a greater list than I have time to recite). Who do we have that doesn’t sound like Charlie Brown’s school teacher? As progressive-minded folks, who do we really respect and admire as Obama’s right hand man, the kind of guy who will bury the dead prostitute (Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Richardson)? Who will eviscerate our opponent with a smile on their face? Don’t dare tell me this is a different kind of election and that it is about change – that is nonsense – that is why the only thing that folks remember about Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry is a landslide, a tank helmet, the internet and a swift boat (forgive me President Gore – you more than redeemed yourself in the years that followed);
It’s Gender Stupid: On Saturday, June 7, 2008 the day that Hillary Clinton quit the race, I predicted that McCain would select a woman as his vice-president. Certainly no stroke of genius on my part – just plain old common sense and a little bit of math. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned X 18M/Republican’s have women that vote too X a divided country = let’s try this Hail Mary pass and see what happens (oh, and Palin can help with the base that has never really liked me). Great theater, great idea, great poke in the eye to the progressive movement. Now don’t get me wrong, and don’t dare charge me as sexist – I am not bitter about Hillary’s loss and I know women will not blindly flock to McCain, but I do know a smart political chess move when I see one. Obama needs to do three things: (1) Give as good a speech on Gender as he did on Race (include choice, wages and most importantly, announce a powerhouse woman who will serve in an Obama administration); (2) Find another woman besides Hillary Clinton to shore up your gender credentials – not because she isn’t loyal or willing, but because she won the silver medal, losing by less than 1/100th of a second – that’s like asking the guys who lost to Phelps to help him sell Wheaties; and (3) pray;
The War: You are being swift-boated and I have yet to see anyone from the Obama Campaign make this very clear statement – "You guys have blood on your hands!" It is time to be bold and tough. Those that will take that as fighting words ain’t going to vote for you anyway. If you want to have a subtle segue than say this, "I can understand why you voted for George Bush in 2000 – Compassionate Conservatism had a nice ring to it; Believe it or not, I can even give you a pass on voting for him in 2004, still shaken up by 911 and wanting consistency for our troops; but if you vote for McCain/Bush in 2008, you have blood on your hands!" The fact that Obama gave a speech in 2002 is wearing very, very, very thin. Better go on the offense in a way none of us could ever have imagined. Hell, get one of the generals who lined up to endorse you to make this statement. Obama will have plenty of time to unite the country when he is in office – for now it’s divided and your supporters need to be fired up before some of them head to the nearest Starbucks for a super-dooper, extra latte, after an inspiring speech;
Race: Obama comes from Chicago, long known as the most segregated city in the United States. He knows race in a way that only Chicagoans can really understand. It is painstaking work to transcend the negative perceptions and stereotypes. It takes more time and sweat than anyone can imagine. All too often, it fails. When Harold Washington became Mayor, there was an enormous segment, yes a so-called Democratic segment, that was up in arms. Fact – there is a significant population that will not tolerate the idea of a black man in the White House – I apparently do not live in the same post-racial world as others would have me believe in. Fact – there are just as many folks in urban areas as there are in rural areas that are bigoted and incapable of accepting a positive message over their own ignorant hang-ups. For whoever is the Obama demographic expert, in those areas stick to whatever progressive oases exist and/or where enlightenment can occur. Let your supporters know where those places are. We will come. Hit every single university and community college hard – direct as many Obama campaign workers as possible to get to the campuses and live there for the next 60 days;
Celebrities and Elites: How can the Obama campaign not come up with a simple effective ad to throw it back in the face of the REAL, celebrity-ridden, Republican party. Short and simple – Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono and Fred "Gopher from the Love Boat" Grandy (the last two always mystified me). Then turn it up a notch – the other side skewers Obama as being elitist, but what about their own well-known entourage – Jon Voight, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, and sheesh the damn list is so damn long, but of all the talent in the Obama campaign they can’t seem to shove it back so hard and so fast to make McCain wish he never entered the race. I just don’t get it;
Religion: Let’s just stick with Ohio because it’s significant; the same scenario that exists there exists everywhere else in the United States; and most importantly, Ohio was the 2004 equivalent of Florida in 2000. They won and we wimped out. Two ugly words – Kenneth Blackwell. Three ugly words – His Despicable Cadre. There is an article that I keep close at hand to remind me just how sinister this pandering political mafia can be. In the words of Pastor Rod Parsley, it describes their efforts to create, "the largest evangelical campaign ever attempted in any state in America." His Reformation Ohio movement is about politics, sheer and simple. The conservatives can say that – loud and proud, but the progressives do not have a rallying reply. The closest we ever get is a weak rejoinder – we are pro-choice, so take that bully. In this day and age, that is so meager as to be less than insignificant. I do not deny anyone’s right to practice religion – in fact, I support it wholeheartedly. What I do deny them is to mix it with the state. Obama has a religious constituency (the sane component) – someone get them out there for a sixty day vigil. Choose the place(s), but arm them with the correct platform and let them do their thing;
The Debates: Role play with Hillary Clinton. Really. There is no doubt, despite the drama and the punishing primaries, she made Obama a better candidate. She takes on the persona of McCain and Obama takes his licks in private, learning from the experience instead of on national television. Come up with a top ten list of great one liners that we will remember for generations (e.g., Where’s The Beef, I knew JFK and you’re no JFK, etc). Find out what makes McCain angry and let the viewers experience first-hand what his temperament is truly like. Define the term "maverick" then define the term "lemming" – then define McCain as a guy that wants to throw the United States off of a cliff. Most importantly, attach a small, relatively harmless battery to Biden and zap him when he starts talking too much (in no way do I condone torture, but at the same time, I do not want to be tortured by his inability to get to the point). The list is long. In the end, don’t screw it up. PS My own personal pet peeve – though Obama hasn’t said it for a long time, remove the phrase "carrot and stick" from his lexicon – the world is not our mule;
Only One Color Matters: This election has absolutely nothing to do with the way a state’s hue is flashed ad nauseam on our television screens. The only color that matters are the paths that stretch from New York to Los Angeles, and yes, all the way up to Alaska – they are called blue highways – roads that run through some of the most beautiful, genuine places on earth. They also connect the myriad small, forgotten towns where so many voiceless people live; however every four years they have a chance to be heard – this year they plan to be especially loud. If you believe that the endless array of urban Change signs and trendy bumper stickers are signs that we will win this election than you do not know your country in the way that someone like Bill Clinton knows it. The only winning Democrat since 1992 knows that giving a sincere speech, a damn good, intelligent, caring speech, sometimes on the back of a pickup truck, is the only way to win. The question is whether that has really sunk in this year and whether there is enough time to really let the Obama message be heard by the people that need to hear it – good hard working people, often disparaged as living in "fly over country" by progressive people that just don’t get it. The most important text message that the Obama campaign could send out now is where their supporters, living in large metropolitan areas can go, within an hour or two from their homes, and where a meaningful grassroots effort would have the highest impact. Otherwise, in these isolated patches of America, the only message they will be hearing for summer’s duration is a catchy Raising McCain song that does nothing to improve their lives or this nation.

I am tired of losing – get this damn thing on track!

FOX using the same attacks on Obama they used against Kerry

Curtis — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:29:14 EDT

Did you see Barack Obama go on The O'Reilly Factor last night-right into the belly of the beast? While we didn't want Obama to appear on FOX initially, he wisely chose the same night John McCain delivered his RNC speech (the same night FOX received some of its highest ratings) to make an appearance. Talk about stealing the GOP's thunder!

Obama was no doubt trying to appeal to conservative voters, since 88% of FOX viewers voted Republican in 2004. But FOX won't let their conservative base go without a fight. That's why O'Reilly needled and interrupted Obama, trying to get him to simplify many of his answers-a far cry from the softballs O'Reilly lobbed at many prominent Republicans like Rudy Giuliani in the past. And that's why FOX has been attacking Obama with the same relentless smear tactics that they used against John Kerry four years ago. Watch them use the exact same attacks.

Watch the video and spread it to everyone you know.

Don't let FOX repeat its history of distortions. Send this video to everyone you know! And get a copy to networking sites like Digg as soon as possible. Make sure everyone knows that FOX is always willing to distort, slander, and smear-whatever it takes to advance their conservative agenda.

And for more on how damaging FOX and the corporate media have been, tune into Meet the Bloggers today at 1pm ET/10am PT. Our guest host, punk rock icon Henry Rollins, will be joined by bloggers Jonathan Kim (FOX Attacks!), Liliana Segura (AlterNet.org) and Paul Waldman (Media Matters) to discuss the media's overt bias.

Yours,
Robert Greenwald
and the Brave New team

---
Brave New Films is supported by members like you, please consider making a donation. You can get our latest videos on email, iTunes, RSS, Facebook, and YouTube here.

Kerry: McCain is "Pathetic" and "Desperate"

Mark C. Eades — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:46:00 EDT

Speaking last night at the Democratic National Convention, senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry delivered precisely the kind of blistering attack on John McCain we need to see more of from Democratic leaders. For far too long, leading Democrats have been far too soft on McCain, effusively praising his war record and offering only meek or vague criticism even as McCain and the Republicans have launched a barrage of vicious and dishonest personal attacks on Barack Obama. The time for praising old heroes has passed. It is time now to attack McCain on all fronts and to take the old man down.

Kerry's attack on John McCain last night was exactly what it should have been: direct, explicit, specific, and personal. Describing McCain's campaign tactics as "insulting," "pathetic," and "desperate," Kerry took aim even at McCain's age and experience by saying that when we elect a president we should do so on the basis of "judgment and character, not years in the Senate or years on this earth." McCain's judgment and character - or rather lack thereof - are precisely what Democrats should be taking aim at, as Kerry did relentlessly throughout his speech, refreshingly free of undue praise or softened rhetoric.

Earlier in the day, California senator Barbara Boxer made a few equally strong remarks on McCain's personal temperament, suggesting that McCain's angry outbursts on the Senate floor are evidence of unfitness to serve in such a critical position as that of president. I have long felt that Democrats should be more aggressive in going after McCain's personal character and fitness to serve, particularly given the personal nature of McCain's recent attacks on Obama. McCain's out-of-control temper, his grotesque attempts at humor followed by adolescent giggling at his own stupid jokes, his spotty memory, and his staggering personal dishonesty should all be considered fair game for attack. John McCain has the emotional maturity of a 14-year-old, the mental clarity of an Alzheimer's patient, and few of the characteristics of a competent adult. These facts need to be pointed out to voters, again and again and again.

Meanwhile, as I have suggested, praise for McCain from Democrats needs to stop. If I have to sit and listen to one more Democrat sing loving odes to what a "great American hero" and "maverick" John McCain is, I think I'm going to puke. John McCain does not deserve praise. He deserves relentless attack and defeat.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

To aid Obama, Kerry takes on an old foe

John Cavanaugh — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:19:06 EDT

Website targets new book critical of Illinois senator

By Foon Rhee, Boston Globe Staff | August 14, 2008

Senator John F. Kerry yesterday rejoined the battle with one of his fiercest antagonists from his 2004 presidential bid, launching a website to combat a new book highly critical of Barack Obama, his party's presumptive nominee this year.

The initial target is Jerome Corsi, who wrote "Obama Nation" and also was coauthor in 2004 of "Unfit for Command," which attacked Kerry's Vietnam War record in 2004. But Kerry's website - called "Truth Fights Back" - will also seek to counter assaults on other Democrats this election.

"John Kerry can and will fight for the truth on cable news, but we need all of us to battle against the smears in every way," it says on the website. "By signing up, you'll stay on top of the right-wing smear machine and help us battle it back! This site is designed for activists like you to take back the truth from the Bush/McCain politics of Karl Rove that have come to dominate the GOP. So sign up and join in the fight, and start reporting in some smears!"

The website will be funded by Kerry's political action committee, and could bring more supporters to the senator, who is seeking reelection in Massachusetts.

The site is similar to the Fight the Smears website that the Obama campaign itself launched in June to truth-squad the raft of Internet-fueled rumors about his alleged lack of patriotism and that he is "a secret Muslim." As of yesterday, Obama's site did not directly address Corsi's new book, "Obama Nation."

The New York Times reported yesterday that the book will debut at No. 1 on the Times nonfiction hardcover bestseller list on Sunday, despite challenges to the accuracy of its assertions, among them that Obama is a stealth radical who might have never ceased his youthful experimentation with drugs.

"The goal is to defeat Obama," Corsi told the Times. "I don't want Obama to be in office."

Since his razor-thin loss to President Bush four years ago, Kerry has often said he didn't react quickly and forcefully enough to attacks on him, most notably by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and by Corsi. The attacks helped undermine Kerry's standing as a decorated veteran with substantial foreign policy and national security expertise.

In a message to supporters yesterday, Kerry said, "We know the game, we've learned some things . . ."

"You can't just play defense against smears, pointing out how they aren't true," the message continued. "You've got to play offense, too, exposing the whole cynical game for what it is: an attempt to keep us from talking about the real issues and ultimately changing our country for the better. The Republicans have nothing to run on, no ideas to push, no solutions for America. They'll run a campaign of laughable gimmicks and outright distortions and lies. But we can fight back with the truth - and the truth can win this time. Let's do it."

Thanks John

Gary Bryant — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:41:16 EDT

Concerning John Kerry cheating on his wife when his wife was undergoing cancer treatment:

I guess you don't have to be a Kennedy to be an embarrasment.

It's still three months to the election. After things like this, it is becoming the longest three months you could imagine.

There is too much time left and too many things like this can happen.

Are the Democrats going to foolishly self-destruct again?

Calling Out the Boss: Glory Days

Henry M — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:45:32 EDT

Big Boss Man, can you hear me when I call?
You ain't so big, you just talk, that's just about all!

Thank you, Bruce, for endorsing Obama in the middle of your web page, some place below your tribute to Tim Russert, merchandise offers, and your speech on being inducted into the New Jersey Hall of Fame, and above a lot more merchandise and videos.

That was three months ago, in May.

Not exactly an exclusive in Time magazine, Bruce.

33 concerts for Kerry! Could you make time for a couple for Obama? (I'd like to think that you're just waiting until after the convention (for some reason) and will do a concert for Obama a week after that.)

Sure, you could lose millions, but I bet that I've donated a higher percentage of my income to Obama's campaign than you have, that I've donated a much higher percentage of my time to supporting the campaign than you, and that I'm putting more of my "career" on the line by supporting Obama here in political Washington, DC, than you possibly could in your ivory castle on the beach in Jersey.

Bruce, you're not the only celebrity who is not doing enough, whose endorsement of Obama is too faint. I'm calling you out because you've made a point of, in addition to praising it, telling some of the sad truth about our great country; you've been around for a while, you're a hero to a lot of people, and you're still "The Boss."

Nows the time. How about a song before it's too late!

Thanks!

Henry M

Low Road Campaign: McCain's Howard Dean Scream

Obamanizer — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 15:08:56 EDT

In the light that John McCain is apparently not able to lift his arms over his shoulders due to the tortures as a POW, would it still be fair game to use the footage of him circling crazily with his arm when he was addressing the biker crowd in Sturgis, SD?

Have a look here

Just imagine that in context the GOP ran the flip-flop windsurfing add against John Kerry:

"John McCain takes money from oil companies and they're getting their money's worth back in return"

or:

"How would John McCain describe the direction he wants to take the country?"

But in the end I don't think that democrats would appreciate this kind of cheap tricks - I hope...

Reading. Watching. Thinking about equality, education, and Britney?

Monica — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:08:04 EDT

Since my last post our man Obama has returned home to ads comparing him to Britney and "she who shall not be named".

Really. Is that the best they can come up with?

Granted, it was painful to watch McCain grocery shop, hold hands with the Dalai Lama and hang out with the common folk in front of a fudge shop. I hear he's even started looking into the internet.

I respected him in 2000. Now he's had a taste of the W. kool-aid, and methinks he likes it.

Who's been guiding Mr. McCain's ad campaign? Can you say swift vote? In 2004, McCain called these tactics dishonest, and defended Kerry. Hmmm. Wonder what's changed?

On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30wed1.html?hp

http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/obama-britney-paris-the-low-road-express-goes-lower/

Read on for more about McCain's record on women's equality. Also, an editorial that addresses education.

Nanotechnology Initative Amendments Act of 2008

Patocka — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:34:36 EDT

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6454.php

For those of you who don't follow Nanotechnology and Public Policy, there is an important piece of legislation that has been introduced by Senators Snowe and Kerry regarding National Nanotechnology Initiative funding priorities. The bill in question - the Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008, sets some new targets and research objectives within the existing framework of the NNI. Namely, this is legislation that will help shape the NNI to help focus research to addresses public safety, worker safety, and toxicology guidelines.

Needless to say, this is very important.

Please take some time to let your respective elected officials and respective spheres of influence know your support of this important legislation, as the number of studies being published about nanotoxicology are growing, and the pressures of commercializing nanoparticles continues to grow. Like any bill, its not perfect. However, the key to not slowing research is ensuring we are doing our due diligence to ensure safety. An uneducated public and the potential for a knee-jerk backlash to nanoscience research is something we need to avoid. This bill is certainly a step in the right direction.

Thanks for all that you do.

In science,

Patocka

Swiftboating McCain? Democrats, Demagogues, and Democracy

Henry M — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:16:09 EDT

When Republicans pundits piled-on to dishonor John Kerry's three Purple Hearts, there never was any circumspection, any appearance of regret, and certainly never were any apologies for demeaning by associatoin all recipients of the Purple heart, in particular, and veterans in general. And there was little mention of Kerry also receiving Bronze and Silver Stars!

Kerry's heroism was on record, but was not constantly used by his presidential campaign as a qualification for the office or as a sheild from criticism.

How can Fox News, which broadcast news from the Republican funded "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth" without question, while giving giving very little voice to the men who served with Kerry and supported him, editorialize on the side of giving all military veteran presidential candidates an uncritical free pass to the White House!

Here's a quote from Fox News:

Obama himself said “no one should ever devalue” military service, including McCain’s, “especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.”
McCain, who was captured by North Vietnamese soldiers after his plane was shot down in 1968, called the comments “unnecessary.”
On Tuesday, McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Clark’s words don’t amount to an apology, and Obama’s campaign aides “are either encouraging or tolerating his attacks.”
“The Obama campaign even said they were ‘glad’ that Gen. Clark ‘clarified’ a comment they supposedly repudiated. If this kind of wink-and-nod game is how Barack Obama wants to run his campaign, then fine. But spare us the empty talk of ‘new politics’ and raising the dialogue in this country. We just wonder: Will Barack Obama’s actions ever match his words?” Rogers said, according to a statement.
McCain’s campaign announced Monday night it was rolling out a “Truth Squad”

McCain called Clark's comments "unnecessary," but it was his aides, aides with no particular military experience, who made the arguments for disallowing any questioning of McCain's qualifications, which if you discount his military carreer, are: Congressman and Senator. Yep, that's it. His military experience ended 27 years ago, and was in no way in a command role, or of the strategic nature that would be of some use as president. This is the main reason why the McCampain is blowing up Clarks comments, the other being that they believe that they can dupe uncommitted voters in general, and vets in particular, into voting, if not for McSame, then against Obama.

"Truth Squad?" Sound familiar, like the puppet group set up for the the swift-boating of John Kerry?

Shame on America's most-watched news outlet! Please don't let the McCampaign's mouthpiece, Fox News, have it's way with the American public. Let them know that you can read! Write comments to their article(s): http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/01/clark-seeks-to-clarify-critical-remarks-of-mccains-military-service/ and call them up if you listen to them or watch them.

Thanks!

Henry M

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gddt

From John Kerry: Take the Fight to the GOP!

Henry M — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:34:27 EDT

The cynics can't wait for November because they think they can tell you the old rules still apply -- that no matter what Barack Obama says, no matter what Howard Dean fights for with his 50 state strategy, there really are red states where Democrats can't win.

Show the cynics they're dead wrong and turn these red states blue by electing Democratic Senators.

These are once in a lifetime races - incredible Democratic candidates in red states where voters are ready to punish the Roadblock Republicans for record gas prices, our planet in peril, our foreign policy in shambles, government corruption, corporate abuse and an economy that's unfair.

Elect these candidates and we get to 60 Democrats in the Senate -- and bury the politics of Bush, Cheney, Rove, and McCain and make a fresh start for our country.

So let's expand the map and play offense. It's time we go deep into Republican territory and aim for some Senate seats in states that Washington purveyors of conventional wisdom thought we wouldn't contest.

Follow this link to take the fight to them:

http://www.actblue.com/page/expandthemap

You know who I want to take on? The chief of the Roadblock Republicans himself, the Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in red-state Kentucky. Bruce Lunsford, a veteran of the Army Reserves, is running a strong race for universal access to affordable health care and a new course in Iraq, two of the many things Mitch McConnell has been instrumental in blocking progress on as Minority Leader. Defeating Senator McConnell would send the strongest message possible that we are done with the Republican policies and want a new direction.

Even deeper in the South in North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole has a big battle on her hands from Democrat Kay Hagan. Kay Hagan, a State Senator in North Carolina, was part of the effort to push North Carolina into a leadership role on using renewable energy sources, and she would fight to restore some fiscal sanity to Washington. With an energized Democratic Party in North Carolina, we can turn this seat and maybe even win this state for Barack Obama.

Colorado was a state that just a few years ago, everyone thought was turning red, but we have a chance, with Mark Udall, to turn it blue and set up a Mountain West base for the Democratic Party. Mark's been a great environmentalist in the House, and I know we can count on him as Senator to help us tackle the incredibly difficult challenge of energy and climate change.

And, in a state where no one thought a Democratic victory was possible, there's real hope for the candidacy of Scott Kleeb in Nebraska. Scott's a fourth-generation Nebraskan who nearly won an election in 2006 in one of the most conservative districts in the country, and he ran as a proud progressive. He's running against a Bush Administration Cabinet Member, trying to help stamp out Bush Republicanism in the heartland.

We can win these races and profoundly change the political course of our country, but only if you help. To win in these red areas, we need help from across the country. We need to work twice as hard to win here, but we can do it.

So please do what you can to help:

http://www.actblue.com/page/expandthemap

Let's keep on working to changing our country.

Thanks,
John Kerry

Like the man said, Take the Fight to the GOP!

Henry M

Get Ready. Something Wicked This Way Comes . . .

Deborah Simmel — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:46:01 EDT

Well folks, you knew it was coming. Joe Conason of RealClearPolitics.com reports on two books due out in August, ready to stoke the fires of fear, from some of the same people who managed to swiftboat Kerry with "Unfit for Command."

Better to know what we're up against, and be prepared. Be very prepared.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/inventing_a_countryclub_muslim.html

Kerry or Dodd as Sec State? but what about Biden or Richardson?

Taube — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:20:35 EDT

Senators Biden, Dodd, and Kerry are the top three Democrats in seniority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The June 23 issue of Newsweek makes clear the ambitions of all three to be Secretary of State in an Obama administration, although Biden and Dodd do not rule out the VP nomination like Kerry does. You can read the article 'A Bid for an Obama Cabinet' at http://www.newsweek.com/id/141512.

What a wealth of talent! And, why not Bill Richardson, whose hands-on diplomacy as UN ambassador plus gubernatorial and cabinet management experience makes him the first choice of many of us?

Obama "Better with Working Class" Than Gore & Kerry

Deborah Simmel — Thu, 29 May 2008 14:59:15 EDT

Don't let the pundits get you down. Mark Mellman, in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, reports today that Obama is doing better with the "working class" electorate than either Al Gore or John Kerry was at this same point in those elections.

Read this, and take it to the superdelegates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/opinion/29mellman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Abolish All Marriage - Gay or Straight

Ali A. Rizvi — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:31:36 EDT

On June 14 this year, California will become the second state after Massachusetts to start issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples. The state's Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage last week, reigniting the same old nationwide debate (distraction?) that (not so) mysteriously surfaces every election year and arguably cost John Kerry the 2004 presidency, which came down to Ohio's electors and a little over 3 million votes. This year, though, the differences between the candidates aren't as stark as those between Kerry and Bush in 2004, and the issue may not have the impact it did then.

Nonetheless, the position supporting all-out, across-the-board abolition of marriage, once thought to be extreme, is beginning to gain momentum, and seems like a pretty reasonable compromise.

It states that the government should stop recognizing marriage in any form and acknowledge civil unions only, leaving marriage to churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious authorities.

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?

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]

concerning Network Neutrality - my letter to John Kerry

elfpix — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:13:38 EDT

Here is a letter I wrote and posted on the "Save the Internet" blog and on the Huffington Post. Senator Kerry is seeking feedback on the importance of keeping the internet free of gateway fees which the large ISPs want to defray the cost of creating and maintaining the internet infrastructure.

As we shift from communication by paper to communication electronically a panoply of problems emerge, all of them devolving into questions of how to pay for the medium. Some problems center around getting the medium up to good mechanical quality and distribution. Others center around getting the medium accessible to all whether physically disabled, lacking in funds, or inadequately technologically or educationally prepared.

So the transition has a mechanical component, a cost-of-access component and an educational component.

Sadly, the traditional way to fund the solutions to those cost-of-access and mechanical components is burdened by a growing unwillingness of the better off public to pay for things that benefit the wider society. Clearly funding the infrastructure through the tax code would benefit the widest number of people.

Instead, the system has been invaded by gatekeepers, like Comcast and Verizon where I live, and polluted with pervasive advertising.

Indeed, the presence of these elements has a deeply negative impact on all our public communication whether it be internet, radio, television, or print. Turning to any vested interest for funding cannot but color the invested result.

So we encourage our government to come to grips in a populist way with the cost of this transition, not only the transition but also the result.

Using the basic principal of freedom of speech to keep access as wide and unfettered as imaginable seems to be a possible tack - especially aided by the fact that the internet is still interactive so the freedom has to run both ways i.e. from the gatekeepers and towards them. Just as we must permit them to splat ugly advertising all over the public airwaves, they must be required to permit us to use the airwaves to express our perspectives.

But providing for equal access when there is such an imbalance in the funding, and when economies of scale make it cost effective for a single company to manage the hardware and distribution networks, will require a carefully crafted set of legal guidelines.

For that reason the principal of Network Neutrality has come into existence.

We are all aware of the unfortunate impact money has on the welfare of the wider public. The New York Times, just today, released a massive study of its effect on the ethical spirits of a group of high ranking military officials - an effect with massive reverberations throughout our society and the world-wide economic system, not to mention on the Middle East. The prospect of becoming rich has led us to wager our entire culture on an energy source of limited quantity. Unless we can pry ourselves free of its clarion call, greed will motivate us to restrict basic resources like water and food to those who can pay. Already it has permitted us to pretend that we deserve to exploit the earth for our amusement without restraint or consideration of others for 35 years now.

Network Neutrality pales before these larger issues, but every step taken to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of the few accumulates and drives our society further away from the philosophy and practice of its originators.

So I write about this small step towards unrestricted equality of information access.

I hope my thoughts are of assistance to you as you prosecute this effort. Every effort to bring the influence of greed, power and disrespect under control can benefit our country.

The Democrats’ Wimp Factor

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:42:40 EDT

Democrats’ Wimp Factor

As Obama's patriotism is questioned, he's starting to look more and more like John Kerry in '04.

Michael Hirsh

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Updated: 4:00 PM ET Apr 17, 2008

The specter of John Kerry in 2004 is beginning to haunt the Democrats in 2008. It is the specter of wimpy campaigns past. It showed up, like Banquo's ghost, at the debate Wednesday night in Philadelphia, particularly when Hillary Clinton joined with ABC's George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson to nip away at the edges of Barack Obama's patriotism. Between the questions about Obama's meager association with William Ayers, a former Weatherman, and the suspicions raised by his lack of a flag lapel pin, the likely nominee is slowly being turned into John Kerry. He is becoming, in other words, a candidate who may be mostly right about national security but who will lack the Red State street cred to carry his point—and the election.

Once again timorous Democratic advisers behind the scenes are hoping they can run mainly on the ailing economy. While their candidates are urging an end to George W. Bush's war in Iraq, they are terrified of questioning the larger premises of his "war on terror" or John McCain's redefinition of it as the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century." Today's Dems are, in other words, proving unequal to the task of reclaiming the party's mostly honorable heritage on national security. This view is sadly out of touch, today more than ever. To little notice, Obama's tough, clearly stated position on Bush's war—that it was disastrously misdirected toward Iraq when Afghanistan was always the real front—is becoming conventional wisdom, even among the Bush administration's top security officials, like Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. During two days of nearly impenetrable testimony on Iraq by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker last week, one answer rang out as clearly as an alarm bell. Under questioning from Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Crocker admitted that Al Qaeda poses a greater threat in Afghanistan and Pakistan than it does in Iraq. No one knows more about this than the ambassador, an Arabic-speaking diplomat who previously served as envoy to Pakistan and whose career practically tells the story of America and the age of terror going back to the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut.

Yet the region that poses America's number one threat is getting little in attention and resources compared to Iraq. What Obama is arguing on the stump is pretty close to what Gates and the Joint Chiefs have been quietly hearing from their military advisers: that the best the United States can do with its scant NATO force of 37,000 in Afghanistan is to hold off the resurgent Taliban and their Al Qaeda guests in a stalemate. Under current conditions Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the chief culprits of 9/11, will continue to have plenty of room to roam, unharried by any large-scale U.S. or Pakistani effort to go after them. This is even truer today; next door to Afghanistan, Pakistan is transitioning into a post-Musharraf era and seeking to negotiate more with the extremists. Obama called last year for two additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan, and last week he was joined by Biden, who told an audience at Georgetown University that "the longer we stay in Iraq, the more we put off the day when we fully join the fight against the real Al Qaeda threat and finally defeat those who attacked America seven years ago." Biden added that Gen. Dan McNeil, commander of the international force in Afghanistan, told him during a visit in February "that with two extra combat brigades—about 10,000 soldiers—he could turn around the security situation in the south, where the Taliban is on move. But he can't get them because of Iraq." Even Hillary Clinton has been tacking, very quietly, in Obama's direction.

No one, in other words, has a better case to make on national security right now than Barack Obama. John McCain is still out there contending that Iraq is the central battlefront and quoting Osama bin Laden favorably to justify his argument (not to mention mixing up Shiites and Sunnis). Under normal conditions this position might saddle McCain with a real "vulnerability"—to use a term the Dems like to employ about themselves—but it doesn't seem to hurt him much now. The Democrats are too afraid of his all-American "story," as Hillary put it. John Kerry, a winner of the Silver Star in Vietnam, spent most of his 2004 campaign defending himself against vague suggestions of treason based on his antiwar testimony in 1971, when as a young officer returning from Vietnam he asked, penetratingly and relevantly for today, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Obama is being placed on the defensive on flimsy grounds as well, and there he's likely to stay, rendered permanently suspicious by association thanks to questions about Ayers and the "anti-American" statements of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. As Clinton said helpfully during the debate, "It goes to this larger set of concerns about how we are going to run against John McCain." She's right, but her fears are self-fulfilling. The more damage she does to Obama, the harder it will be for him to take the offensive against a bona fide patriot and war hero like McCain. Safer just to talk about the economy and health care.

Insecurity over national security has been eating at the Democrats ever since Vietnam destroyed the party's proud self-image, which was forged by FDR, Truman and JFK in World War II and the early years of cold war containment (both Democratic success stories). Obama, by most accounts, is confident of his ability to reclaim this grand tradition. "Of all people I've dealt with on foreign policy issues, this guy takes to it like a duck to water," one of his top advisers, Greg Craig, a former State Department policy planning chief, told me recently. But the party's peculiar pathology could yet drag Obama down. He's getting Kerryized. At a time when he should be taking on John McCain, he's being forced to talk about lapel pins.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/132566

"Liar, Liar Pants on Fire"

Jim — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:30:57 EDT

Okay maybe liar is not a politically correct term to use on Ms Clinton, perhaps it's dementia, as her husband claims, denial or self-deception that fosters the revisionist history we're hearing from this candidate.

In the last couple days haven't we heard Clinton say that the reason why Gore and Kerry loss their Presidential elections was because they were "elitist!" "Elitism" issues pale in comparison to the Clintons, Monica and all the other scandals in which Hillary and her husband were involved.

The Democratic Party lost how many seats in Congress as a direct result of Monica Gate and Mr. Gore did not have an incumbent President without baggage to help campaign. Kerry certainly also was hurt by the Clinton Legacy according to most sources. Judging from the job Bill is doing for Hillary perhaps both Vice President Gore and Senator Kerry were correct in not enlisting his aid. Oh, by the way, did Gore really loose the election, it seems there's a good case for saying it was stolen.

So maybe a little more attention should be paid to a more "objective reality" concerning why the past two Democratic Candidates lost the election. Why the Democrats don't have a majority in Congress? Also taking an honest look at the baggage Ms Clinton brings with her, baggage that has hurt the Democrats badly and continues to do so as currently manifested in Clinton's derisive campaign rhetoric. Clinton looses any real discussion of electability. Ask most Republicans who they want to run against.

As far as "Elitism" Mr and Mrs Clinton don't exactly project a history of state schools, modest income and populist behavior. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton hasn't been spending a lot of time on humanitarian pursuits. Seems like he made a lot of money instead. Is Ms Clinton is projecting her own condescending posture on to others as she pretends to be a beer drinking duck hunter?

Donate to elect Veterans to Congress through Kerry and ActBlue

Taube — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:13:00 EDT

Tell the DCCC that you support electing Veterans to Congress by donating through ActBlue.com instead of the DCCC. If you are troubled by the sense that the DCCC is hostage to big money donors, and, like me, uncomfortable with MoveOn.org, Senator John Kerry is asking for donations to build the Democratic majority in Congress by supporting Veterans for Congress through donations at:

http://www.actblue.com/page/strongermajority

John Kerry wrote this to me:

We need to grow our majority in the Congress to bring real change to our country. There's nothing our johnkerry.com community has done these last four years that I'm more proud of than our work to elect veterans -- "Fighting Democrats" -- to Congress.
In races the cynics said we couldn't win, you gave early and often to elect some special candidates who shook up Washington and reminded Karl Rove and his Republican allies that patriotism doesn't have a political label, and the flag of the United States doesn't belong to a Party, it belongs to the American people.
And these vets have reminded the political class what patriotism really is: just a couple weeks ago, for instance, the House of Representatives stood up to George Bush on his illegal wiretapping scheme and refused to budge in the face of fear-mongering attacks from the right.
And some of the veterans you helped elect (people like Patrick Murphy and Tim Walz) were right in the middle of it, reminding America that there's a way to safeguard our security without shedding our values.
But we're not done yet. We need more Democrats in Congress to finally achieve a true working majority, and we need more Democratic veterans to help chart a new national security course and help us end the disastrous Bush/McCain Iraq policy.

So please do what you can to help some great Democrats -- and veterans of our armed services -- win in November:
We have some great new candidates running to take over Republican seats:
In New York, Tom Reynolds just retired, spooked by my friend and young Iraq war veteran Jon Powers. Capt. Powers saw the devastation of the Iraq War up close and personal when he served in Baghdad and decided to do something about it. As soon as he got back home, he started a charitable organization to help Iraqi children. Jon and I have been friends for three years now; I believe that if we seize this moment and send him to Congress he will be a real leader for our Party and country for decades to come.
And in California, we have the Deputy Commander of all Joint Special Forces Operations in Iraq running to replace arch-conservative Duncan Hunter. Mike Lumpkin has served 8 operational tours as a Navy SEAL, so he knows the realities of 21st century conflicts intimately. He knows we need to change course in the Middle East and knows a strong nation depends on good jobs and an economy that works for working people.
We also have two incumbents you all helped elect in 2006 we need to help. They've been targeted by Republicans for their courage in standing up for us, and we need to have their backs:
Patrick Murphy was the first Iraq war veteran elected to Congress, and he's been a great ally in the drive to keep our promises to those who wear the uniform of our country. He's worked tirelessly to end the Bush policy in Iraq. Patrick has been one of the best fresh young Democrats in Congress; and that's exactly why he earned a place on the list of top GOP targets this fall.
Minnesota's Tim Walz stood with Patrick and other Democrats a couple of weeks ago and refused to let the White House scare the Congress about illegal wiretapping and domestic spying. Tim stood up for the Constitution and stared down the fear-mongering ads the rightwing threw at him. But by doing so, he made himself a target for the right, and we need to stand up for gutsy public servants like Tim when they stand up for us.
So please do what you can to help these great Democrats hold and expand our Democratic majority in the fall: I firmly believe we'll have a new Democratic President next year, and that President will need a strong Democratic Congress to deliver the kind of change our country needs. In the last election, we fought off the worst of the Republican policies, and now it's time to get our country moving forward.
Thanks so much for your help,
John Kerry
This email was sent by:         John Kerry for Senate 129 Portland St., Ste. 500 Boston, MA, 02114, USA

Implosion?

Concerned Citizen, Iraq War Veteran, Equal Shareholder in the American Dream — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:19:14 EDT

Is it possible....? Could it be that the Clinton Camp has started a Democrat Party implosion by the swiftboat tactics they have reintroduced into the running for the White House?

John Kerry a non-war hero?

Barack Obama a non-white, even anti-white man?

As we imagine the scene unfolding, can anyone else picture the possibility now of John McCain simply stepping over the rubble that the Clintons have created and on into the Oval Office for the next for years?

Will the Clinton legacy go from just a case of poor judgment on behalf of the former President to the couple who will go down in history having handed the nation back to the Republican Party and a candidate for the highest office in the land that may just keep us right where we are...? ...marking the continuing of the end?

A GOP ace in the hole?

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:45:44 EDT

Article published Jan 24, 2008
A GOP ace in the hole?

January 24, 2008

By Mark Goodman - Beyond the melodrama of Sen. Hillary Clinton's tears-on-her-pillow triumph in New Hampshire and her gaming victory in Nevada lies the profoundly disturbing question of the Clintons' hidden record of suspected crimes.

It's that very record which likely prompted Sen. John Kerry's sudden endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama just two days after Mrs. Clinton's first primary win, followed by two more supportive votes from ranking congressional Democrats.

Their swift response was a clear sign that ranking Democratic colleagues are determined to derail Mrs. Clinton. Why? Because there exists a vault of information American voters are not aware of concerning the Clintons — information which should have been brought to the nation's attention well before the kickoff of the 2008 presidential campaign.

The bedeviling problem is that party leaders on both sides of the congressional aisle conspired two years ago to bury the telltale documents. I'm referring to the 120 missing pages of the Barrett Report which, by all accounts from Washington insiders, former press secretary Tony Snow among them, contain sufficient evidence of Clinton misdeeds not only to furl Mrs. Clinton's presidential flag but quite possibly to send her and her miscreant husband straight to the courtroom dock. Yet the papers have lain moldering in some deep Capitol Hill tomb with no one daring to dig them up though they can be exhumed on demand by any member of Congress.

How could this happen? Let's go back to January 2006, when the 684-page report was finally released absent the incriminating pages. David Barrett, a Washington lawyer, had been appointed by the D.C. Court of Appeals to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of Henry Cisneros, President Clinton's Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Mr. Barrett then spent nine frustrating years watching his inquiry blocked at every turn by the IRS, the Justice Department and Clinton attorneys.

Ironically, the detours led him into a thicket of apparent Clinton crimes and misdemeanors largely revolving around the misuse of the IRS and Justice Department to punish their enemies — abuses that apparently persisted even after Bill Clinton's term of office ended in 2000. Before Mr. Barrett could release the report, three Democrats, Mr. Kerry, Sen. Dick Durbin and Sen. Byron Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, managed to redact the potentially damaging pages by attaching a rider to an unrelated appropriations bill. Furious, Mr. Barrett issued a statement saying, "An accurate title for the report would be, 'What We Were Prevented from Investigating.' "

What indeed. The papers must have been devastating. Why grasp at the desperate straw of redaction? Still, the Democrats had to realize they were merely buying time. Suppressed evidence cannot remain suppressed forever and the Republicans are well aware of the wild card they have in the hole. Odds are that's why no Republican congressman has as yet unearthed the missing pages: The Republicans are banking on Mrs. Clinton, the scenario goes, to win the Democratic nomination so they can bake her in Mr. Barrett's oven in the election campaign.

If there is any doubt about Democratic fears, witness the timing of Mr. Kerry's lightning sweep into South Carolina to trumpet his support for Mr. Obama. It's fair to conclude from this that Mr. Kerry, the party's premier spokesman as well as the principal sponsor of the redaction rider, threw his weight behind Mr. Obama at this pivotal moment because he knows, better than anyone else, where the lethal poppy fields lie along Mrs. Clinton's winding yellow-brick road.

On cue, California's Rep. George Miller, a 33-year Democratic veteran of the House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's devoted confidante, quickly echoed Mr. Kerry's support for Mr. Obama. Next, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, a 33-year veteran of the Senate, rang in with his Obama endorsement. So, the picture sharpens into focus: The Democratic establishment, which considered it too risky to put its chips on Mr. Obama in 2006, plainly reckons that it need not — indeed dare not — gamble any further on Mrs. Clinton in 2008.

The Clintons do not suffer rejection gladly. The collective rebuke Mrs. Clinton sustained surely explains why, as Mr. Clinton ratcheted up his Obama-bashing in South Carolina on Monday, she followed in the evening's debate by cross-examining her worthy national rival as if he were an unworthy county defendant. It seemed poor local politics to beat up in open forum on a black opponent in a state filled with black Democrats; backroom bets say she was letting her colleagues know, before a television audience, that their preferred candidate was in for a nasty 15 rounds.

The long view is that Mrs. Clinton and her loose-cannon regent have slid by far too long on foul play aided by diminished expectations (they're supposed to be ruthless). Now they're pointed on a collision course with political disaster. It's therefore time for Mr. Kerry and his Democratic colleagues to redress their misbegotten rescue of two years ago by opening up the concealed evidence on the Clintons for inspection by American voters.

Mark Goodman is a veteran journalist and author of the novel "Hurrah for the Next Man Who Dies."

REGARDING MY PREVIOUS BLOG, "race and religion: pattern of clinton accidents or campaign ploys?"

jonathan | cvg — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:26:10 EDT

REGARDING MY PREVIOUS BLOG, "race and religion: pattern of clinton accidents or campaign ploys?"

MY PREVIOUS BLOG LINK

allow me to elaborate that i am fully aware of the honorary role wright was reported to having served with a spiritual african-american committee associated with the campaign. i've known of this since the last debates. but, allow me to reiterate my distinction between a supporter who serves on a committee associated with a campaign versus:

the candidate, hillary clinton, who apologized for her comments following losses on super tuesday (clinton blamed proud black communities that voted for barack. she entirely dismissed the educated voters and youth support obama also turned out in record numbers)

former president bill clinton, husband and advisor, for whom hillary has also apologized

geraldine ferraro, lead advisor-fundraiser-member of finance committee, for whom hillary has also apologized... but did not repudiate the remarks until after ferraro resigned days later and after having appeared on virtually every major network defending her commentary

perhaps that distinction is better defined since i "glazed" over the known fact that wright served an honorary role on a committee associated with the campaign. what i said clearly distinguishes that he was neither a staff member or lead advisor such as ferraro or samantha power. let us remain cognizant that a stark difference exists when compared to the candidate, lead advisor, or staff member.

TONIGHT'S NEWS:

from msnbc:

"Obama’s campaign announced that the minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., had left its spiritual advisory committee after videotapes of his sermons again ignited fierce debate in news accounts and political blogs."

"African American Religious Leadership Committee, a loose group of supporters associated with the campaign"

OBAMA SAID IN HIS INTERVIEW:

“I strongly condemn” Wright’s statements, but “I would not repudiate the man,” Obama said. “He’s been preaching for 30 years. He’s a man who was a former Marine, a biblical scholar, someone who’s spoken at theological schools all over the country.

“That’s the man I know,” Obama said. “That’s the man who was the pastor of this church.”

But Obama acknowledged that “there’s no doubt this is going to be used as political fodder, as it has been in the past.”

“What I hope is [that] what the American people will trust is what I believe,” he said, that “my values, my ideas, what I’ve spoke about in terms of bringing the country together will override a guilt by association.”

~ j

race and religion: pattern of clinton accidents or campaign ploys?

jonathan | cvg — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:29:09 EDT

what does retired minister wright from obama's church have to do with obama's qualifications? could this be another pathetic attempt by clinton surrogates to tarnish obama's superior record of leadership? was today's release of another sermon simply to deflect from an undeniable pattern of remarks made directly by hillary clinton, directly by bill clinton, and directly by campaign speakers/staff such as geraldine ferraro?

obama has publicly rejected any decisive sentiments that might be spoken from his former minister or any other person speaking decisively against clinton or any group in a roundabout way of supporting obama. obama's true message is about inviting, welcoming, and uniting diverse backgrounds... among his most famous quotes is the one he ends: "this is the united states of america."

obama has publicly described his former minister as “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that i don't agree with.” i can see no logic in faulting obama for his retired minister's words. because obama's position is consistent and because obama previously addressed his former minister as noted above, the equivalent would be someone holding the words of my republican, baptist father against me. my father's words no more reflect my progressive, inclusive paradigm as wright's words reflect senator barack obama's paradigm.

the commentary by geraldine ferraro is relevant, not because race should be, but because the event is in no way isolated and ferraro played an official lead advisory role with "team clinton." incidentally, ferraro resigned wednesday. before her resignation, however, geraldine ferraro invoked racial division against senator barack obama multiple times in the past week. she also made similar comments regarding reverend jesse jackson. in an april 15, 1988 article, the washington post quoted ferraro saying "if jesse jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

in addition to a pattern deriving from ferraro, there is a growing, no-longer-undeniable pattern deriving from key players in "team clinton." top supporters aiding in campaign efforts, former president bill clinton, and senator clinton, herself, misspoke along racial/religious lines leading to national divide. one might speculate whether this pattern of racial/religious divide is a repeated clinton accident or campaign ploy? after all, had obama not rallied record turnouts in the black community, consolidating the white vote under one candidate would have lead to more victories for clinton.

let's not forget this is more than just racial divide. i have not forgotten former nebraska senator bob kerrey, a major clinton backer, who asserted that an obama presidency may improve the world's image of our country because of obama's "muslim roots." similarly, i do not dismiss senator clinton's noncommital denouncement of muslim rumors as recently as two nights before the ohio and texas primaries. in her appearance on 60 minutes, when asked about obama being muslim, senator clinton responded, "there's nothing to base that on... at least not that i know." the exit polls in ohio showed that obama lost protestant and catholic votes which, as we all know, encompasses the majority of religious denominations in ohio.

ironically, the retired minister who the press and clinton supporters continually use against obama formerly worked at a church of christ, a christian denomination where obama and his family have attended for more than two decades. the implied "muslim roots" are relatives on obama's deceased father's side which obama never met until a visit to his father's grave before harvard law school. barack obama is christian and he has never been muslim or attended a muslim school.

from cnn:

"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive," Senator Obama told the Allentown Morning Call.

"I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And, I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign, they shouldn't have a place in Senator Clinton's, either," he added.

Earlier, Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, called for Clinton to sever ties with the former New York congresswoman, who serves on her campaign's finance committee.

"When you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said.

from msnbc:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBXD2zizIY

keith olbermann is spot on with his assessment of hillary clinton's insensitive, questionable management or lack there of. you must watch this honest, well-articulated perspective on the past week's activities by senator clinton and her tepid response. clinton failed to publicly denounce or reject geraldine ferraro until after she received a resignation on wednesday. yet, when samantha power dubbed clinton a "monster" off the record and apologized, senator clinton gave one of her typical hollywood attack speeches calling for samantha power to resign because her "monster" characterization was inconsistent with OBAMA FOR AMERICA messaging. samanatha power did, in fact, apologize and, within hours, resign. instead of apologizing, ferraro defended herself on virtually every major newtork and waited more than 48 hours to resign.

anyone believing that comparing obama’s former minister who is NOT WORKING ON obama’s campaign staff or as a lead advisor AND something said directly by hillary, bill, geraldine, or any other campaign speaker/staff/advisor... well, that anyone is not only making illogical, misleading comparisons... but such a person should look in the mirror. such a person should delve inward and question the ethics or true motivations behind such comparisons/rebuttals.

while it is your choice to be a "stubbornly uneducated" american, as bill maher so wisely coined, in this age of information and resources to verify information, you should be ashamed and embarrassed to spew:
factually inaccurate...
blatantly false...
speculative and debunked...
as well as unresearched propaganda aimed at misleading impressionable minds, perhaps like your own, for benefit to a candidate or to an issue indefensible on merit or on consistently proven, documented records.

such vile behavior is not only reckless, but it is the lowest form of manipulation and i, for one, deem it unacceptable.

pattern of clinton accidents or campaign ploys? frankly, my dear, i don’t give a damn. anyway you look at it, "team clinton" is wrong.

~ j

sabotaging america's most electable candidate: how you can help fight back

jonathan | cvg — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 04:13:01 EDT

TEXAS DELEGATE COUNT*
With the caucus count not yet complete, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are roughly even in delegates:

• Based on popular vote: Clinton, 65; Obama, 61

• Projected from caucuses: Clinton 30; Obama 37

• Superdelegates: Clinton 12; Obama 10; uncommitted 13

• Unofficial total: Clinton 107; Obama 108

*Projections were printed in the Houston Chronicle, a leading Texan paper

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

in an earlier blog, "the most delegates wins," i noted that this has been a delegate race since super tuesday. as it stands, obama has won the popular vote and delegate race nationally. even by winning a state, the delegate distribution is only helpful to clinton when the victories are marked by large margins as we have seen with OBAMA time and time again. tuesday was a wash for senator clinton thanks to vermont and texas who wisely gave obama the delegate lead, solidifying his advantage over clinton.

it is now mathematically improbable for clinton to beat obama on popular vote and pledged delegates. remember poor huckabee? she would have to average more than a 20 point lead in every state henceforth.

"let's get real." as she says. even in new york she only beat obama by 17 points... and she obviously had the advantage in new york.

the substantial margin of victory for OBAMA in wyoming has already shown clinton has little chances of catching up. however, it doesn't mean she won't throw punches with her eyes wide shut.

moreover, i believe that with the last two weeks of tactics on the part of clinton, she is in the pocket of big business and the establishment for a reason. undoubtedly, hillary clinton is more like joe lieberman than barack obama is like kenneth star. hillary has essentially, endorsed john mccain this past week speaking highly of his experience (which, by the way, trumps her own). senator clinton raped senator obama's record of leadership and left nothing but one great anti-war speech.

in fact, she has reached an all-new low. she is going down with a fight and she's willing to implode the party to ensure she has the opportunity to rerun in 2012. in 2004, the media began reporting that some within the party believed that the kerry/edwards campaign was being sabotaged in order to pave the way to the 08 clinton campaign. at that time, i believed it. and i am confident of it now.

i choose to believe that the democratic party is incapable of the utter incompetence inherent in pushing forth the poorly devised, inconsistent messaging and lack of structure that crippled kerry/edwards. let's "get real" as hillary clinton would advise. kerry was defeated by an otherwise easy candidate to beat at that time. many of you might not understand my marketing perspective. the best and most entertaining way for me to explain is to highly recommend that you watch the 2006 documentary, "so goes the nation." this documentary brought to life many of my complaints about the kerry compaign and points i made late last year when i forecasted OBAMA FOR AMERICA making a strong showing. http://imdb.com/title/tt0432337/

clinton is counting on americans being niave, uneducated, or simply complacent. unfortunately, some of us have looked past the fact that most of the clinton/obama policy proposals are 95% highly similar. unfortunately, some of us have delve into the details of both resumes and see a record of admirable, effective, consistent leadership from obama. unfortunately, some of us consider character.

if there was any doubt, as i have always tried to leave her the benefit of my doubt... she demolished all doubt. in one of my blogs, i wrote if she failed to gain significant pledged delegates and even the playing field on march 4, then clinton should step aside to express her love for america is greater than her own self-ambition... she should recognize that a transformative voice we have been waiting for has surfaced and finally millions of americans finally agree that our nation must move forward into the 21st century and the time for change is now.

the only thing clinton accomplished on march 4 and by her continued attacks has been splitting the democratic party and allowing mccain to get a head start with the resources that have become available to him as the official party nominee. clinton must pull something pretty underhanded to make america's most electable candidate begin loosing by more than 20 points. but, if anyone can manage debauchery, i trust that candidate would be senator clinton.

therefore, while superdelegates will likely vote with the popular vote and the candidate with the most pledged delagates won... let's not assume that clinton is incapable of something so shocking as allowing the florida supreme court to decide the president of the united states in spite of who really won the most votes that year.

unless revotes are allowed in florida and michigan, superdelegates will be needed to nominate obama. as i said, it is mathematically improbable for clinton to win fairly from pledged delegates because she couldn't win by 20+ points even in new york and she lost in wyoming already. this is one reason clinton is gearing up to seat michigan and florida without revotes.

clinton understands revote results would inevitably diminish margins within both states in OBAMA's favor and weaken her ability to prolong the contest. after all, obama was not even listed on the michigan ballot. by not agreeing to revotes, she prevents OBAMA from meeting the minimum requirement (assuming she wins or splits pennsylvania) to win the nomination before the convention... when the superdelegates could then award him the nomination. why does it matter to her? mccain has gained a head start with the resources that have become available to him as the official party nominee. OBAMA can not gain the resources of the democratic party until he meets that minimum delegate requirement, and therefore, is named the offical party nominee.

based on her current plan of attack and positions on the issues at hand, what truly frightens me has been that clinton would rather sabotage america's most electable candidate and retain the open door to rerun in 2012 than to see her life's ambition slip by... to be the first female president.

she took her gloves off last friday. she is now throwing punches with her eyes wide shut.

god save the democratic party.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

let's take no chances; let's not underestimate our opponent.

contact your state's superdelegates immediately. i found the resource for identifying the known superdelegates from the democratic party's web site (http://dnc.org/a/convention_2008/delegate/).

CLICK HERE:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/03932e1b8eb6b12c62_cdm6bnnf7.pdf

godspeed.

~ j

Blue Collar Voters: Why Democrats lose the Presidency

Taube — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:32:03 EST

Key point: “In 2000, Mr. Gore lost the white working class by 17 points and in 2004 John Kerry lost it by 23 points.” This article from Feb 19 2008 Financial Times is an excellent history lesson to understand why blue collar Reagan Democrats, here called Webb Democrats, vote for Republican presidents. Obama and his supporters need to learn how to talk to all these deservedly angry white men and women to ease more attacks against “latte-drinking, Prius driving liberals.”

History’s hurdle for the Democrats

By Michael Lind Published: February 19 2008 18:27

According to the conventional wisdom, the odds are in favour of the Democrats winning back the White House this year. With the country mired in an unpopular war in Iraq and perhaps in a prolonged recession, voters will treat the November election as a referendum on George W. Bush and punish his party. Some even see the disarray among Republican hawks, social conservatives and economic libertarians as evidence that the reign of the Grand Old Party is over and that a new Democratic majority is dawning.

That is one possibility. But it is worth considering the possibility that US politics has not changed much at all. The era of Republican presidential hegemony that began with Richard Nixon may not be over.

Consider the performance of the Democratic party in contests for the White House since Nixon ran against Hubert Humphrey in 1968. In that period, Democrats have won only three out of 10 presidential elections – Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. And those victories were in highly unusual circumstances. Mr Carter ran against an unelected, appointed vice-president, Gerald Ford, who had angered many Americans when he pardoned Nixon for his Watergate crimes. In 1992 and again in 1996, a slight majority of Americans voted against Mr Clinton, who nevertheless won only because each time third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off Republican presidential voters. If not for Watergate and Perot, the Republicans might have enjoyed an uninterrupted string of presidential victories since the late 1960s.

Mr Carter is the only Democrat to have won a popular-vote majority since the election of Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and then only by the slightest of majorities, 50.1 per cent. Meanwhile, this has been achieved by Republicans five times: Nixon in 1972 (60.7 per cent), Reagan in 1980 (50.7 per cent) and 1984 (58.8 per cent), George H.W. Bush in 1988 (53.4 per cent) and George W. Bush in 2004 (50.7 per cent).

The enduring Republican presidential majority originated in 1968, when the populist Democrat George Wallace won 13.5 per cent of the popular vote as an independent who drew his strength from the white working-class backlash against the civil rights revolution and cultural liberalism.

By welding white, working-class Wallace Democrats (later called Reagan Democrats) to the Republican party, Nixon created the GOP lock on the White House that has been broken only by freakish circumstances in 1976, 1992 and 1996. Deprived of the white working-class voters that were the mainstay of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition, the Democrats by 1980 became what they remain today – a party of socially liberal white professionals allied with blacks and Latinos on the basis of targeted racial patronage policies, such as affirmative action, and race-based congressional districts for blacks and amnesty for illegal immigrants from Latin America.

Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the white vote, in a country where roughly 70 per cent of the population is “non-Hispanic white” and where half of Hispanics identify themselves as white. The white working-class deficit of the Democrats in presidential elections is worsening. Mr Clinton carried the white working class by 39-38 per cent in 1992 and again by 44-43 per cent in 1996 – but only because Mr Perot, who was popular with this group, reduced the Republican numbers. In 2000, Mr Gore lost the white working class by 17 points and in 2004 John Kerry lost it by 23 points.

In recent years, the quickest way to become a celebrity pundit on the American left has been to argue that the Democrats do not need white working-class voters any more and should write them off. The Democrats can be swept into a majority by appealing to single women, or to Latino immigrants, or by mobilising the black “base”, or by winning over upscale white professionals, or a combination of all of these.

But the constituencies that are supposed to save the Democrats have been part of the post-McGovern coalition since the 1970s – and yet the Democrats have lost the White House repeatedly.

The Democrats won back Congress in 2006 because Democratic strategists ignored progressive pundits and supported socially conservative or moderate candidates who appealed to the white working class in contested districts and states. The Democrats have a one-vote majority in the US Senate only because of the victory of one such candidate: Virginia Senator Jim Webb, a populist who served as Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy.

To win back the White House this year, the Democratic presidential nominee, whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, must win the votes of millions of Webb Democrats – the heirs to the Wallace and Reagan Democrats. If many voters return to the practice of dividing their votes for president and Congress between the two parties, then the future may hold Republican presidents facing Democratic Congresses, as in most of the period from 1968 to 1994.

The Reagan coalition of libertarians, hawks and the religious right is indeed cracking up – but it is not clear that Republican ideological wars will help the Democrats. As long as the Republicans appeal more than Democrats to the white working-class populists whom George Wallace led out of the Democratic Party in 1968, then even in disarray they may be able to shut Democrats out of the White House for the eighth time out of 11 elections.

The writer is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The American Way of Strategy

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e13d02-df03-11dc-91d4-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

original post February 20 by Birdalone revised March 5 2008 and reposted

Winning the “important” states? It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

Shaun — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:03:15 EST

Hillary Clinton, in her speech on TX/OH night, pointed out that she has won the states that need to be won if a Democrat is to win in November. She points to OH and TX as examples. But one needs to look deeper to find the real winner on this night and no; it has nothing to do with delegate count.

Economics? Blue Collar Worker? Two Straight Elections & Can't Get Right?

Concerned Citizen, Iraq War Veteran, Equal Shareholder in the American Dream — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:53:16 EST

Can someone explain to me something?

During the 2004 Presidential General Election, George W. Bush was named the winner in the state of Ohio over Senator John Kerry out of Massachusetts. Four years later, I am puzzled about how Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton could be competing with Senator Barack Obama in the same state that was the, for all intents and purposes, the final decider in keeping W. in office when Kerry is endorsing Obama.

I also look at the 11 straight state victories for Senator Obama, as well as his win in the Virgin Islands. Coming into tonight, it was said to be too close to call and now the latest poll shows that Senator Clinton is pulling away.

Can someone please explain to me why it seems that Florida and Ohio just have not been with the program for the last decade-plus now?

Bill Clinton Endorses Sen. Obama!

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:43:03 EST

He sounds like he crossed over! LOL! This is Bill Clinton speaking in his 2004 campaign bid for President.

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

Blue Collar Voters: Why Democrats keep losing

Taube — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:21:46 EST

History’s hurdle for the Democrats

By Michael Lind

Published: February 19 2008 18:27

But the constituencies that are supposed to save the Democrats have been part of the post-McGovern coalition since the 1970s – and yet the Democrats have lost the White House repeatedly.

The writer is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The American Way of Strategy

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e13d02-df03-11dc-91d4-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

revised March 5 2008

"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.

pray KY doesn't matter; OH and TX win it

jonathan | cvg — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:57:24 EST

this may very well work out that barack takes each of the february primaries. on march 4, obama needs to capture a decisive win in texas and ohio... wrapping up this nomination. if ohio and texas split like several of the super tuesday wins, this will drag out and the republicans get stronger. not only would it be fair, but i think it should be expected that the democratic party call for clinton to suspend her nomination after obama dominates february and the next two big states.

although the obama camp has reportedly done very well mobilizing in other states, i don't see that in northern ky/southern ohio. i've tried contacting the group administers from the Action KY and Action OH teams on this community site, but they aren't logging in... presumably busy with last minute pushes in other states... but ohio and texas are too big for a last minute effort and small victory or even worse, a defeat.

no one responds... accept martha who manages the official myspace, but her only response instructed me to refer to this site for more information. duh! my question asked how do i get in touch with the field leader in ohio sense no one is mobilizing through the community site like the news claims they have done in other states.

i might also add that i am told that the hillary myspace releases bulletins that elaborate on her positions and help supporters debate and persuade obama supporters and undecided voters. that is not happening on the obama side, accept from the email campaign originating from here. but, rest assured, there's thousands of myspacers that added him that did not join here.

i'm not sure if you are familiar with "so goes the nation" but it is a blunt documentary about how kerry failed in his messaging and field mobilization... especially in ohio which lead, in part, to his defeat by bush (who should have been an easy opponent by all logic).

believe me, we want this wrapped up on the evening of march 4. this is one election that we don't want kentucky to matter.

~ j

Democratic Party Rules should in the future bar sitting Senators from the nomination

SeniorMoment — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 17:59:32 EST

Only once in about every 40 years does a sitting Senator get elected President. Democrats repeatly lose Presidential elections when we nominate a sitting Senator. J. F. K. was the last sitting Senator to win the Presidency, and he was running against a previous disgraced Richard Nixon. Before that it was Republican Senator Warren Harding. We should bar Senators from seeking the Presidential nomination unless they resign from the Senate if campaigning longer than six months.

I can only speculate on why this bias against Senators exists among voters, but here are possibilities:

1) People feel Governors have proven their ability to management a government bureaucracy and have demonstrated at least some serious management talent, not just leadership.

2) People feel more strongly attached to their own Governor than to their often distant U. S. Senators.

3) To get anything passed, Senators have to vote for bills that may include provisions they disagree with, so they are easily attacked over their voting record.

4) Voters may simply feel that Senators are cheating their constituents out of services when they run for President.

5) By having to take binding sides on issues Senators make both friends and enemies, whereas Governors most often remain unknows outside their own states until running for President. Also, since Governors don't have legislative votes and do generally have competent cabinet members to run a state, their absence from office doesn't generally hurt a state's interests. But, if a Senator misses a vote it does matter, particularly to those affected by the vote.

6) Rules of the Senate lead to too much gentleness in campaigning style. For example John Kerry's Presidential loss may be due in significant part to ignoring false accusations against him for too long and also for not flat calling President Bush a liar when he lied about Iraq. Former Senators are much less handicapped by this habit of speech.

7) Since Senators deal with people from all over the U. S., especially fellow Senators, they can make political enemies who will either campaign against them in states they need to win for the general election or who will sit on the sidelines and not help. Governors mostly annoy just their own state's voters, and those voters most often want to increase the state's influence in preference to getting even with their Governor in the general election.

In the 2008 Election we Democrats are lucky that the Repubicans appear also to be nominating a Senator which will neutralize the disadvantage of nominating a sitting Senator, but we are not likely to be so lucky in future elections. We need to change the nominating rules.

SuperSaturday Canvassing

Ravi — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:27:19 EST

What a great day! This morning, a packed auditorium at Everett Middle School to get precinct walking packets and hear Sen. John Kerry and Kamala Harris! Kerry was great - I was so glad to see him in person! I wish I was taking notes, it would have been great to give you some quotes - but I was busy taking pictures, which I'll have up sometime soon at http://www.movingstills.org. Kerry was funny - "I got 59 million votes, which I thought was good, until I found out that Sanjay from American Idol got 5 million more!" He was also moving, as he reflected on the importance of this election as the fulfillment of the best of American ideals, and on Barack Obama as a transformational, not a transitional, leader.

Afterwards, the hundreds of volunteers swarmed into the San Francisco streets and took the Obama message door-to-door on a rainy day. My feets is tired but my soul is strong!

A special shout out to volunteers who've really helped me out a lot this last week with making calls for my precinct: THANK YOU Elina, Michele, and Edward! I really believe we are changing the shape of American politics with this incredible grassroots effort.

Please Help Senator Dodd

Joe Taylor — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:15:59 EST

Senator Dodd is waging a heroic battle to stop a FISA bill that would grant the telephone companies retro active immunity. If we truly need FISA then protecting big business should not matter. By granting immunity we loose any chance of ever learning the truth about the ugly, probably unconstitutional domestic wiretapping episode.

Senator Obama is on the campaign trail but Senator Kerry and other supporters should be helping Senator Dodd.

Message from John Kerry: "Swiftboating"

Oregon Artists 4 Obama '08 — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:49:04 EST

by Sam Graham-FelsenTuesday, January 22, 2008 at 04:35 PM

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

Dear Sam,

I support Barack Obama because he doesn't seek to perfect the politics of Swiftboating -- he seeks to end it.

This is personal for me, and for a whole lot of Americans who lived through the 2004 election.

As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove's twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election. But as someone who cares about winning this election and changing the country I love, I know it's not enough to complain about a past we can't change when our challenge is to win the future -- which is why we must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears.

The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie.

This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack's Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of "Swiftboat" style anonymous attacks.

These are the same tactics the right has used again and again, and as we've learned, these attacks, no matter how bogus, can spread and take root if they go unchecked.

But not this time -- we're fighting back.

And when I say "we," I mean that literally. I know Barack is committed to fighting every smear every time. He'll fight hard and stand up for the truth. But he can't do it alone.

We need you to email the truth to your address books. Print it out and post it at work. Talk to your neighbors. Call your local radio station. Write a letter to the editor. If lies can be spread virally, let's prove to the cynics that the truth can be every bit as persuasive as it is powerful.

The Obama campaign has created a place where you can find the truth you'll need to push back on these smears and a way to spread the truth to all of your address book.

Take action here:

http://my.barackobama.com/factcheckaction

So when your inbox fills up with trash and the emails of smear and fear, find the facts, and help defeat the lies.

Barack Obama is committed to bringing our country together to meet the challenges we face, but he knows that power gives up nothing without a struggle -- and to win the chance to change America, we must first defeat the hateful tactics that have been used to tear us apart for too long.

With your help, we can turn the page on an era of small, divisive politics -- but only if next time you hear these attacks on Barack, you take action immediately:

http://my.barackobama.com/factcheckaction

The fight is just heating up -- we won't let them steal this election with lies and distortions.

Thank you,

John Kerry

__________________________________~*~*~*~*~_____________________________________________

Kerry urges Obama supporters to fight the lies

Oregon Artists 4 Obama '08 — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 06:36:25 EST

by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor
www.boston.com.news/politicaintelligence/2008/0/kerry_urges_oba.html

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

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who endorsed Barack Obama earlier this month, is now coming to Obama's aid to rebut what he calls "disgusting lies" that Obama is a secret Muslim and refuses to observe the Pledge of Allegiance.

In an e-mail to Obama supporters today, Kerry reminds them of what happened to him in 2004 when a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth challenged his Vietnam War record.

"As a veteran, it disgusts me that the Swift Boats we loved while we were in uniform on the Mekong Delta have been rendered, in Karl Rove's twisted politics, an ugly verb meaning to lie about someone's character just to win an election," Kerry writes. "But as someone who cares about winning this election and changing the country I love, I know it's not enough to complain about a past we can't change when our challenge is to win the future -- which is why we must stop the Swiftboating, stop the push-polling, stop the front groups, and stop the email chain smears.

"The truth matters, but how you fight the lies matters even more. We must be determined never again to lose any election to a lie," Kerry writes.

The email includes links to an Obama campaign truth-squadding website, and Kerry urges recipients to use the material to email friends, post printouts at work, call radio stations, and write letters to the editor.

"So when your inbox fills up with trash and the emails of smear and fear, find the facts, and help defeat the lies," Kerry says.

__________________________________~*~*~*~*~_____________________________________________

tonight's debate, part I

ceejay1968 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:36:10 EST

Well, I'm going to start with Huffington Post's interview with Senator Kerry and a few other things and then write about tonight's MSNBC debate. The interview with Senator Kerry is here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/15/kerry-blasts-clinton-camp_n_81518.html

HuffPost's headline that Kerry "blasts Clinton camp" was exaggerated and unnecessary, but the article is good:

[quote]Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, took aim at Hillary Clinton on Monday, saying her criticism of Barack Obama's stance on the Iraq war was "not founded on accuracy." He also ripped into comments made by Clinton surrogates hinting at Obama's past drug use, calling the remarks "negative in the worst, petty way," especially in the light of Bill Clinton's admitted use of marijuana.

"That kind of discussion," Kerry said, "from a campaign where the former president made famous the words 'I did not inhale' is to make something an issue that they themselves acknowledged shouldn't be."[/quote]

Then, this on Robert Johnson's despicable comments in Hillary's presence (on what Obama was "doing in the neighborhood, which I won't mention, but he talked about it in his book" - which Johnson later tried to claim had simply been a reference to Obama's community organizing; so, Johnson is not only a liar but a really bad liar at that and, during tonight's debate, when asked about Johnson's cover-his-butt lie, Hillary actually said, "I think we should just take him at his word" - I guess with all those years married to Bill, she's gotten good at that tactic, believing obvious lies despite all the evidence):

[quote]Most recently the issue of Obama's past drug use has resurfaced, with BET founder and Clinton supporter Robert L. Johnson alluding to it during a Sunday campaign stop. Johnson insisted he was referring to Obama's work as a community organizer. But Kerry was clearly upset with the tone and implication of the remark.

"I thought that was uncalled for," said Kerry, not even waiting for the question to be finished. "I thought it was negative in the worst, petty way. I thought it was unfortunate. And if it is done in surrogacy for the campaign itself then it is really wrong... I think [Obama's] proven record as a public person stands as a significant knock down to whatever youthful transgressions somebody might have had. And who in the world hasn't had some transgression of some kind?"

In 2004, Kerry himself admitted having smoked marijuana. [/quote]

Next, a Huff Post article about the pro-Hillary teachers' union in Nevada, which began its campaign to change the caucus arrangements to be less favorable to participation by culinary workers on the Vegas strip EXACTLY 48 hours after the culinary workers' union endorsed Obama. Usually, caucusing is, like all voting, done near one's home and based on one's home address. The arrangements for the Vegas caucuses, however, were for 9 at-large caucuses to be held near where the restaurant, hotel, and casino workers ARE actually WORKING, as the caucuses will be on a Saturday and it is difficult for hospitality people for get away from work on a Saturday. Under this arrangement, hospitality workers could duck down the street in the middle of their workdays on the strip, caucus, and get back to work. As this article explains, this arrangement was made by Democratic party representatives last May. Those representatives were on a panel of six people, and the caucus arrangements were agreed to unanimously. How, however, four of the six are joining in a lawsuit to keep culinary workers from caucusing at work and, wouldn't you know, those four are all Clinton supporters! It's disgusting. And, as this HuffPost writer says, the Clintons are showing a terribly cynical willingness to win at any cost (shocker, I know!). Sunday on "Meet the Press," which she has finally agreed to do, Russert asked her to repudiate this lawsuit, and she refused to take a position. By refusing to ask her supporters to stop, she is implicitly endorsing it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-de-zengotita/a-defining-moment-for-the_b_81502.html

Finally, a wonderful article by the fabulous Barbara Ehrenreich about the whole LBJ/MLK flap. As Ms. Ehrenreich explains, with Hillary's comments crediting LBJ as the real mover/shaker behind civil rights legislation, Hillary shows she doesn't quite understand the power of grass roots organizing in the way that Obama does.

[quote]"Change" is this year's Democratic battle cry, but if you don't know how it happens, you're not likely to make it happen yourself. A case in point is Clinton's 1993 "health reform" plan. She didn't do any "listening tour" for that, no televised town meetings with heart-rending grassroots testimonies. Instead, she gathered up a cadre of wonks for months of closed-door meetings, some so secretive that the participants themselves were barred from bringing in pencils or pens. According to David Corn of The Nation, when Clinton was told that 70 percent of Americans polled favored a single-payer system at the time, she responded sarcastically with, "Now tell me something interesting."

She could have gone about things differently, in a way that wouldn't have left 47 million Americans uninsured today. She could have started by realizing that no real change would come about without a mobilization of the ordinary people who wanted it. Instead of sequestering herself with economists and business consultants, she might have met with representatives of nurses' organizations, doctors' groups, health workers' unions, and patient advocates. Then she could have gone to the public and said: I'm working for a major change in the way we do things and it's going to run into heavy resistance, so I'll need your support in every possible way.[/quote]

more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-real-mlk-proble_b_81608.html

Now, on to tonight's debate.

John Edwards said the civil rights protestors of the 1960s who sat down at segregated lunch counters were "literally standing up for civil rights." Uh, John? "Literally" means "precisely," so they were not literally standing up but rather literally sitting down. They were metaphorically standing up when they were sitting down!

Russert reminded Hillary that she had said she would immediately fire or otherwise disassociate herself from anyone trying to inject questions about Obama's "youthful indiscretions" into the election, yet Hillary was unwilling to do so with wealthy donor Robert Johnson, instead insisting that we should "take him at his word" (see above entry on pitiful Johnson attempt to lie about what he really meant). Shame again, Hillary.

Next, Edwards was asked about being the only white boy and if that handicaps him. It is so interesting to me how the "economy of scarcity" works when it comes to race and gender. Presumably, this recent introduction of a woman and a black man into presidential politics means LESS opportunity in the party for a white man like Edwards - at least that's what the question implied. As usual, there's that assumption that a reduction of white or male privilege necessarily means a reduction of white or male opportunity. Edwards, for his part, handled it most graciously.

Next, Obama was asked about his "you're likeable enough, Hillary," comment at a previous debate ("came out wrong," Obama said, athough I imagine it might have something to do with how, as the New York Times reports, Clinton began avoiding Obama on the floor of the Senate starting the day after he announced his presidential exploratory committee: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/us/politics/03web-zeleny.html?fta=y)

There were questions about Hillary's ad claiming the guys were "piling on" at that previous debate. By this time, it was 25 minutes into the debate - and the whole thing had been about the moderators trying to start cat fights and there had been nothing substantive or relevant to the American people. The moderators of these debates are such a joke. Why can't they get serious? These candidates are brilliant, serious people! Ask them some real questions!

Next, Hillary was given the opportunity to state that any of the three Democrats would make a fine president, that EACH is 100% qualified. She refused, saying only that the voters will decide that. Shame on you yet again, Hillary.

As soon as I heard Obama's comments this week about being less than 100% enthusiastic about the bureaucracy (I don't have the exact quote), I knew Hillary would seize on that too, and she did. As Obama answered a question about it tonight, she was taking notes - and she threw in comments about needing "expertise in managing the bureaucracy" at least four times throughout the evening, by my count. She talked about needing a president who is a chief executive officer, said that weakness in that area is how Bush ended up failing during Katrina. Not true. It was, as we here on the Gulf Coast know, the cronyism, having "heckofa job" Arabian horse association dude Brownie in charge. It was Republicans' mistrust of government, even as they are willing to use it to enrich their friends, their desire to, as Grover Norquist said, "make government small enough to drown it in the bathtub" (my beloved New Orleans, apparently, being the bathtub in which government finally drowned). Instead, Bush's Katrina failure was, Obama replied, about Bush's lack of judgment and vision, his inability to lead and inspire.

Hillary's answer to the question about her greatest strength was very, very odd. It was this long ramble about all the things she's done. Geez, they didn't ask for a resume, just your greatest strength. How tough is that?

Obama was asked about the crazy madressa stories circulating online, the ones claiming he's Moslem (ooh - scary!) and that he was sworn in on a Quran rather than a Bible (wrong guy, people; check this stuff at snopes.com before you hit that "forward" button!) and Obama's answer was that he "has faith in the American people." Uh, Barak, um, you better talk to Senator Kerry about that SwiftBoatLiars stuff. Don't overestimate the American people!

When it came to each candidate asking a question of another candidate, both Clinton and Edwards picked Obama, but I noticed Obama kind of got screwed out of his question.

I was frustrated when the candidates were asked about whether they would enforce the long-standing (but, until Bush II, never enforced) law requiring that colleges that do federal student loan transactions MUST allow military recruiters on campus. All three candidates rushed to say, yes, absolutely, and then go on to praise the military (made me wish Kucinish was there!). Some of us strenuously object to allowing recruiters on campus because our schools have non-discrimination policies and the military is an employer that blatantly discriminates against gays and lesbians. But I guess no presidential candidate is going to take on THAT military-related sacred cow! After all, it's a post 9/11 world (in case no one has reminded you of that in the last 20 minutes or so).

John Edwards called for universal pre-kindergarten. Am I the only person left who believes in a school-free first five years of life? I mean, yeah, preschool is great, Head Start is great for those who can't afford preschool and want it, but when my daughter was little, I taught her some on my own and most of the time, I wanted her to just make mud castles, ride bikes, swim. Do we have to be shoving those Baby Einstein tapes at them from the day they're born? How about some time to just play and be a kid? Pre-k for parents who want it, fully funded, but CHOICE for those of us who don't!

Hillary, who has previously, as was noted during the debate, criticized Rovian fearmongering was asked if she would take back her comments about Obama's "inexperience" possibly inviting a terrorist attack on day one of his term in office. Hillary not only refused to do so, but went much further into detail about what happened in England the first day of Prime Minister Brown's term. You know, just in case we weren't well informed about that and didn't already know to be afraid, be vewwy afraid!

Each candidate was asked to explain when and why they decided to run for president. Hillary Clinton said it was over the Christmas/New Year holiday last year. Right. If anyone believes that when she knifed Senator Kerry in the back over the infamous "botched joke" incident, demanding that he "apologize to the troops" back in November of 2006, she didn't ALREADY know she was running for president and wasn't already trying to get rid of some of the competition, I have some hurricane-proof land in south Louisiana for sale. High and dry, I promise. Video of Hillary's comments back then here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

The two policy areas from tonight's debate that I am going to blog about tomorrow, in part II, are nuclear energy and the 2001 bankruptcy bill (hint: Edwards and Clinton both voted yes on the bankruptcy bill; now they're both sorry, but neither was pressed tonight to explain why, JUST as in the case of the Iraq war resolution vote, they made the wrong choice back then but have since seen the light!).

Anybody know what I'm doing wrong with my blockquotes? Thanks!

Kerry time!

ceejay1968 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 05:13:13 EST

I could not be more thrilled that John Kerry is on board. I find Obama bloggers very excited about the John Kerry endorsement, as am I.

video of Kerry endorsement, part I:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tIAQGEtJXs

video of Kerry endorsement, part II:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYp1jZUe_ks

Kerry already doing a fine job making the case for Senator Obama on "This Week:"

http://www.kerryvision.net/videos/20080113thisweek.html

And, of course, there was Obama setting things up for Kerry at the convention in 2004:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3mOyuJvX8U

I am shocked by the bitterness of so many Clinton supporters over Kerry's endorsement of Obama (that means you too, Aunt J.). Many are either bitter or trying to pretend Kerry is irrelevant (that means you too, Mom). "Time," however, reports that the Clintons wanted Kerry's endorsement enough for Bill Clinton to lobby Kerry's brother and former brother-in-law:

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/that_kerry_endorsement.html

I can't imagine what the Clinton supporters were expecting. Remember this comment about the great "botched joke" debacle? "What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate," Hillary Clinton said back in 2006, as if a Yale grad who volunteered for Vietnam was really saying the troops are stupid (my husband was in the military for 22 years, and he was smart enough to understand what Kerry meant):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Well, Senator Kerry is on board, having chosen, I'm certain, the person he thinks will make the best president (as well as someone who seems to be trying to avoid backstabbing politics), and Senator Obama is, as he says, "Fired up and ready to go."

A video tribute to Obama (not my work, someone else's):

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

I'm working on an essay for my feminist sisters about the complex arguments for and against Hillary Clinton as a feminist's choice for president (hint: I spent some time in August of 2005 at "Camp Casey," camped out and protesting outside George Bush's ranch; Cindy Sheehan is my sister too, is she not?), based on months of difficult yet wonderful discussions at feminist boards and blogs. It will appear on this blog shortly. For now, here is a link to a letter I wrote a few months ago to Nancy Pelosi, making the argument that what matters is not just having a woman in charge (although that is revolutionary and a legitimate, cherished goal of feminists), but having the right woman in charge, making the right decisions:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=163533298&blogID=305017272

I hope to hear from, meet, and do some organizing with others in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. I travel between the two quite a bit, although I'm closer to Baton Rouge these days.

I also like hearing from feminist activists anywhere, particularly those self-identifying as radical feminists and working against porn culture.

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.

Momentum is seriously growing

Working professional — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:48:13 EST

Kerry's endorsement today was huge. If every person who has donated so far made another donation as I did today, it would provide serious fuel for Barack to sweep in the other states. Consider another donation today as now is the time when the trail is hot and Hillary is on the run.

Go Obama!

Katrina — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:06:22 EST

I watched the live stream of the Charleston Rally today. I was quite dissapointed that I could not attend - especially since Charleston is so close to Savannah (where I am). I was pretty excited to hear that John Kerry would be endorsing Obama. I thought Kerry did a good job in expressing his reasons of supporting Obama.

Watching Obama speak today really put me in a great mood. Such a motivational and inspirational speaker!

Thank You Senator Kerry! Thank You!

The Original NYC Free Advice Man — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:53:23 EST

I am very much elated to hear that Senator John Kerry is endorsing Senator Barack Obama!

This is wonderful!

Waiting For Obama to Sting Like A Bee

Aaron — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:00:04 EST

An edited reprint of a post on my blog "A Political Season"

The Obama camp is circling, jabbing, trying to lay a glove on Hillary Clinton. Looking for an angle of attack that will stick. Hillary's misstep in the recent debates have opened a very small chink in her armor. Obama is worrying at the chink, trying to put stress on it and turn it into a full borne crack.

Obama has shown that he can float like a butterfly. Now he's got to sting like a bee. He's got to find a way to directly put into play the assumption of Hillary's experience and greater fitness for the Presidency. He needs to find a way to swiftboat that assumption. The republicans torpedoed the contrast of Kerry's aura of being a combat tested leader vs. Bush's questionable service record by directly questioning Kerry's service in Vietnam. They cast doubt on his bravery under fire, they ridiculed his actions after coming back from Nam and when they were through, Kerry's combat tested image had been wrecked and turned into a liability he had to angrily defend.

This is Obama's challenge: to find a way to question what I think is an implicit assumption that Hillary is more qualified because she was a first lady for 8 years. That is clearly what her claim of "readiness to lead from Day I" rests on. That being the wife of the President qualifies you to be the President. Obama has to knee cap that argument. His campaign strategy thus far has sought to answer the issue of experience by establishing his bona fides to lead vs. hers, an approach which implicitly validates her as being the more experienced leader.

His current angle of attack is better, basically asserting that she is more experienced at being a slick politician, adept at not giving a straight answer, an angle that opened up after the last debate. He's got her a little on the defensive, but he's got to go to the body on her, which I think means he's got to directly attack the assumption that she is more experienced because she was married to the President. He's got to make that seeming qualification seem almost meaningless.

Lightning Strikes Twice?

Kevin — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 12:39:39 EDT

From the Marshalltown (Iowa) Times-Republican:

Rep. Mark Smith, D-Marshalltown, Wednesday endorsed Sen. Barack Obama as his choice for the next president of the United States.

...

Four years ago, Smith endorsed John Kerry during the summer months at a time when his campaign was struggling and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean looked appeared to be the likely choice. Kerry surged in the fall and won Iowa, on his way to the Democratic nomination.

Converstaions with a Doubter - 3. RESIGN SENATE SEAT

Dave from Atlanta, GA — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 04:20:35 EDT

QUESTION:

If the best interest of Obama's constituents were in mind he would either serve this position to the fullest or resign and allow someone else to fulfill the duties of the senate seat.

RESPONSE:

Perhaps you really should have said this to someone like John Kerry or Sen. Lieberman, who kept their seats while running for the President and Vice-President, or any one of the other 4 Senators currently running. Or perhaps following your logic, a sitting President (who arguably has far more on his plate than the average Senator) should resign his office first, before running for office. Does this argument make still make sense to you? The fact is Obama's run for the Presidency actually enhances his ability to get things done for his Illinois constituency. That is why they even moved that State's primaries up, to help his chances.

Hello and Welcome!

Dalton — Wed, 30 May 2007 16:51:38 EDT

Hello to everyone who may read this blog. =)

My name is Dalton Hoffine; I'm a Japanese-Political Science double-major at Wake Forest University, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I've been interested in politics for a long time, and I want to make a career out of political translating. It's my opinion that words and communication are the most important tools that we have as humans, and the right to express those ideas and thoughts are what makes this country so incredibly great.

With our current administration, on numerous occassions, I find fault in the way that our government communicates with its citizens, as well as the outside world. Even if the ideas are noble and good (such as the recent immigration reform bill passed by President Bush), the language being used is damaging and polarizing to the citizens of the US, and to our relationships with others around the planet. After praising the current immigration bill being passed through Congress, President Bush went on to call those who did not support the bill unpatriotic and bleeding the soul out of America. This is just one instance of a major problem, and it's gone on for FAR too long!

That's why I support Barack Obama for President. I believe that Mr. Obama can truly change our nation in the way that we conversationalize in politics. Mr. Obama is intelligent, sharp, and articulate. When someone attacks him, he doesn't make a big political game out of it. He makes short, sharp statements that derail the logic of his opponent, and then gives clarity on what he stands for and what his opinions are. My support for him solidified after the incident with the Australian PM, and now I'm a die-hard fan (I was before, but Mr. Edwards and Mr. Biden also garnered a bit of my attention. Not much.)

Even if you don't agree with his policies, you have to admit that he carries himself very professionally, while still maintaining a connection with the average American voter. He offers hope and change, and politics on a more personal level--the level that it should be. Barack Obama wants to get every American involved in this change, because every American has a right to this great country. For too long, our administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have ruled in an elitist manner, keeping themselves out of the lives of Americans, and only letting themselves be influenced by the select. Not since Kennedy and Johnson has the government really addressed the American people on a personal level. This is what we have the chance to find again--trust and relationship with the government that affects all of our daily lives.

Won't you support Mr. Obama, too?

The Politics of our Families

Steven Tidwell — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:24:27 EDT

I recently came across an interesting diary on the net roots website DailyKos;The subject of the diary, and its poster, really got me thinking of my Political upbringing. It got me wondering how our parents, and grandparents, affect our politics. The diary, Barack Obama and Political Awakening: June, 2003, was written by Sarah R. Carter. Sarah, who has become somewhat active in Politics, is the Granddaughter of former President Jimmy Carter, and daughter of former Nevada Senate Candidate Jack Carter.

September 20, 2002 Letter to John Kerry

Paul Rodriguez — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:24:31 EST

I'm placing the following letter that I wrote to my representatives in Congress during the run-up to the Iraq war here for a very specific reason. When Senator Clinton feins ignorance of the Administration's true motives as a defense for her vote authorizing this war, she is either admitting to gross negligence, the likes of which should be grounds for resignation from the Senate, or else flat-out lying about her complicity in the greatest failure of American foreign policy in modern times.

CRUCIAL for every Obama supporter !

Richard — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 02:20:34 EST

The process for selecting our nominee for president is VERY flawed. The flaw is that the first few primary / caucus results (previously Iowa, New Hampshire) tie up the whole game irreversibly, and then the other state's results are pointless. In 2004, many precinct caucus/primaries around the country involved no discussion, just people showing up with very little knowledge of the candidates. Some people chose Kerry based on his speaking and positions, but many chose him based on very little more than his having won Iowa and New Hampshire (and Dean having screamed the week before).

2008 is too important, Obama is too important to let it slip away. We must work within that broken system. If we really really want Obama as our next president, unfortunately we must focus on the people who will attend in those early primary states. If you live in a state that has a later primary, it will likely be too late, even if you get your whole precinct to choose Obama.

Several states are changing their primary dates around, so be sure to check, but a recent version of the states that are the ones to travel to, contact, and support advance teams to, are :

January 14, 2008 - Iowa
January 19, 2008 - Nevada
January 22, 2008 - New Hampshire
January 29, 2008 - South Carolina
February 5, 2008 - Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas[3], Delaware, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma,Utah

If Obama can win just a few of these, then a very unusual thing could happen, ...a competitive dead heat continuing on past the first states.

And remember, anyone who can prove that they reside in these states, and has a valid voter registration card, can be a delegate vote for Obama at these caucus and primaries. The key is to outnumber the delegates for Hillary. The whole game is the primary season. Obama will sell himself just fine if we can get him the nomination.

Move to Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, SC, (or others like Rhode Island if they get their date bumped forward) or just visit there and recruit believers to attend and be counted. If you can't go, then $ponsor someone else who can go ! ...or get onto chats and message boards that have average Iowans and folks from those early states. Direct these people to YouTube to see Barack's awsome message and sincerity.

Why The Average Democrat Can't Help You

David Kenyon — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 01:33:42 EST

In 2002 you were sold out by your government. In what will go down in history as one of the most elaborate cases of dog wagging, you were systematically set up by both parties and lead into a war that has turned out to be a bigger fiasco than Vietnam. Remember the once honorable Colin Powell making the news because he would not go along with the Whitehouse's assessment of the Iraqi threat. That honor had a price and he came into the fold only to be thrown out at the end of the term. Remember John McCains' valiant defiance of George Bush during the entire first term and how the pressure grew for him to run with John Kerry. And then there was the meeting in Florida with Team Bush and suddenly he is a hearty advocate of his rival. Why? He was bought. The Republic party promised him that after Bush's second term he would be the next GOP canditate for president in 2008. How could they promise that? McCain's numbers were higher than Bush's in 2004; he was already the most likely guy to get the nod anyway. With the help of the Bush-Cheney-Rove money machine, they could ensure that McCain would be unbeatable in the 2008 primaries. Watch and see. McCain will have a war chest rivalled only by Bush Jr. in 2004. And then there was Hillary. It is extremely disingenuous of Hilary Clinton to now say "If I knew then what I know now ..." Just exactly who was supposed to be checking into these matters? Last I heard our Congress was a part of a system of checks and balances. They have investigative committees to do their own research on matters such as starting a war. And yet, just like her husband who did not inhale, she didn't know. Hillary, like John Kerry, did not vote for the Iraq war because it was a good idea. They even knew at the time that the evidence was fudged (a fact reported on the major network news programs at the time). It did not matter what the evidence was. They voted for it because it was popular in the polls. They did not want to appear to be weak on terrorism - no matter that Iraq had little to do with global terrorism until after the war started. We voted for them to exercise judgment and conscience in matters of state and they sold us out to keep their jobs and advance their careers. So who can you trust? The professional politicians are screwing this country to death. After the interim elections at least the Republicans have had a dose of humility. And yet we are hated everywhere. We are losing a more important war over future access to energy to the likes of the Chinese and the Russians who are busy creating relationships with our former allies like Venzuela while we are creating chaos Iraq. As Napoleon Bonaparte once said, "never interrupt you enemy when he is in the middle of making a mistake." While we are off forcing Democracy on countries that neither want it or even like it, our competitors are freezing us out of an economic future. And who will mourn the loss of the late great American culture that brought you virus-like consumption of resources and the hero worship of Paris Hilton? Who mourned the loss of expansionist Rome when they stopped enslaving the nations of the western world to the purpose of its economy? We need a president who is smart enough to know that we are all in this together. We need a president who is independent enough to know that we must get out of this mess together. We need a president who is not beholden to decades of political debts that must now be paid. Let the political machines support who they will, but let the people elect Obama.

All depends on Primaries

Richard — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:05:40 EST

The process by which we select our nominee for president is VERY flawed. The flaw is that the first few primary / caucus results (Iowa, New Hampshire) tie up the whole game irreversibly, and then the other state's results are pointless. In 2004, many precinct caucus/primaries around the country involved no discussion, just people showing up with very little knowledge of the candidates. Some people chose Kerry based on his speaking and positions, but many chose him based on very little more than his having won Iowa and New Hampshire.

The states below (and their final deadlines) are the ones to travel to, contact, and support advance teams to :

If Obama can win just a few of these, then a very unusual thing could happen, ...a competitive dead heat continuing on past the first states.

Iowa and New Hampshire citizens are jaded and tired of the primary season, so don't hesitate to visit Nevada and SC to personally convert people into primary-going Obama supporters. Even if Edwards takes Iowa, Obama takes Nevada, and Hillary takes New Hampshire, then a REAL race can continue.

And remember, anyone who can prove that they reside in these states, and has a valid voter registration card, can be a delegate vote for Obama at these caucus and primaries. They key is to outnumber the delegates for Hillary. The whole game is the primary season. Obama will sell himself just fine if we can get him the nomination. Move to Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, SC, or just visit and recruit believers to attend and be counted.

URGENT : primary race ends before it starts

Richard — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:33:50 EST

Obama supporters beware and unite !

I was part of the entire primary process for 2004, and there was NO DISCUSSION at my precinct caucus in which we decided who would win the nomination for president. The people showed up at the precinct caucus with a hunch or an opinion, (or sometimes an informed decision), then we counted predecided heads and went home.

This was very bad for the country and the process. I honestly did not fully know the merits and problems of each of the candidates, and most people there knew less than I did. Some Kerry supporters actually liked his positions and his educated speaking manner, but many only knew that he was already the front runner who won Iowa and NewHampshire, and seemed more "presidential" than the more hard-left agenda candidates. No debate occured.

We really need to get the public familiar with Obama far in advance. We need to start right away.

The key will be to reach all of the potential primary voters who may only choose to support Hillary or just other candidates they are most familiar with. Sadly, even with the Time magazine cover, many people do not know Obama yet.

Supporters need to co-ordinate outreach teams showing dvd's of Obama's great public messages, and get the populace acquainted with what we have discovered in this great man.

Obama's 18 minute keynote speech at the DNC 2004 is one of the most moving American political speeches of the last 40 years, and I personally intend to stage many public and private viewings of this, and his Feb 10 candidacy speech, followed by discussion of his plans and objectives for presidency.

Grassroots worked fairly well for Dean in 2004. Let's exceed that.

Contact me at electionproof (at) aol.com if you need any suggestions or help