Posts with the tag bill richardson

A Paean to Barack Obama. The Twelve Days of Choosing Obama's Top Team

mathpol — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:08:01 EST

This is an enhanced version of my earlier post. To be sung to the tune of The “Twelve Days of Christmas“, whose lyrics are modified to apply to Obama's picks for his Cabinet and other key posts. The list is intended to be cumulative (that is, each person is picked only once). At the end I present those left out due to time constraints (Only twelve days!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWDpTKwZO-w

The Twelve Days of Choosing (Obama's Top Team)

mathpol — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:19:17 EST

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

Parody on The Twelve Days of Christmas, as applied to Obama's picks for his Cabinet and other key posts. The list is intended to be cumulative (that is, each person is picked only once). At the end I present those left out due to time constraints (Only twelve days!)

Bill Richardson

Nervie — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:25:47 EST

BILL RICHARDSON is the new member of the Obama Cabinet! I won’t try to be objective here, I like Richardson. He is Latino. He was Energy Secretary in Clinton’s Administration, Governor of New Mexico, and an ambassador for the United Nations. He also spoke up when Hillary was attacking Obama regarding his heritage in the 2008 election campaign. I liked him even more for that.

I remember when he sent to talk to North Korea regarding their weapons program, I remember Bush negating those compromises Richardson offered less than one month later. I watched nervously North Korea say that they didn’t care if the United States won’t assist them with oil, food and agricultural pursuits. Apparently they have little off all three there. This was suppose to be the reason that the sobering was going on. Sounded too simple to me but I also remember an ambassador and a policy wonk coming to our Political Science class explaining how many treaties we had with North Korea and how we had pitted the North and South Koreas against one another. We assist the south, have been asked to leave the region, several times but we insist we are a friendly safety valve for the area and South Korea says for ourselves mainly.

Now Hillary being part of the team! I just hope she remembers team does not mean me, does not mean Bill and me, it means TEAM, all of us! Maybe it was strategical to keep Hillary on Obama’s side. That concept of keeping friends close and enemies even closer seem to come to mind. But I must say again, the attacks Hillary put on Obama as elbowing and calculating as they were, I believe also shored up the attempts that would have come his way if the opposition had attacked first.

Depending on which media source you listen or read, some of these attacks were not new to those close to Obama. They had been perculated, slapped on and executed during his meteroric rise in Chicago’s politics which I understand are serious “rough and tumble”, with that street-city slickness. OKAY so Obama has risen above this and added his main public adversary to the “big political dream team”. From my vantage point, that dream team seems very bloated with experience, expertise, ego and ambition. Obama I’ll be lighting candles on your behalf. Now where did I put that incense burner?

If Hillary Clinton (D-Israel) does not accept the Secretary of State job, then it appears Bill Richardson is next in line.

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:08:34 EST

Secretary Of State Update (+)

by: Chris Bowers

If Hillary Clinton does not accept the Secretary of State job, then it appears Bill Richardson is next in line:

President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.

Richardson has already proven his diplomatic mettle in places like Sudan, North Korea and Iraq. Also, it would be great to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so high up on the power ladder. So, should Clinton not accept, I think Richardson would be a very good choice......

ENTIRE POST - http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=9951

President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Israel) and Bill Richardson

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:05:45 EST

Obama interviews ex-rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson as secretary of state

by NEDRA PICKLER

President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-Israel) and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.

He plans to meet there Monday with his Republican opponent, John McCain, but advisers to both of the general election rivals say they don't expect Obama to consider McCain for an administration job.........

ARTICLE - http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/11/obama_weighs_clinton_richardso.php

Why I don’t want Hillary Clinton as Sec of State

Emma — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:47:49 EST

(Commenting on the unsubstantiated rumors of Hillary Clinton in President-elect Obama’s cabinet.)

I don’t really care if he puts her in the cabinet, as long as it’s not in any prominent position, such as Secretary of State.

A list of a few of the reasons why Hillary Clinton should not be Sec. of State:

1. She’s not much of a diplomat, the primary told us that.

2. Her ties to Bill Clinton would weigh her down and along with her the crucial efforts of the Obama administration. Bill might be well liked in some circles “out here”, but he doesn’t command much respect, and that will affected her by proxy.

3. She has no actual experience with foreign policy, at least not on the level that will be required considering the dangers we face.

4. Hillary, like most women in her age group, has a tendency to try too hard. It makes them appear desperate and weak. These are not good qualities in a Secretary of State, a position that is very similar to a soldier in the midst of a battlefield, except you use words and psychological manipulation instead of guns and missiles. Obviously the Sec of State can’t be an actual soldier, if you are no one will trust you not to use guns and missiles…

I kind of like the idea of Bill Richardson as Sec of State, but mainly because of his experience in the UN, brief as it was. In my opinion, anything that pushes President-elect Obama closer to the UN is a move in the right direction.

Choosing John Kerry would be disaster though. The last thing we need is another military man in the US State Department! He has campaigned too convincingly on his war record and it will be very difficult to ignore. The world will not trust a soldier to be a US representative of peace ever again.

But the only American I would really trust handling the deceptive waters of high state diplomacy is James Baker. Unfortunately he is far too Republican for comfort. Anyway, I hope President-elect Obama at least calls him on the phone often.

I do hope, however, that President-elect Obama keeps Robert Gates as Sec. of Defense. There’s no reason not to (that I can think of), and many, many reasons to keep him. Most importantly, the US will be extremely vulnerable for the first year of Obama’s presidency. The less strain put on the military community the safer we’ll all be. Considering the situation the US military is in at the moment and will continue to be for a foreseeable future, I’d strongly advocate not rocking the boat.

Anyway, that’s my two cents’ worth.

Now I’m off to bed.

Good night.

Secretary of State Selection

Hope4Unity — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:02:51 EST

The selection of Bill Richardson as Secretary of State is the best choice among the names that are reportedly under consideration.

Gov. Richardson has communicated a world view that is more closely aligned with the voters who elected Barack Obama for Change We Can Believe in.

The world is watching and waiting for a new approach from The UNITED States -- not more Bush/Cheney era rhetoric toward Iran or a resurrection of the Clinton Administration.

Online Poll: Who should Obama pick as his Sec. of State?

XDOW — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:40:38 EDT

You can vote at http://www.ObamasPrayer.com

I believe Barack will win this election by a landslide. However, we must continue to post on blogs and support Barack in our home towns to accomplish that goal.

200 Ex-Diplomats Endorse Obama for Foreign Policy Overhaul Necessity, including 2 Former Secretaries of State

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:14:00 EDT

Clearly, former US diplomats from both parties and from widely varying realms all recognize the paramount need to base US Foreign Policy and the day to day operations of the US State Department on something more evolved that the demands of the American corporate structure and the needs of the Pentagon, Halliburton, Blackwater, and Kellogg, Brown, and Root.

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama received the official endorsement of more than 200 former U.S. diplomats in the form of a jointstatement signed before his Friday debate with Republican nominee JohnMcCain.

"We are supporting Senator Barack Obama because of his judgment, experience, and ability to inspire people to come together around a common purpose," the letter said. "Senator Obama's talents offer an historic opportunity; for the sake of America's security and standing in the world,
we must seize it."

The letter was signed by officials from both major political parties, including former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, former National Security Adviser Richard Clarke and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

"As former diplomats, we believe it is past time that we had a President with the judgment and confidence -- in himself, our diplomatic corps, and our values -- to talk directly to America's adversaries with due preparation but without preconditions," the letter said.

Commentary from Stephen Fox: We absolutely must as a nation move past a total reiteration of the era of the Ugly American, except now it is exponentially worse than the late 1950's when Eugene Burdick first started writing that important book.

Former President of Poland and Nobel Peace Laureate Lech Walesa told this to a group of students, not long ago in Santa Fe:

"You Americans must begin to recognize throughout the entire world that you have lost your Moral Power, and this has disbanded most of your Political Power. You squander what remains of your Economic Power on maintaining your Military Power, which does nothing constructive in the world at large and won't even last very long."

When Obama wins, I know he will have the good sense and foresight, among his first appointments, to ask New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to be the Secretary of State. We will miss him as Governor, but as a former UN Ambassador, it is obvious to me and to most New Mexicans that Bill Richardson has a higher calling and destiny, and is so needed to repair the damage done internationally during the past 8 years.

Gov. Bill Richardson to Join Minnesota Latinos for Obama Reception

Xavier Lopez-Ayala — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:19:03 EDT

On October 2nd, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson will join Minnesota state Senator Patricia Torres Ray and Minnesota Latinos for Obama for a reception at the Landmark Center in St. Paul.

Governor Richardson will speak to supporters about Senator Obama's plans strengthen families and restore our economy for working Minnesotans. The event, hosted by Minnesota Latino's for Obama, will help build Senator Obama's already strong support in the Latino community.

For more information on attending the event, click here.

If you want to get involved with Latino for Obama events in Minnesota, be sure to sign up and check out the Minnesota Latinos for Obama Resource Center.

You can also text MNLATINO to 62262 and recieve information on Latino events straight to your cell phone!

Huffington Post Just Published my Biden/Heads of State article, so please do comment here:http://tinyurl.com/Bidenvs-Palin

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:15:00 EDT

Biden Has Done More Than Look At Russia Across The Horizon, my FIRST article at Huffington Post, so please do comment: http://tinyurl.com/Bidenvs-Palin or www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-fox/biden-has-done-more-than_b_129382.html

I welcome your insights and ideas, and Huffington Post is a place perhaps millions more people will see them and want to participate in this emerging dialogue about what direction our Nation must move in the next four years, to repair the enormous damage internationally during the past 8 years by Bush/Cheney/Halliburton/Rumsfeld/KelloggBrownand Root/Blackwater, and others!

Obama: Rebuilding and Protecting the Economy During My Presidency : Prepared Remarks, Espanola, New Mexico September 18

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:20:27 EDT

Obama's Remarks in Espanola, New Mexico on Solutions for Financial Market Turmoil
By Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News - Sep 18th, 2008 at 10:14 pm EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content
Espanola, New Mexico
As Prepared for Delivery

I just want to begin by saying a few words about the turmoil in our financial markets. We are in the midst of the most serious financial crisis in generations. Three of America's five largest investment banks have failed or been sold off in distress. Our housing market is in shambles, Monday brought the worst losses on Wall Street since the day after September 11th, and the Fed has had to take unprecedented action to prevent the failure of one of the largest insurance companies in the world from causing an even larger crisis. Just this morning, we learned that the Fed had to act with central banks around the world to maintain the functioning of our financial system.

Everywhere you look, the economic news is troubling. But for so many Americans, it isn't really news at all.

600,000 workers have lost their jobs since January. Home values are falling. Your paycheck doesn't go as far as it used to. It's never been harder to save or retire; to buy gas or groceries; and if you put it on a credit card, they've probably raised your rates. In so many cities and towns across America, it feels as if the dream that so many generations have fought for is slowly slipping away.

So I know these are difficult days. And I know there are a lot of families that are feeling anxiety right now about their jobs, about their homes, about their retirement savings. But here's what I also know. This isn't a time for fear or panic this is a time for resolve and for leadership. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That's who we are. That's what we've always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we've risen to meet the challenge because we've never forgotten that fundamental truth that here in America, our destiny is not written for us, but by us.

But another thing I know is this we can't steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. We can't change direction with a new driver who wants to follow the same old map. And that's what this election is all about.

My opponent's first reaction to this crisis on Monday was to stand up and repeat the line he's said over and over again throughout this campaig "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." The comment was out so out of touch that even George Bush's White House couldn't agree with it.

But the truth is, John McCain's attitude was nothing new. It reflects the same economic philosophy that he has had for twenty-six years in Washington. The same philosophy he shares with George Bush.. It's the philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down. It's the philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It's a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people.

That's the philosophy John McCain believes in, and has always believed in. He's spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers. Phil Gramm, one of the architects of the de-regulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of John McCain's economic plan the man John McCain wants to put in charge of the Treasury Department if he's President. You remember Phil Gramm he's the guy who said that we're going through a 'mental recession'; and the same man who called the United States of America a "nation of whiners."

That's who John McCain listens to. He has consistently opposed the sorts of common sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis. When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal and I quote, I'm always for less regulation."

Except now, with the magnitude of the crisis apparent even to the Bush White House, John McCain wants to reverse course. Now, all of a sudden, he's unleashed an angry tirade against all the insiders and lobbyists who've supported him for twenty-six years the same folks who run his campaign.

On Monday, he said the economy was fundamentally sound, and he was fundamentally wrong.

On Tuesday, he said the government should stand by and allow one of the nation's largest insurers to collapse, putting the well-being of millions of Americans at risk. But by Wednesday, he changed his mind.

He said he would take on the ol' boy network, but he seemed to forget that he took seven of the biggest lobbyists in Washington from that network and put them in charge of your campaign.

John McCain can't decide whether he's Barry Goldwater or Dennis Kucinich. Well, I have a message for Senator McCain:

You can't just run away from your long-held views or your life-long record. You can't erase twenty-six years of support for the very policies and people who helped bring on this disaster with one week of rants.

What we need is honest talk and real solutions. Senator McCain's first answer to this economic crisis was get ready for it a commission. That's Washington-speak for "we'll get back to you later." Folks, we don't need a commission to spend a few years and a lot of taxpayer money to tell us what's going on in our economy. We don't need a commission to tell us gas prices are high or that you can't pay your bills. We don't need a commission to tell us you're losing your jobs. We don't need a commission to study this crisis, we need a President who will solve it and that's the kind of President I intend to be.

Now that this disaster has hit, John McCain is calling for the firing of the Security and Exchange Commissioner. Well here's what I say: In 47 days, you can fire the whole Trickle-Down, On-Your-Own, Look-the-Other-Way crowd in Washington who have led us down this disastrous path.

Let's be clear: what we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed. And I am running for President of the United States because the dreams of the American people must not be endangered any more. It's time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy. It's time for change that makes a real difference in your lives.

It was two years ago that I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. It was one year ago that I called on our Treasury Secretary and our FED Chairman to bring every stakeholder together and find a solution to the subprime mortgage meltdown before it got worse. In March, when John McCain was saying "I'm always for less regulation," I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets.

The events of the past few days have made clear that we need to do more right now. We do not have time for commissions and we can't afford to lurch back and forth between positions when dealing with an economic crisis, like my opponent has. That is why I am calling on the Treasury and the Federal Reserve to use their emergency authorities to maintain the flow of credit, to support the availability of mortgages, and to ensure that our financial system is well-capitalized. Tomorrow I will be convening a meeting with my top economic advisors to discuss a plan based on the ideas I've been talking about with former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and other advisors of mine. Then I'll call for the passage of a Homeowner and Financial Support Act that would establish a more stable and permanent solution than the daily improvisations that have characterized policy-making over the last year. Specifically, it would accomplish three primary goals.

First, it will provide capital to the financial system. Second, it will provide liquidity to enable our financial markets to function. And third, it will do what I've been calling for since I supported legislation on it early last spring, which is to get serious about helping struggling families to re-structure their mortgages on more affordable terms so they can stay in their homes. We've made a good start but we need to do much, much more. We cannot forget that there are many homeowners who are in crisis through no fault of their own, and a solution that does not have them at its core is no solution at all.

To jumpstart job creation, I've also proposed a $50 billion Emergency Economic Plan that would save 1 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure, repairing our schools, and helping our states and localities avoid damaging budget cuts.

To help people stay in their homes, I will change our bankruptcy laws, and I'll offer a tax credit to struggling families that will take 10% off your mortgage interest rate. I'll institute a Home Score system that will help every consumer figure out whether they'll be able to make their mortgage payments before they buy their house. And I will crack down on predatory lenders, lenders who all too often target Hispanic communities, with tough new penalties that will treat mortgage fraud like the crime that it is.

But the most important thing I will do as President is restore opportunity for all Americans. To get our economy growing, we need to recapture that fundamental American promise. That if you work hard, you can pay the bills. That if you get sick, you won't go bankrupt. That your kids can get a good education, and that we can leave a legacy of greater opportunity to future generations.

That's the change the American people need.

Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it. I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America. I will eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups that's how we'll grow our economy and create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of tomorrow.

I will cut taxes cut taxes for 95% of all working families. My opponent doesn't want you to know this, but under my plan, tax rates will actually be less than they were under Ronald Reagan. If you make less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. In fact, I offer three times the tax relief for middle-class families as Senator McCain does because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

I will finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. I know this is a critical issue in the Hispanic community, where one in three people don't have health insurance. Under my plan, if you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And I will stop insurance companies from discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most

I will create the jobs of the future by transforming our energy economy. We'll tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced

And now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. I refuse to accept that overcrowded, underfunded schools are the best we can do for our kids. I refuse to accept four in ten Hispanic students dropping out of high school. I know we can do better than that. So I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. But in exchange, I will ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

This is the change we need the kind of bottom up growth and innovation that will advance the American economy by advancing the dreams of all Americans.

Times are hard. I will not pretend that the change will need will come without cost though I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I know that we'll have to overcome our doubts and divisions and the determined opposition of powerful special interests before we can truly reform a broken economy and advance opportunity.

But I am running for President because we simply cannot afford four more years of an economic philosophy that works for Wall Street instead of Main Street, and ends up devastating both.

I don't want to wake up in four years to find that more Americans fell out of the middle-class, and more families lost their savings. I don't want to see that our country failed to invest in our ability to compete, our children's future was mortgaged on another mountain of debt, and our financial markets failed to find a firmer footing.

This time this election is our chance to stand up and say: enough is enough!

We can do this because Americans have done this before. Time and again, we've battled back from adversity by recognizing that common stake that we have in each other's success. That's why our economy hasn't just been the world's greatest wealth generator it's bound America together, it's created jobs, and it's made the dream of opportunity a reality for generation after generation of Americans.

Now it falls to us. And I need you to make it happen. If you want the next four years looking just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change, if you want an economy that rewards work, and that works for Main Street and Wall Street; if you want tax relief for the middle class and millions of new jobs; if you want health care you can afford and education so that our kids can compete; then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors.

The Hispanic community will play a critical role in this election. Some of the closest contests this November will be in states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and here in New Mexico: states with large Hispanic populations.

And if you have any doubt about whether you can make a difference, just remember how, back in 2004, 40,000 registered Hispanic voters in New Mexico didn't turn out on Election Day. Senator Kerry lost this state by fewer than 6,000 votes. 6,000 votes. And today, in 2008, an estimated 170,000 Hispanics in New Mexico aren't registered to vote.

So I'm not taking a single Hispanic vote for granted in this campaign. We're meeting with Hispanic leaders, and reaching out to Hispanic organizations, and holding Hispanic voter registration drives across America.

And if you help me organize and get people to the polls to cast their votes on November 4th, then I promise you we will win New Mexico, we will win this election, and we will change America together.

Barack Obama, a Democratic Senator from Illinois, is the Democratic presidential nominee. Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_remarks_in_espanola_new.html

see also: McCain Team Includes 83 Wall Street Lobbyists: Even More Corporate Control of Government than Bush/Cheney?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/McCain-Team-Includes-83-Wa-by-Stephen-Fox-080917-377.html

Thursday Obama's in New Mexico! Hispanic s, Please Vote as a Block for Obama!

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:59:51 EDT

Obama plans Española visit Thursday; Richardson launches new group while courting Hispanics in battleground states; BATTLEGROUND and FENCESTRADDLER STATES' ELECTORAL VOTES ARE NOT DOOMED TO BE FOR MCCAIN!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stephenfox/gG5qzp
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stephenfox/gG5XtP

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

BREAKING NEWS; "Being the 'detective' that I am, I got the message below
from the McCain camp today. I can understand why he wants people to vote for
him now, by absentee ballot. He doesn't want people to be able to change
their minds as they hear the upcoming debates."

JaneAnne
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

BRILLIANT!
SO HERE IS THIS AGAIN:

By Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News -

First thoughts: The Electoral Map 50 days out : from MSNBC:

Turn on the Steam in (leaning Obama) IA, MN, NM OR, PA, WA (61 votes) Toss
up: CO, MI, NV, NH, OH, VA, WI (78 votes)

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stephenfox/gG5ZBz

A lot of letters to the editor from you, and emailed all over your state
might turn the tide, if they were well reasoned and hard hitting, to the
point, about why Obama would be best for your state, in the long run! If you
speak with the Editorial Page Editor, ask for an op/ed slot, 600-800 words,
to really make your point, and don't forget that these are the very editors
who are likely to be writing their endorsements in a few short weeks for
President, so don't bombard them with blast emails: they won't get printed,
and you will just irk the person.

Editorial page editors are listed in EDITOR AND PUBLISHER in your library,
and indirectly through

usnpl.com : unitedstatesnewspaperlist

And no doubt, as Dr. Howard Dean III pointed out in Santa Fe about a month
ago, nothing works better than going door to door, and personally talking at
length with your neighbors, colleagues, and family, to answer any questions
they might have regarding Obama's strengths and McCain's failures.

You may find the earlier articles in my blog (there are 109 of them) to be
helpful as all have been filed with strategy and tactical considerations in
mind, above all.

Truly,

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News
Founder, New Millennium Fine Art
stephen@santafefineart.com

MSNBC:

The Palin bounce has erased Obama's lead in the national polls, and it has
now cut into his electoral-vote advantage, according to NBC’s latest map.
Obama holds a 233-227 edge here, down from his 228-200 advantage from last
week.

The biggest changes: We moved Florida -- with its 27 electoral votes -- from
Toss-up to Lean McCain, and New Mexico from Toss-up to Lean Obama. We also
shifted Oregon and Washington from Likely Obama to Lean Obama, as well as
Alaska, Georgia, North Dakota and South Dakota from Lean McCain to Likely
McCain.

The good news for McCain is that the map looks better for him than at any
point so far in this race, and many of those red states that looked like
opportunities for Obama (AK, GA, IN) look to be longer shots for him. The
bad news for McCain is that given the wave his campaign has been riding from
the Palin bounce, is this as good as it gets?

If he isn’t leading in some states now, he might not ever lead in them.
Bottom line: You'll know the map is starting to move in one direction or the
other if either Pennsylvania or Florida moves back into Toss-up before
Election Day.

VIDEO: NBC Political Director Chuck Todd discusses the Sarah Palin affect on
the NBC electoral vote map.

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT (172
electoral votes)

Lean Obama: IA, MN, NM OR, PA, WA (61 votes)

Toss-up: CO, MI, NV, NH, OH, VA, WI (78 votes)

Lean McCain: FL, IN, MO, MT, NC (67 votes)

Likely McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD,
TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (160 votes)

__________________________________________________________________________

Obama plans Española visit; Richardson launches new group while courting Hispanics in battleground states

Photo: Santa Fe County Commissioner Virginia Vigil screams ‘Obamanos!’ on Monday during the opening of a new Barack Obama campaign office on Santa Fe’s south side. Gov. Bill Richardson used the opening as an opportunity to launch a group called Hispanics for Obama and announce an upcoming visit by the Democratic presidential candidate to Española.
More on this siteAdvertisement

Steve Terrell | The New Mexican

9/15/2008 - 9/16/08

Gov. Bill Richardson on Monday launched a group called Hispanics for Obama , and announced that the Democratic presidential candidate himself will appear Thursday in Española.

Barack Obama is relying on Richardson to help court Hispanics in battleground states including New Mexico, which narrowly went for Republican George W. Bush four years ago and where John McCain also has visited several times this year.

In informal remarks to dozens of local Democrats at the opening of a new south-side Santa Fe campaign office, Richardson began with a hearty "Buenos tardes." He laughed and made joking asides to enthusiastic audience members as he happily played the role of Obama cheerleader.

"As the Hispanic vote goes nationally, so goes the presidency," Richardson said. He got loud cheers by predicting big margins for the Illinois senator among Hispanic voters in New Mexico as well as in Colorado and Nevada.

"And we want that number to be close to 65 or 70 percent," he said of New Mexico's Hispanic vote for Obama.

It was a chance for locals to see Richardson do what he's been doing increasingly on the national level.

During the weekend, he attended several Obama events in Las Vegas, Nev. He met Saturday with Hispanic leaders there, spoke to Obama volunteers at a North Las Vegas campaign office, had a town hall at the College of Southern Nevada, attended a soccer tournament sponsored by Spanish-language television network Telemundo and spoke at a dinner for Las Vegas Democrats.

(The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that boxing fan Richardson also attended a title fight between Juan Manuel Marquez and Joel Casamayor.)

Also on Saturday, Richardson, in his role as Obama surrogate, taped an interview on MSNBC. On Sunday, he appeared on Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, opposite Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

During last month's Democratic National Convention in Denver, Richardson told The New Mexican that the Obama campaign mainly wanted him to campaign in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, three swing states with significant Hispanic populations.

But Obama apparently isn't limiting Richardson to those Western states. The New York Times last week listed Richardson among surrogates including Sen. Hillary Clinton and Caroline Kennedy who were scheduled to appear at high-dollar fundraisers this month in New York.

A spokeswoman for the Governor's Office said Monday that travel expenses for such out-of-state trips are paid by the Obama campaign. He normally travels with a state police officer, a state Public Safety Department spokesman said. Although the officer's salary is paid by the state, the spokesman said, travel expenses are covered by the campaign.

Some at Monday's event in Santa Fe seemed to want to use Richardson to pass advice to Obama.

"Governor, tell him to toughen up those ads," one man said as Richardson left the building.

Hispanics for Obama is a statewide group, Richardson said after the event. It will hold policy forums involving Hispanic leaders around New Mexico.

Although Hispanic voters traditionally have favored Democrats, the percentages targeted by Richardson are hardly guaranteed. In 2004, President Bush attracted about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks.

Richardson said the campaign's goal is to register 12,000 new Hispanic voters as part of a statewide effort to boost total voter registration by 30,000 during the next 30 days.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com.

IF YOU GO

What: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama visits Española

When: Rally starts at 12:30 p.m. Thursday at the Española Plaza

Tickets: Free, available starting today at two Obama campaign offices in Santa Fe, 720 St. Michael's Drive 2-N and 3494 Zafarano Drive Suite B, as well as at campaign offices in Las Vegas, Taos, Española, Los Alamos and Raton.

Obama plans Española visit; Richardson launches new group while courting Hispanics in battleground states

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:35:07 EDT

Click for more photos / Buy Photo
Luis Sanchez-Saturno/The New Mexican Photo: Santa Fe County Commissioner Virginia Vigil screams ‘Obamanos!’ on Monday during the opening of a new Barack Obama campaign office on Santa Fe’s south side. Gov. Bill Richardson used the opening as an opportunity to launch a group called Hispanics for Obama and announce an upcoming visit by the Democratic presidential candidate to Española.

Steve Terrell | The New Mexican

9/15/2008 - 9/16/08

Gov. Bill Richardson on Monday launched a group called Hispanics for Obama , and announced that the Democratic presidential candidate himself will appear Thursday in Española.

Barack Obama is relying on Richardson to help court Hispanics in battleground states including New Mexico, which narrowly went for Republican George W. Bush four years ago and where John McCain also has visited several times this year.

In informal remarks to dozens of local Democrats at the opening of a new south-side Santa Fe campaign office, Richardson began with a hearty "Buenos tardes." He laughed and made joking asides to enthusiastic audience members as he happily played the role of Obama cheerleader.

"As the Hispanic vote goes nationally, so goes the presidency," Richardson said. He got loud cheers by predicting big margins for the Illinois senator among Hispanic voters in New Mexico as well as in Colorado and Nevada.

"And we want that number to be close to 65 or 70 percent," he said of New Mexico's Hispanic vote for Obama.

It was a chance for locals to see Richardson do what he's been doing increasingly on the national level.

During the weekend, he attended several Obama events in Las Vegas, Nev. He met Saturday with Hispanic leaders there, spoke to Obama volunteers at a North Las Vegas campaign office, had a town hall at the College of Southern Nevada, attended a soccer tournament sponsored by Spanish-language television network Telemundo and spoke at a dinner for Las Vegas Democrats.

(The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that boxing fan Richardson also attended a title fight between Juan Manuel Marquez and Joel Casamayor.)

Also on Saturday, Richardson, in his role as Obama surrogate, taped an interview on MSNBC. On Sunday, he appeared on Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer, opposite Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

During last month's Democratic National Convention in Denver, Richardson told The New Mexican that the Obama campaign mainly wanted him to campaign in New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado, three swing states with significant Hispanic populations.

But Obama apparently isn't limiting Richardson to those Western states. The New York Times last week listed Richardson among surrogates including Sen. Hillary Clinton and Caroline Kennedy who were scheduled to appear at high-dollar fundraisers this month in New York.

A spokeswoman for the Governor's Office said Monday that travel expenses for such out-of-state trips are paid by the Obama campaign. He normally travels with a state police officer, a state Public Safety Department spokesman said. Although the officer's salary is paid by the state, the spokesman said, travel expenses are covered by the campaign.

Some at Monday's event in Santa Fe seemed to want to use Richardson to pass advice to Obama.

"Governor, tell him to toughen up those ads," one man said as Richardson left the building.

Hispanics for Obama is a statewide group, Richardson said after the event. It will hold policy forums involving Hispanic leaders around New Mexico.

Although Hispanic voters traditionally have favored Democrats, the percentages targeted by Richardson are hardly guaranteed. In 2004, President Bush attracted about 40 percent of the Hispanic vote according to exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks.

Richardson said the campaign's goal is to register 12,000 new Hispanic voters as part of a statewide effort to boost total voter registration by 30,000 during the next 30 days.

Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com.

IF YOU GO

What: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama visits Española

When: Rally starts at 12:30 p.m. Thursday at the Española Plaza

Tickets: Free, available starting today at two Obama campaign offices in Santa Fe, 720 St. Michael's Drive 2-N and 3494 Zafarano Drive Suite B, as well as at campaign offices in Las Vegas, Taos, Española, Los Alamos and Raton.

Obama Would Benefit by Describing His Potential Cabinet Choices, and Specifically What He Wants Them to Achieve, starting, let's say, with Howard Dean, Bill Richardson, and Jerry Brown!

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:26:57 EDT

I have been writing some halacious (and I believe quite excellent) articles on the ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR AND LONG RANGE BENEFITS FOR AMERICA'S HEALTH, FOR DR. HOWARD DEAN III, M.D., to be considered an "early" member of Obama's Cabinet, if that wouldn't be too big a step down for one of his genius level intelligence, I say as Secretary of Health, or better yet, FDA Commissioner, to take federal regulatory power out of the hands and make it begin again to actually protect consumers.....

FDA Commissioner should be a Cabinet Level position, anyway...it oversees a full 25% of the entire US Economy , the segment based on Food or Drugs).

The 6 decades-long subservience to corporate demand and corporate profits, the influence of corporate lobbyists to destroy true consumer protection legislation at all levels, the international implications, especially Economic, of a total regulatory failure in the United States Food and Drug Administration: all of this needs to come to a rapid, almost immediate end, with a very strong consumer protection-oriented FDA Commissioner who is not going to open the Revolving Door at the FDA to corporations regulated by the FDA, and not going to constantly capitulated to the whims an profits of Big Pharma and Big Junk Food, dba Grocery Manufacturers of America, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Wrigley's Gum, Ajinomoto of Japan (the world's largest manufacturer of both Aspartame and of Monosodium Glutamate, and everybody's fist choice for monster corporation: Monsanto, etc.

I see no better choice than nor anyone else I would trust more to do that job than Howard Dean!

[Here is one of my first articles on this subject:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Medical-Corner-of-the-by-Stephen-Fox-080824-149.html]

(I also want to see New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of State and California Attorney General and former Governor Jerry Brown, as Attorney General)

I frequently hear that such discussions, if they came from Obama, would be deemed "presumptuous" and "arrogant", some say by the press and others say from the Neocon Right Wingers.

However, if he were to speak to that issue in the context of what he would like to achieve as President in the various key realms, Environment, Education, International, Defense, etc., and at the same time, mention some names of who the USA MIGHT see in charge of which Cabinet level positions:

With some more obligatory brainstorming, THIS SEEMS LIKE A DYNAMITE CAMPAIGN TACTIC AND WAY TO SECURE FENCESITTERS AND UNDECIDED, especially in Battleground states....

Too bad if the Neocons label it "arrogant" or "presumptuous." I could care less what they think. This is not some mere campaign ploy, but a plan that would illuminate ALL Americans as to what his administration might achieve. In such a comparison with McCain, I am sure Obama would come out clearly on top.

Prediction: McCain will use the Bush 2004 Debate Tactic of Deriding Obama's Ostensible "Lack of Experience." Cheney used that as well in the VP Debates. You know McCain will hammer that, but describing Cabinet picks during the debates will blow McCain and his leaky boat right out of the tub! The Republicans will, in their fuzzy demented way, will remember how well this worked in 2004!

I see clearly that if Obama would try this on a trial basis, here and there, before the first debate, ultimately he would be doing it for the right reasons, so that the American public might better comprehend his highest goals domestically and internationally, and it would open the door to perceptions of his candidacy, raising it above the National Enquirer propensities of the Republican Team in this election.

Obama should immediately ask Dwight Eisenhower's Granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, to appear at campaign major events in the Battleground states, for in the Senate Races, and in the Presidential Race. I am sure she would accept.

I have heard from at least 50 people in Florida that they are praying and begging for former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, to come to Florida, to dispell the vicious rumors the R's have spread throughout the elderly mostly Jewish community, that Obama is some kind of secret Muslim Terrorist.

I am serious about such reports coming from South Florida, and I thus encourage Obama and Biden to invite Ed Koch to spend a month in Florida on their behalf, and to ask Susan Eisenhower to appear in older Rust Belt and Bible Belt rallies, where older fence sitters and undecideds will hear her grandfather, the last Real Republican, with great benefit for the Electoral Vote Tally.

Respectfully offered,

Stephen Fox
Founder, New Millennium Fine Art
a Santa Fe Gallery since 1980
stephen@santafefineart.com

Venezuela Joins Bolivia in Expelling U.S. Ambassador/ Hugo Chavez Refers to New Government, after telling Yanquis to go to Hell! Things will improve if Bill Richardson is the next US Secretary of State!

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 18:01:27 EDT

[I have been hoping for a long time that Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be the next Secretary of State in the Obama Cabinet.
No article (coming out of this hemisphere, anyway) proves my point more clearly. With President Obama, we will see an entirely new attitude to international matters than the present Neocon/Halliburton/Cheney/Blackwater driven drivel, which has come close to destroying the way the USA is perceived in almost every nation. It would be more of the same, and I believe far worse, in a McCain administration. Richardson is a consensus builder and a superb diplomate, and will not allow the US Department of State to manipulated and controlled by US corporations; make no mistake of that!--------Stephen Fox]

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091104043.html?
Friday, September 12, 2008;
BOGOTA, Colombia, Sept. 11 -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told a throng of supporters Thursday that he is giving U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy 72 hours to leave the oil-rich country.

The populist leader said he issued the order in solidarity with his close ally in Bolivia, President Evo Morales, who on Wednesday ordered the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in La Paz after accusing him of fomenting unrest. The United States said it has nothing to do with a rising tide of violent anti-government protests in Bolivia, which led to the deaths of at least eight demonstrators on Thursday.

Spicing his speech with expletives, Chávez said he was also recalling Venezuela's ambassador, Bernardo Álvarez, from Washington. The decision, announced before thousands of supporters in the city of Puerto Cabello, signals that Chávez is willing to escalate his long confrontation with the United States to solidify support before mayoral and gubernatorial elections in November.

"Go to hell, Yankees," he said as the crowd hollered in support.

Chávez said that "when there's a new government in the United States, we will send an ambassador, a government that respects the people of Latin America, the America of Simón Bolívar."

Relations have been particularly strained in recent days as U.S. officials have accused Venezuela of falling far short in the war on drugs in the Andes. U.S. and Colombian authorities say an increasing amount of cocaine is funneled through Venezuela, often with Venezuelan officials participating in the trafficking. Venezuelan officials angrily deny the charges.

Chávez on Thursday also said that the United States was behind a plot to assassinate him, and his government announced a reduction in flights from the United States on American carriers. That decision was made in retaliation after U.S. officials issued warnings about the safety of Venezuelan airports.

This week, Chávez also relished the arrival of two Russian strategic bombers in Venezuela. The Tu-160 bombers, which Russian officials said are not carrying live weapons, are flying training missions over the Caribbean until Monday, when they will return to Russia.

Although NATO fighters escorted the bombers on their long flight to Venezuela, U.S. officials have said they are closely monitoring the exercises.

Chávez said the arrival of the bombers counters Washington's influence in the region and puts the United States "on notice." The training exercises come after Moscow showed its displeasure with the Bush administration for sending warships to provide assistance to Georgia, which last month lost a short war with Russia.

On Wednesday, Chávez said he wanted to fly "one of those beasts" past Cuba and greet his friend and mentor, former Cuban president Fidel Castro. Pavel Androsov, the head of the Russian air force's long-distance command, told Interfax that Chávez's request would be considered.

"If they ask us, then fine, if they give us such an order, we will safely transport him and show him the Caribbean from above," Androsov said.

New Mexico's next U.S. Senator Tom Udall's statement in Memory of September 11; Some Historical Observations, and Concluding Advice to Obama on a Shift He Absolutely Must Make in Order to Win!

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:11:00 EDT

[PHILADELPHIA - Republican presidential candidate John McCaincut short his first public appearance without running-mate Sarah Palin after chanting supporters of Democratic rival Barack Obama interrupted his speech.

After lunching with a roundtable of women at Philadelphia's Down Home Diner, McCain shook hands with supporters and strode up to a podium to deliver a
statement. But as he spoke, chants of "Obama, Obama, Obama" filled the room.

Reporters craned forward trying to hear the Arizona senator. Unfortunately for McCain -- and possibly overlooked by aides who planned the event -- a section of the diner opened up to a market where a crowd had gathered behind a cordon.

A large contingent of Obama supporters showed up, mixed with some who had bumper stickers reading "Democrats for McCain".

"It's time to leave the talk behind and start shaking up Washington and fixing our economy, taking care of the problems facing our families. We're
going to give a tax cut to every family with a child," he said.

His words were barely audible.

McCain's supporters shouted "John McCain", "John McCain," "John McCain". The duelling chants nearly drowned out the presidential hopeful's voice.

"Pennsylvania is a battleground state as we can tell," McCain said.

Meanwhile Palin, the Alaska governor, was on a flight back to her state.]

U.S. Representative Tom Udall, D-N.M., released the following statement today in solemn remembrance of the tragedies of September 11, 2001:

"September 11 is a day that invokes immense sadness in all of us. Today, we remember the pain that we felt seven years ago.

But Americans learned something about ourselves on September 11, 2001, and what we learned should make us all proud.

We learned that, in America, when we find ourselves face-to-face with tragedy, we know a simple truth: we are our brothers' keepers; we are our sisters' keepers.

We know that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.

That if one American dies needlessly, we are all diminished by that loss. As we mark this somber day, let us take comfort in that lesson: whatever our enemies do to us, Americans will stick together. And we will not be defeated."

_______________________________

My own recollection/observation was after 9/11 when the Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar al Saud, donated a check for many millions of dollars to the 9/11 victims fund, as I recall $10 million, and accompanying the check was a letter in which he made many points, and among them was the question of the United States' need to figure out what it might have done to cause this ghastly disaster and act of Terrorism.

That was too much for Rudy Giuliani, who immediately returned the check to Bandar, objecting very vociferously to Bandar's his commentary.

When I read about this in the New York Times, I immediately recognized this as Giuliani's error, but we all throughout life recognize this uniquely human trait of not being able to accept responsibility (or even a hint of a discussion of responsibility) by someone who is in some kind of serious trouble. It is just too much for them to deal with.....

The Saudi passport of Saeed Alghamdi, said to be discovered in the wreckage of Flight 93.

Steel beams from the WTC were already being removed and recycled on September 20, 2001. [Source: Associated Press]

A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11. [Source: Frank Silecchia]

From left to right: Dick Cheney, Prince Bandar, Condoleezza Rice, and George W. Bush, on the Truman Balcony of the White House on September 13, 2001. [Source: White House]

Bandar certainly should have had some keen insights into these matters; from Wikipedia, in italics:

[Prince Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, who gave him the affectionate and controversial nickname "Bandar Bush". His friendship with Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, extends to the years before Cheney took office as the United States Vice President. Prince Bandar invited the Cheney family to his daughter's wedding in the 1990s, but they did not attend.

The close relationship with the Bush family is also described in Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud and is highlighted in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11....

Prince Bandar has endured controversy over allegations in the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward that President George W. Bush informed him of the decision to invade Iraq ahead of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Also, the book alleged a deal had been worked out to reduce oil prices just ahead of the November 2004 election. Bandar publicly endorsed President Bush.

On June 26, 2005, Prince Bandar reportedly submitted his resignation as ambassador to the United States for "personal reasons".[4][5] Bandar's return to Saudi Arabia was announced weeks prior to the death of King Fahd upon which Bandar's father, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz became the nation's Crown Prince. It has been rumoured that Bandar's return was timed in order to secure a position in the new government.[6] In October 2005 he became the kingdom's national security chief.]

Wat happened? According to another source; "Saudi princesses are no less benevolent than their husbands, brothers and cousins. Ambassador-Prince Bandar's own wife Princess Haifa, daughter of the late King Feisal, received a letter from an unknown woman telling of problems with medical bills. The Princess-Ambassadress dashed her off a check in six figures -- and the money by some strange route ended up among the resources of the perpetrators of the September 11 atrocities. The revelation so upset Her Royal Highness that various sympathetic Washington ladies rushed their condolences and sympathy to her -- including Mrs. George H.W. Bush and Mrs. Colin Powell. "

I am not a 9/11 conspiracy kind of guy/paranoid, not at all. I concluded long ago that even talking about such was a waste of time, my time at least....

However, having said that, since September 11, 2001, I do believe we have a lot of evidence of how our hostility about Islam now has alienated most of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, about 60 nations; it is obvious that the Chinese have run rings around us in terms of investment and economic policy throughout most of the world, particularly in Africa; it is screamingly obvious that American excursions into Iraq along with most of the US wars since 1945 have been in essence imperialistic in nature, and as such have earned us increasing hostility; one British tourist visiting Santa Fe compared the British in Ireland to the Americans in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

"If you kill their mothers and children and cousins and brothers over several years, pretty soon the entire nation becomes terrorists."

I do believe that the core of this Modern History was all essentially delineated by Marx, Engels, and especially by Hegel, in his discussions of Dialectical Materialism.

All those ISM's and the thesis/antithesis/synthesis processes make perfect sense to me in explaining the History of Economic Systems; it is clear to me that when Big Pharma and Big Junk Food corporations and their hired guns/lobbyists effectively take over the regulatory processes of a nation, like they have done with the FDA, that we are doomed in health, in history, in medical and consumer credibility, and in Economic well-being.

I have written a lot of articles on related subjects, particularly Consumer Protection, Aspartame, and Donald Rumsfeld's having forced through the FDA the approval for Aspartame/Methanol/Formaldehyde, so he could make $12-20 million personal profit, the health of hundreds of millions of people be damned....

I won't regale you with this on this solemn occasion, but allow me to recall a lecture in Santa Fe a few years ago by former President of Poland and Nobel Laureate Lech Walesa to the effect that the USA has lost its moral stature in toto as well as most of its political power, squandered its economic power in order to preserve and just barely maintain its military power, which was no replacement for moral, political, or economic power. That was quite brilliant, truly.

Similarly, DNC Chairman and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean III, M.D., was recently in Santa Fe to fire up the troops, and one thing in particular stuck with me, when he said no nation could bring peace in any conflict unless it had the moral authority to sit at the negotiating table.

We don't have that power and that moral authority throughout most of the world right now, thanks to the past 8 years of Bush/Cheney/Neocon/Blackwater/Halliburton/Kellogg Brown, and Root mode of economics and government economic policies.

I really don't believe that in general Economics nor specifically that Macro Economic insights from government economic advisors, for example, hardly qualifies as rocket science.

It is more akin to the old irrigation system of colonial New Mexico, in which the farmer who controlled the flow of the irrigation ditch, or ACEQUIA MADRE ("MOTHER DITCH" in Spanish) determined which field the water would flow into. He was called the Majordomo, and in that society, was much more important than any Mayor, or "ALCALDE" in Spanish.

That is what has happened during the past 8 years. The White House and other government masters of the flow of monies have purposefully turned the irrigation ditch waters into such things as Military, Defense Contractors, Weapons, Hardware, Security, etc.

What was in that other field, the one that got neglected and deprived of water?

Just about everything else: Education, Inner Cities, Highway maintenance and construction, Infrastructure, huge realms of Scientific and Medical Research like Stem Cell Research, etc. You name it: our American Economy is in terrible shape, and with the way our international respect has deteriorated, squarely because of Bush and Cheney, it might get a lot worse....the signs are everywhere; they are well known and they are easily recognized: endemic mortage failures, high gas prices, a deflated stock market, high unemployment, failed schools especially in the Inner City, store closings, et. alia.

Much of this election hinges on our ability to change all of that, to put America back on a sane and internationally effective tack, and that is at a minimum, just to ensure our survival as a nation.

That is why I want to see Dr. Dean be the Obama Cabinet Secretary for Health or as FDA Commissioner, and that is why I want to see NM Governor Bill Richardson as the next Secretary of State. I think also that Jerry Brown of California would make a great consumer protection-oriented United States Attorney General, one who would also reconstruct all of our civil liberties.

Such speculations are of course something else entirely, but I am certain that Obama should discuss such things seriously and frequently, ignoring the advice of some who say that that would be ridiculed by the right wing as "presumptuous" or as "arrogant," so that the American people can gain some glimmer of an insight into what he really would like to achieve as President, in terms of names, both possible and real and well known names.

Will Obama win?

To get to that victory, I work day and night as a member of 328 Obama groups, coordinating correspondence, and urging people to not just "preach to the choir," as that is how Democrats usually lose elections, but to get out there and go door to door to tell folks how much is really at stake in this election, plus my special focus: Letters to the Editor, Opinion/Editorials, and so on, all over the United States, wherever they could be published.

Surprising how few people comprehend this in only a few states, and in not many of the so-called BATTLEGROUND STATES, for Obama and for US Senate candidates, as described in my blog about a week ago in the letter from Senator Charles Schumer.

I am going to take a break from all of this furious emailing, so you won't hear from me for a while.

I will conclude with a few paragraphs written today, not by me, but an astute observer and friend of mine,who wishes to remain anonymous, about 50 years old, a realtor, former actress, and thinker:

Recently, I was on a flight to Texas and sat next to a very personable and fairly astute guy. We began talking politics and went back and forth about the issues. He was really impressed by my research and said so.

Then he leaned over to me and whispered conspiratorially, "I concede all the points but Obama is a Muslim, you know."

And when I calmly explained that that particular lie fed on our basest fears, he held up Reverend Wright as proof. This scene has been repeated numerous times with different characters but the underlying emotional message is clear and powerful. Their winning on a gut level. They are afraid and the facts don't matter.

Obama is perceived as "the other."

The Republicans have clearly defined him emotionally and he must wrest these irrational pictures away from them and supplant them with powerful and soothing reassurance.

Obama may loose this election if he does not connect on a visceral level soon. He must capture the emotional narrative and stop trying to be only reasonable. People do not reason their way into the voting booth. They move from the gut.

He has much "low-hanging fruit" to choose from. Sarah Palin is a right-wing fundamentalist wack-job. She is an extremist and Americans of all stripes are uncomfortable with extremism. John McCain has abandoned every "maverick" position he's ever held.

It's all on video, from her prayers to the oil pipeline god to the massively naked ambition which has led him to do a 180 on every major political stance of his past. Use Their Own Words To Out This Outrageous Hypocricy. Draw passionate simple pictures once again and reframe this narrative, from the gut. It's the only way. "

______________________________________

Obama has to win!

(Rejoice: Palin is another Harriet Miers, In My Humble Opinion) TOP TEN REASONS SARAH PALIN SHOULD NOT BE ELECTED VICE PRESIDENT

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 20:56:52 EDT

[The comparison to Harriet Miers is an obvious but original thought, but it seems Art Levine at the Huffington Post, also conceived of it, a bit earlier than I did, so hats off to Art Levine: here is his article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/sarah-palin-the-new-harri_b_122582.html]

#1: Palin opposes a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, opposing the right to an abortion even for rape victims.

#2: Palin believes that Creationism should be taught in public schools, which runs both counter to well-settled evolutionary science, and to the Constitutional separation of church and state.

#3: Palin is a global warming denier, who (as with her views on evolution) has expressed skepticism about the well-settled science.

#4: Palin opposes listing polar bears as an endangered species, because it means oil and gas companies might have to be just a little bit careful out there.

#5: Palin is rabidly dedicated to drilling in the Artic wildlife refuge, known as ANWR.

#6: Palin is in the midst of a growing ethics scandal, involving the alleged abuse of her gubernatorial power to punish a State Trooper who is her sister's ex-husband, firing a State Commissioner who refused to go along.

#7: Palin called Hillary Clinton a "whiner", even as she cynically tries to woo Clinton voters to the McCain ticket.

#8: Palin has very little experience for the Vice Presidential job, serving less than two years so far of her first term as Governor of a state with fewer residents than Fort Worth, Texas. (Previously, she was Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, pop. 8,500.) This a photo of Wasilla, Alaska.

http://mudflats.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/wasilla.jpg

#9: Palin has no foreign policy experience at all, so little in fact that her supporters are reduced to citing Alaska's proximity to Russia.

#10: Palin is virtually untested, unvetted and unknown to Americans, a fact which throws into relief the hypocrisy of the many unfair criticisms leveled at Barack Obama during this campaign.

BONUS REASON, #11: Palin only recently said that she doesn't even know what the job entails, saying on the CNBC show Kudlow and Co

Why Espanola?

Richard — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 10:12:37 EDT

So, Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton chose Espanola for their northern New Mexico fundraiser, rather than coming to San Miguel County.

I guess that's understandable. Espanola could draw from Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, Los Alamos, and Taos counties -- home of more than 220,000 people. People from those counties would be less likely to travel to Las Vegas for a rally than to Espanola. That leaves Las Vegas with a much smaller population to draw from -- San Miguel and Mora counties for sure, Guadalupe and Harding, perhaps. More dollars to fish for along the big river.

Democrat canditates do find the Pecos and the Gallinas good places to fish for votes, however. San Miguel county tallied the 25th heaviest vote for Al Gore among the 3,000 plus counties in the nation! We gave him nearly 75% of our votes in an election he won statwide by less than 400 votes. John Kerry got 72% of our vote, even as he lost the state by about 6,000 votes. We're pretty reliable here in San Miguel County, and we can make a statewide difference in a close race.

Plus, we are voting in greater numbers. Just over 9,000 San Miguel county residents voted in the Gore-Bush election. More than 12,000 voted in Kerry Bush four years later.

If Obama can't squeeze us into his schedule before the election, maybe he could get one of our old friends -- Gore or Kerry -- to come stir us up!

Medical News Corner: Howard Dean, M.D., as Secretary of Health or FDA Commissioner? / Japanese scientists create stem cells from wisdom teeth

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:07:21 EDT

The Medical Corner of the News: Howard Dean, M.D. as Secretary of Health or FDA Commissioner?

[this article was originally published at my blog on mybarackobama.com; details are at: http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=57470&ret=AccountDtl.aspx]

Howard Branch Dean III, M.D., may have higher goals than being Health Secretary or FDA Commissioner in the Obama Administration. He is, after all, the brains behind the 50 state coordinated strategy which might actually bring back a 60 vote filibuster proof majority to the Democrats in the Senate, and where do you go from there, having done that? He might be too smart to be in such a job, so that would be up to him, of course, and to President Obama.

But just for a minute, remembering the speeches we have heard and the letters we have read from Dr. Dean: imagine having a populist consumer protectionist physician of Dr. Dean's calibre (there are no others) at the helm of the FDA, the single most important Federal Agency, since it directly oversees 25% of the American economy, instead of the glut of corporate serving lackeys we have had in the past 8 to 16 years.

Just like I want to see a major internationalist like William Blaine Richardson III as Secretary of State, and the recent placement of his speech at the Democratic Convention proves others are thinking along the same lines; similarly, I want to see a massive overhaul of the American regulatory system in terms of food additives, chemicals, preservatives, sweeteners, etc., as I am sure they killing millions, and not just in the USA.

Further. we need an Attorney General with the positive record and proven stance in protecting consumers rather than corporate bottom lines would be California Jerry Brown, and an Attorney General who will work to restore American Constitutional freedoms and 850 years old measures like Habeas Corpus, instead of tearing them down, and routing them whenever it seemed to suit their fancy or their deluded view of terrorism and national emergencies that they themselves caused, whether directly or indirectly.

I am in the process of determing what Dr. Dean has to say about this, and who the FDA Commissioner is going to be is mighty important to the American people, whether they realize it yet or not; hopefully, it wouldn't be a step down for him to go in to the FDA in January, and start to correct many or all of the ghastly mistakes by the FDA, particulalry the Bush Commissioner, Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach, in the latter's penchant for coming up with corporate-pleasantries as policy. If it doesn't appeal to Dr. Dean to do this, who would he in turn recommend?

The FDA is a state of abject failure, and a large part of the failure stems from the cozy relations it has with Big Pharma, which unforatunately spills over into the far larger field of Big Grocery, with ghastly consequences for us every time we sit down to eat, or everytime we go to a regular commercial grocery store, to dodge the carcinogens and neurotoxins in the food additives.

The fundamental perspective has to be overhauled in the next FDA: it is there for the consumers, not for the coporations. There are not many people I would trust to put in charge of overseeing and regulating 25% of the US economy, but I do trust Dr. Howard Dean to do that in an intelligent, agressive, and creative manner, just like he has run the Democratic party over the past few years.

IN FACT, HE WOULD BE BRILLIANT.

______________________

THE ENTIRE INTERFACE BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND STEM CELL TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH IS ABOUT TO CHANGE, FOR THE BETTER....

______________________

Japanese scientists have devised a method of creating stem cells from wisdom teeth which would otherwise have been discarded, allowing them to find cures to diseases without the controversy implicit in using embryos. "This will prove to be a major breakthrough," said Dr Hajime Ogushi, from his Osaka laboratory of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.

His team extracted dental pulp from wisdom teeth removed from a 10-year-old girl three years ago and had been stored in a freezer, and from that pulp, stem cells with the ability to develop into replacement human organs or nerves can be grown. Research on stem cells taken from human foetuses has resulted in criticism from the Catholic Church, for destroying human life. The research seeks cures to a range of illnesses, including diabetes and cancer.

"These teeth were extracted three years ago and would have simply been thrown in the rubbish," said. Dr Ogushi. "Skin or bone marrow for this sort of research is quite difficult to obtain but this sort of operation is routine and very straightforward."

The cells were extracted from the wisdom teeth and encouraged to develop for a period of 35 days. Tests then confirmed they were stem cells.

Dr Oguchi said it was also simple to store the cells; he therefor plans to develop a tissue bank - as long as the funding is forthcoming, estimating that will take a decade to achieve, and give future scientists a range of genetic codes that can be matched to a patient to minimise the risk of
transplanted organs of tissue being rejected. Dr Ogushi said that people who have their wisdom teeth removed as youngsters could have them frozen and use them later in life for treatment.

Embryome Sciences develops new medical products using embryonic stem cell technology and is a subsidiary of BioTime Inc., reported on 21 August that the company has licensed a portfolio of patents and patent applications from Advanced Cell Technology Inc with respect to induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cell differentiation technology.

The company is applying the license for the commercialisation of products in human therapeutic and diagnostic product markets. The technology covers methods for the transformation of cells of the human body, such as skin cells, into an embryonic and pluripotent state.

Embryome Sciences Inc believes that the licensed technologies could be advantageous in the development of human stem cell products for use in medicine and are, therefore, important advancements in the field. In addition, Embryome Sciences Inc is presently marketing cell growth media, called ESpan, in collaboration with Lifeline. ESpan is designed for the culturing of human embryonic progenitor cells using ACTCellerate technology and other sub licensed technologies.

Red Blood Cells Providing New Incentives for Advanced Cell Technology

Could red blood cells be mass-produced? Advanced Cell Technology (ACTC) is a Los Angeles, California-based company devoted to turning human embryonic stem cells into therapies. On 19 August, the journal Blood published a paper reporting the efficient production of red blood cells from human embryonic stem cells.

Lead author was Robert Lanza, chief scientific officer at ACT (his co-authors are from the University of Illinois, Chicago, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota). Up to 100 billion cells had been generated from a single plate of stem cells. The cells produced had oxygen-carrying abilities and physiological responses comparable to those of the cells from blood banks used in transfusions.

Advanced Cell Technology has 3 major products in the FDA Clinical Trials Pipleline: one to do with retinal repair, another with myoblast repair, after a heart attack, and the other is a hepatic (liver) repair stem cell product; this latest development puts a very obvious fourth feather in their hat....

The paper "clearly shows that stem cells could serve as an unlimited source of blood for transfusion in the future," Lanza says. "The potential here could be enormous."

"This is a major advance because it shows for the first time that these cells can be expanded; they can create [red] blood cells and they can carry oxygen," says Anthony Atala, the director of the Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "Blood therapies and blood replacement agents are an area of large need."

While the company searches for a big deal to stabilize it financially, Lanza says, "We are still going paycheck to paycheck." That's a familiar feeling for veterans of the 14-year-old company, he notes. "It's probably the fifth or sixth time we've had the phones turned off. When you get in trouble, that's your first warning." Lanza appeared with Barbara Walters on her show on April 1 to discuss in great deal the future and prospects of the specific stem cell research he directs at Advanced Cell Technology.

Although ACTC has in the FDA Clinical Trials pipeline stem cell products in three key ares (retinal respair, hepatic repair, and myoblast [after-heart attack] repair, Advanced Cell Technology has been living precariously on signing smaller licensing deals.

On 21 August, the life-sciences research company Embryome Sciences, a subsidiary of BioTime, announced a licensing agreement with ACT. Embryome, based in Alameda, California, has licensed a portfolio of patents related to virus-free induced pluripotent stem cells and embryonic stem cell differentiation technology.

Moving ACT's red blood cell method to the clinic, there are also questions about the commercial prospects for a product that would have to compete with freely donated blood.

"It's certainly a very exciting result from a scientific perspective," says Cathy Prescott, the director of Biolatris, a biotechnology and health-care consulting company in Cambridge, UK.

Thanks to the Telegraph, the London newspaper; to Medical News today (UK), and Dr. Catherine Paddock, to Embryome Press release, and to Meredith Wadman's article in Naturenews.

Blogging for Barack, Caroline Kennedy,Michael Moore, Dr. Howard Dean, the failed FDA, and Victory in November

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:37:02 EDT

I sure like Michael Moore's idea of Caroline Kennedy running as
Obama's Vice President, and tomorrow, Howard Dean III, M.D., is coming to
Santa Fe, and I will have a chance to ask him about my deepest concern,
overhauling the FDA with a true consumer protectionist as Commissioner, not
the corporate-serving lackey we have right now.

I decided to join 112 Obama groups, some at the official website, and
some interesting sounding Obama Yahoo! and one Google group located in
Colorado. I get 1200-2000 emails a day, and it is an amazing flow of
information. Recently, the news about Musharraf “resigning”appeared on the
Net at least 36 hours before it came out in the New Mexican, the "oldest
paper in the West."

On the other hand, my wise friend who graduated from St. John’s College
believes the “cool” or “cold” media, in which he included newspaper,
magazines, and books, ultimately had a much greater effect on the recipient
than the jillions of bits of information pouring in off the Internet.

At times, with 112 groups’ membership, including some strange ones
(LasVegasAgnosticsAtheistsforObama), Secular Humanist (my favorite), some
funny ones (PoliticallyNCorrectisOK), and the high-powered Action Teams in
all of the key states, the flow of information at times resembles looking
up at Niagara Falls, from that little boat below, the Maid of the Mist. At
other times, I notice a real self-congratulatory narcissistic attitude in
the groups, as if to say, “Aren’t we cool?” and not nearly enough of the
real mechanics of politics, the door to door, the articles to hang from the
door, getting the people to the Polls, etc., all of which may be boring to
many, but is the pulse of not only who is in the White House for the next 4
to 8 years, but whether the Senate has a filibuster-proof 60 Democrats. The
people who like that and are good at that are out doing just that, not
yakking it up on the Internet, basking in the ill-founded Kaffee Klatch
milieu that seems to be the result of useless Liberal Arts Degrees from many
years ago.

     It will be a very tight election, because of that supposed 16% of
American voters who are outright or secret BIGOTS, who will vote against
Obama above all, even with all of the bloggers, the right TV ads, the
Unions, the traditional Democrat alliance between Jews, Negroes, Minorities,
Intellectuals, Indians, etc., the victorious debates, as so on. Some say it
is always decided in the last 4 days anyway, which I don’t think is true
with this election. Such a large percentage of Americans recognize the
absolutely calamitous disastrous economic effects of 8 years of
Bushies/Neocons/Cheney/Blackwater/Kellogg Brown and Root/the Pentagon and
the Industrialists, etc.: I don’t see how any thinking American could not
vote for Obama, but, have I been wrong before? Yes.

     The bloggers will get out in due course and eventually Pound the
Pavement; at least, I know for sure that Obama's Campaign Manager, a few
others, and me, will ask them to do that, and I will be sending at least
400,000 people emails with encouragement to get strategic and cut the
yakking till after the Election.

But the observations about the effects of the Internet on Society (more
than Politics) are very compelling and very interesting. Marshall McLuhan
posited many years ago that all of this electronic communication and related
advances would eventually create The Global Village, but obviously, the
cohesion is very thin, if it there at all, eh?

Rather than any advanced form of communication, some see serious
Blogging as a new form of Insanity, recognized by the Medical Profession as
a brand new syndrome, and others see it as just plain old Lemming-like
behavior, especially in the political context. I have a keener perception of
how the Internet has requited at least 50% of the compulsion to read several
daily newspapers, and let me tell you in conclusion: there sure are a lot of
really smart people Blogging for Obama, and I am sure we are going to win.

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor, Santa Fe Sun News

Hispanic Dems warn Obama he risks losing Latinos

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:21:42 EDT

Contributed by Jared Allen, THE HILL

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) must commit to helping illegal immigrants achieve citizenship or else risk losing the vital Latino vote in the general election, Hispanic Democratic lawmakers are warning.

If he does not promise so-called comprehensive immigration reform, the lawmakers say, the only other way to win over. Hispanic supporters of his erstwhile rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), may be to pick her as his running mate.

Obama's National Latino Vote Director, Cuauhtemoc "Temo" Figueroa, will have his first meeting in Washington Thursday with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC).

They carefully avoided calling explicitly for Clinton's selection as the party's vice presidential nominee, but some indicated that her bond with Latino voters will get them to the polls in November, just as it drew them into the primaries.

"Hillary holds the entire Latino community in the palm of her hand," said. Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.), whose district went heavily for Clinton.

But Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), Obama's Republican opponent, is also liked by Latinos. He co-sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) the immigration bill that the CHC is demanding, which would put the country's 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. And he did not buckle under pressure to abandon that position during the GOP primary.

Cecilia Munoz, the senior vice president of research, advocacy and legislation with the National Council of La Raza, said whether McCain can win over large enough numbers of Latino voters is "still an open question."

"But Latinos are brand-loyal, and after the Clinton brand, the McCain brand is the second-strongest among Latinos because of his military service and his immigration record," Munoz said.

CHC Chairman Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) said that if Obama chooses someone other than Clinton, it will not be a dealbreaker for Latinos.

"But I hope he does make the right decision and picks someone who draws together our communities," Baca said. "Is that Hillary? I think she's certainly one of those candidates."

While Obama won the Latino vote in his home state of Illinois and in Colorado, and stayed competitive in New Mexico and Arizona, he was walloped among Latinos - 64 percent to 24 - throughout the 24 contests making up Super Tuesday.

In California, Clinton won over Latinos 67 percent to 29.

Latino voters comprised 30 percent of California Democratic primary voters, an increase of 17 percent from 2004. In Texas, the number of Latinos voting in the Democratic primary rose 8 percent, to 32 percent of the electorate, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

In harnessing such enthusiasm, Baca also said that the CHC will be looking - but not necessarily asking - for Obama to make as strong of a pledge as Clinton did to putting comprehensive immigration reform on his "first 100 days" agenda.

"He says he wants to, but he needs to show that he's serious about taking it up."

Obama's campaign coordinator for Spanish-language media, Vince Casillas, said that while Obama has promised to take up immigration reform in his first year in office, he has not yet laid out his detailed plan for comprehensive reform.

"As soon as he's ready and has a plan in place, he'll announce it," Casillas said.

In the Florida Republican primary, where Latinos made up 12 percent of the total vote and where McCain edged out Romney by only 4 percentage points, the Arizona senator won 54 percent of the Latino vote compared to Romney's 14 percent.

And many Republicans remember that it was in 2004 when 40 percent of Latino voters abandoned the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.), to vote for President Bush, Munoz said.

Munoz called 2004 the Democrats' "low-water mark" in pulling in Latino support. The "high-water mark," she said, came in 1996, the last time a Clinton was on the ticket.

And even longtime Obama backers in the CHC - including Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.) -said that Obama has a lot of work to do in drumming up support among Latinos who are still fiercely loyal to Clinton.

"I have encouraged the [Obama] campaign for a year now that retail politics is very important to us, but they don't yet seem to have gotten the message," Gutierrez said. "We really need to see more of that from him."

Becerra said that once he gets out there, Obama will be a "natural at connecting with the Latino community," but he acknowledged that more outreach is needed.

"And first and foremost, the discussion will need to be about how to reach out to the Clinton supporters and then [get] them incorporated into his campaign."

Baca said that if Obama fails to do that, and fails to give his "strongest types of surrogates" in the Latino community the

ammunition they need to help seal support for his candidacy, the record Latino turnout that was seen in the primaries could disappear.

"We have a tendency to not go to the polls to vote," Baca said. "[The CHC] can help get them out to vote, and it'll make a big difference. But in the end it's up to him."

What are you doing?

Ron Domino — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:46:53 EDT

(original Barack Out With My Cock Out posting - Tuesday, February 19, 2008)

After seeing the more prominently known Bill that is competing for the White House this year, I am shaken and disturbed. The only man with a better resume than our own Governor Bill, graced the University of New Mexico -- the Flagship University of the state -- and bellowed through the indiscernible PA system (still intact from the days before the Pit when the Lobos played in Johnson) his plan to unite America and win back the white house.

With a few references to the accomplishments of his first two terms, Bill highlighted what he would do better in his third and fourth terms. Left un-addressed, was the absence of the magical touch that brought him into office in 1992 and accomplished his agenda; the glow that dropped people's jaws in the same manner as Tiger Woods and John Lennon was gone. There was no jam-packed hall with people crammed into every last corner. There were no throngs of on-lookers sitting in silent respect for the President that created international bridges over impassable waters. A few hundred, maybe a thousand interested persons were scattered across the gym floor and upper deck. A few waved signs to remind the President of his wife's name. Applause was given out of respect, not jubilation.

At the onset of this election cycle (Dem Convention 2004 when we nominated a guaranteed loser) I began saying "If it came down to it, I could stomach voting for his wife if it brought President Clinton back into the White House." While today reaffirmed my belief that they are – politically-speaking – one person in two bodies, I cannot say that it reaffirmed my devote support of the eventual Democratic nominee. He is not the President that is adored in history books and on the History Channel. He is the President of the 90's - a great leader that provided great deeds, but it is now time to honor his past service by doing what he has always advocated to do; we must continue looking to the future, continue moving forward as we learn from our past failures and work to elevate new leaders to guide our nation away from failed policies and toward a new, better future.

The changes of the future came the next morning. At the Albuquerque Convention Center any and everyone that wasn’t chained to a desk lined up to catch a glimpse of the other remaining candidate in the Democratic Primary. While I had walked straight into Johnson Gym the day before, I arrive an hour early to sneak into line about 3000 deep. In the third or fourth extra ballroom, Senator Obama passed through to keep from disappointing the extra 3000 attendees that didn’t stand a chance of sneaking into the Kiva. Another throng of supporters assembled on Civic Plaza to see him after a long speech followed by many questions.

What I witnessed in two days was incomparable. As meaningless as running on the words of “change” and "hope" can be, it has already produced results. Across the nation people who had lost hope, People who have never previously voted or followed an election have taken action and become involved. Changes have already taken place. Records are set each time another state holds their primary or caucus. The opportunities currently presented to the Democrats are only just being recognized. To quash their new-found interest would be to shoot oneself in the foot to even the race for the competition.

As a pragmatist that compromises to win rather than adhering to ideals in defeat, it is imperative that we work to inform and educate our own communities. Thus, as any provider of news, I will bring you announcements of events of the 2008 election. I will sift, sort and edit for you, not to deceive and distort, but to place the focus on the facts that carry real importance.

As New Mexico is a state that goes to the eventual winner every year except for two in its entire history, a focus will be placed upon the state. In addition to being a key state in the Presidential Race, all three current Congressmen are competing for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Pete Domenici for the first time in 36 years. While two of the congressional races will be all but decided in the June primary, the Albuquerque congressional district and Senate race could easily bring out provisional ballots to decide the winners.

It may not be remembered as an historic election, but you will hear of its historic implications many times in the next year (enough to make your ears bleed on dry days, so don’t make a drinking game based on its repetition). I welcome anyone interested in staying informed and up to date to join me often as we watch the election transpire.

Obama Should Name a Range of Cabinet Choices, Nothing Final, but Get Some Names Out There...

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 22:36:11 EDT

Today, one Blue Dog Democrat, from the Yahoo! group by that name, which is not connected to mybarackobama.com pointed out that Dewey might have lost in 1948 because he named a Cabinet, but Dewey didn't lose that election solely because he named a Cabinet. That was 60 years ago. Times have changed. Many other factors beat Dewey...

Things are more urgent in 2008; the need for Cabinet level perspectives is paramount, and would precipitate a lot of voters to Obama's side, if he did it in a non presumptuous way, and made it clear that he was opening up the discussion in a fair and egalitarian way.

Personally, I believe we are in such an infernal mess internationally that the Secretary of State job has taken on more importance than the Vice President, and that we need a diplomat with a lot of international exposure, experience and track record. That would be New Mexico Governor Bill
Richardson, by a long shot....

Attorney General is another vital one: California Attorney General Jerry Brown, by a long shot, in my opinion. His record vis a vis Consumer Protection is stunning and is also sterling. Edwards is out of the picture (maybe like Eliot Spitzer is out of the picture, because of that Southern Male Brain?)

Health Secretary or FDA Commissioner? Very vital. FDA reports to Secretary of Health, and I believe strongly, if he would take the job and wouldn't see it as a step down, DR. Howard Dean III, M.D. would be the best; this is someone I trust a lot, especially at FDA to oversee fully 25% of the US Economy, which is either food or drugs. The corporate manipulation of FDA is killing America and big chunk of the rest of the world.

Even if Obama's top advisors are too scared of announcing Cabinet choices or a range of Cabinet choices, which they should not be at all, we can still talk about them, while we are not convincing fence sitters to vote for Obama.

The best tool I know of are his speeches, like the Berlin Speech, which has convinced many of my fence sitter friends, and for the devotees in Santa Fe, they in turn have printed it out and used it to convince other fence sitters. I managed over great difficulties to publish the entire Berlin Speech in the Santa Fe Sun News, of which I am the Managing Editor. When I was hunting down the precise complete text thereof, I couldn't even find it at mybarackobama.com, so I published it here a few blogs ago....

I am a member of about 70 different Obama groups, and I have noticed a tendency for the most active members to wallow in self congratulatory B.S., nitpick over what should be psychoanalytic conjecture, hairsplitting, noshing, chatting, and mere linguistic controversy, means that all doing this are entirely missing the point that we have an election to win.

All of the yukking-it-up in the world is not going to win it. It means take the time to pound the pavement, take literature that you yourself print out from various sites, and take it door-to-door in your neighborhood.

If we don't do this, we can still easily lose this election in November. Make no mistake. It is only about 90 days away, our supreme test!

Stephen Fox, Managing Editor Santa Fe Sun News

PS: There is much more meaningful dialogue about Campaing Strategies and Tactics going on in some of the groups not connected with barackobama.com, like ObamaBrigade, a Yahoo! group and SecularHumanist, another Yahoo! group. I recommend you join them to be closer to the cutting edge of the Obama Campaign.

The Case for Evan Bayh

jgabriel — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:20:05 EDT

Chris Cillizza makes an interesting case for Indiana's Evan Bayh as Obama's vice presidential pick. Personally, I think the choices are Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Sam Nunn, with Bill Richardson or Kathleen Sebelius as outside picks. What do you think?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/07/the_case_for_obama.html?hpid=topnews

Veepstakes - Richardson swings NM, possibly AZ?

Dave in Albuquerque — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:46:52 EDT

Governor Bill Richardson is talked about in hallowed tones down here by a large majority of the population, including business leaders, academics, and the rural minority crowd. While the state hasn't moved forward as much in some areas of development, namely health and education standards, there has been significant positive change in New Mexico, especially given the lack of tax dollars to throw at situations.

Yes, "Big Bill" is known as a skirt chaser. Not the best person to try and win over HRC supporters that were voting for her because they wanted to see a woman in the top office. Does that alone knock him out of the running?

Richardson's foreign policy experience is a big plus for BHO, who needs a #2 that can go to work rebuilding the reputation of the US around the world.

While I am fairly certain that Richardson as VP candidate would lock up NM, the big question I have is regarding AZ. McCain's numbers in his home state have plummeted as of late, and bringing in Richardson could be a huge plus in getting the large Latino population out to vote for the BHO ticket.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts on this.

UPDATE: I've spoken to a number of fairly entrenched politicos from around New Mexico who say that Richardson is not as well liked in NM as first glance may believe. Would it hurt Obama in NM to have Richardson on the ticket? Probably not. Does this new perspective give less weight to choosing Richardson? I think so. I think I'm getting buyer's remorse.

Links to my blog posts on Daily Kos

LoE — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 09:15:24 EDT

I took this picture at the Yearly Kos blogger's convention in August 2007. I chose the Obama breakout session because my mother has been a big Obama fan for years (since the first book). I was undecided, so I went to that session and liked what I saw. I can't figured out the html to post a picture in a blog here - "img src=" doesn't seem to work! Can someone offer a tip?

I guess you'll have to follow the link to see the picture.

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/1272/obamabirthdaymh5.jpg

I wrote quite a few blog posts during the primary season. The links can be found below the fold.

Dear Hillary, (please do the right thing)

Myriam from Warrenville, IL — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:16:59 EDT

Dear Hillary,

You know that I voted for your leadership-team in 1992. I donated as much as it was possible to donate to your campaign, believing in you fully, and though I did not campaign for you officially, I was one of those network-marketers in the field who your campaign could not have won without, never losing the opportunity to explain to every person I had a conversation with why you-and-Bill were the team to lead our country. I made no-bones then about the fact that my vote was as much in support of you as of your husband. Your allusion to Tammy Wynette's song resulted in some heat that didn't make as much of an impression on me, or the other women I knew at that time, as the statement we needed to hear: you weren't just "standing by your man"--you truly believed he was the right person to lead the country--and so did we. We, the women of America, stepped forward to vote Bill into the most powerful office in our country, and it only happened because he empowered you, his first-lady, as no other president has before, to co-lead his team.

Then team-Clinton was elected and words became reality. You turned our country around, leading us on a path that, could it have been continued, would have resulted in long-term sustainable international peace and economic stability. When you left the White House, the discussion was not how we were going to pay off our national debt, but rather, how the surplus would be spent. What a different world it is now, after eight years of team-W'alliburten undoing nearly all of your hard work.

You fought hard for a national health care system that was, unfortunately, ahead of its time, but which laid the groundwork for a system whose time, I believe, has now arrived. I groaned in dismay as health industry spindoctors assasinated your character on prime-time, and then I triumphed as you rebuilt your image, not by hiring a new wardrobe consultant and hairdresser (although realities of this world may have required that as well) but through your natural grace and eloquence, and substantiated, well-thought-out, clearly well-educated answers to difficult, thought-provoking questions that have been thrown at you throughout the years as you served in more roles than perhaps any other politician in history: first-lady and I believe co-president, lawyer, health-care-advocate, wife, daughter, mother, popular senator, presidential candidate and now, vice-presidential candidate.

You have always been an inspiration and a role model, and I hope you will not take it wrong when I tell you that I think highly of the intent in your heart, and of your abilities as a statesman, strategist, and leader, and that under different circumstances in different times you would have been an excellent president or VP. You will, no doubt, continue to be one of the strongest voices in our party, and I hope you will be our next Speaker of the House. Women, whose legal rights have quietly and effectively been severely undermined in recent years, are more in need than ever of your strong and effective voice of support. Your support of civil rights is needed as never before to regain the ground that has been lost. For that matter, if and when that two-AM-phone-call occurs, I hope you will be on the short-list for that committee that clearly needs to confer before decisions of enormous and lasting consequence are made by any one man or woman.

Please understand my concern with regard to your possible VP nomination: Ann Coulter endorsed you. The American public may not understand why this is a problem, but I think you do.

Let us not be naive. Ann isn't just any long-flowing-blonde-sharp-nosed-book-writer-in-a-sexy-coctail-dress. Ann is a front-voice for the Republican party. The small but extremely wealthy and influential group of strikingly-beautiful-bleached-blonde-salon-tanned-anorexic-usually-second-wives must accept Ann as Lord and Savior to be eligible to marry their much-older-and-obscenely-rich-husbands (whose ex-wives, if they have any brains, are not Republicans). This ridiculously-wealthy-stepford-wives-club dedicates all of life to fund raising for their husbands' pet political causes, and brings in the highest dollar-donation count of any group of private American donors. For this reason, top Republican strategists are likely confer with Ann.

It has been conjectured that the majority of Republicans posed as Democrats to vote for you in the primaries. I believe this to be true: why would any intelligent Republican waste a vote for McCain, who has already won, if positioning McCain's less viable opponent in the primaries gives Republicans the best chance of winning the general election?

Why, besides the fact that they were told to vote for you by Ann (which goes a long way), would Republicans believe you are less viable? Why would Ann's Republican strategists believe this?

The far-right stronghold has historically been about 33% of the vote, always voted Republican, would never vote for any Democrat, so they aren't your problem. Swing-voters are your problem.

I personally believe your problem is lack of connection with constituents of two large groups: (1) the majority of church-goers in the country: not Arian-Right-extremists, but rather middle-of-the-road Protestants and Catholics, who believe, rightly or wrongly, that you promote far-left values that they don't agree with, and (2) fiscal conservatives who suspect that you and Bill have been in the game too long, and are therefore too deeply tied to too many special-interest-groups to be able, even if your heart is willing, to downsize current levels of pork spending. Term-limits exist for that reason.

I am not a top White House strategist, but a mom of three boys and downsized ex-engineer who feels strongly about where the leadership of our country is taking us. I believe it is sufficient to say that Ann's advisors, who are more intelligent than I, have come to the conclusion that your running against McCain would result in his winning the general election.

Top Republican strategists have been remarkably accurate in the past in determining the pulse of the voting nation. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's, didn't have the money to hire top analysts to tell him where to locate his restaurants, so he used McDonald's analysts for free, placing each of his first restaurants next to a McDonald's. His strategy worked and the rest is history.

Republican strategists have out-spent and out-thought Democratic strategists in recent years. I believe the Democratic party might do well to waste less energy questioning Republican strategists and invest more into understanding why their findings are true.

Hillary, I believe in you. You are a strong voice of reason in the Democratic party. You must agree with me that your power to make change occur will be stronger if the Democratic party wins the November election.

Please help our party to win. Please don't run for VP. Instead, please consider swallowing your pride and endorsing the one person who truly represents team-Clinton's positions, without the special interest entanglements that years in office have left you enmeshed in: Bill Richardson.

You, more than anybody, know full well that nothing could sever the closeness you have had with him throughout the years. He remains your friend as never before. His astute understanding of this year's political situation may have saved the Democratic party a lost election. Though it visibly tore him apart to do it, while respecting you and Bill more highly than any others as mentors who taught him most of what he knows about the political process, he knew that you could not win this election. Knowing this, he put all of his efforts toward saving the principles you stand for by backing the person who will, if teamed with the right vice-president, win the election for the Democrats and implement your plan.

You know as well as I do the reasons why Bill Richardson is the only one who could be that vice-president. The future of our country now stands on the edge of a knife. Correct leadership, as well as electability, are crucial. Bill Richardson is the only electable person who fully understands team-Clinton's plan.

Governor Richardson can implement your vision. You can't.

You know he's your friend. The many late night phone conversations, the mutual investment of trust between you, the many years of mentorship, years of sweating from the heat blasted upon him by your political adversaries, the solution-finding to this that you have done together, even the ball games and beer. A relationship like this is precious and irreplacable, and doesn't just vanish over a single petty grievance. I know you are bigger than this, or you would not have transcended such great odds in the past, such great challenges, to become the leader you are today.

Please do the right thing. Endorse Bill Richardson for VP. He will make you proud. The Democratic party will win. Your plans will be implemented by the person who team-Clinton, yourselves, trained to do the job and our country and the world will move onto a new and better course.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Mom-of-Three
http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/

Finding a Running Mate, 2008

Zera from Saint Paul, MN — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:39:20 EDT

Given the current political environment, I would not be inclined to call on any incumbent Democrat for VP.

I think that he is taking the wise course of allowing emotions to settle down before trying to evaluate any candidates. Breath in, breath out. Breath in, breath out.

I would add Eleanor Holmes Norton to the VP search committee.

Veepstakes Odds!

JSerby — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:19:25 EDT

Place your bets!

Hillary: She ran half a race, her ultimate downfall. With higher aspirations and a recent history of conflict with Obama, not to mention a newly formed animosity between Bill and Barack, Hillary might not be the best choice. Also, she and her husband would be very difficult to control. However, she did acquire more than half of the primary votes and has faired quite well in many of the swing states, and has the backing of many different demographics within the Democratic Party (Woman, elderly…). Also, the Clinton name definitely brings name recognition on the national scale (for better or for worse).

Odds: 9:1 - Hillary may have some of the power in the swing states and a large following, but there are several other VP-candidates out there that could pick up a good percentage of the vote.

Jim Webb: This first-term Junior Senator from Virginia has been nothing but stellar as a Liberal attack dog in the Senate. He would bring Obama certainly a lot of Military credentials, a history of conflict with McCain, and the support of a VERY important swing state as the senator of Virginia. However, if Obama is looking for a less partisan, more experienced, pro-gun control, and more controllable Vice-President, Barack should look elsewhere.

Odds: 3:1 - Since joining the Senate, Webb has been fighting, if not harder, then just as hard as Obama for reforms that are also important to Barack. Also, don’t forget his military history (that can’t be Swiftboat-ed) and Virginia.

Chuck Hagel: This Senator has been the “Lieberman” cross-over for the Dems. He has seen eye-to-eye with Majority many times in the Senate, especially against continuation of the war. However, on many social issues, particularly abortion, he is quite conservative.

Odds: 20:1 - Hagel may be anti-war and anti-partisanship, but he is still a Republican.

Bill Richardson: He would bring in the Hispanic vote, and provide Obama with support by bring years of executive experience, foreign policy experience, and the support of the “Clinton” side of the party. However, he was the worst in debates. Period. Not to mention, it might be difficult to try and persuade those semi-xenophobic, possibly racist independents out there to vote for an African-American president with a Hispanic-American VP (just being honest).

Odds: 23:1 - “My mind is mush.” Enough said.

obama/clinton dream ticket fraud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FALSE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FALSE

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

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

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

Potential Cabinet Posts Could Unite Party But Could Cost Some Senate Leadership

Scott A. Giordano — Sat, 31 May 2008 22:30:39 EDT

Sen. Obama's choice of cabinet positions could help him win the general election but could cost him key Senate leaders. ...

Bill Richardson for VP

Mikeystyle — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:46:42 EDT

I like Bill Richardson for VP. He has experience as a congressman, energy secretary, governor and ambassador. He brings regional and demographic benefits, plus he and Obama seem to really get along.

With Richardson on the ticket, the southwest would be competitive. We would win in New Mexico for sure, would have a real chance at taking states like Colorado and perhaps even make Texas less of a sure thing for the Republicans.

Richardson’s campaign ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjOuL5qwNIc

Wikipedia on Richardson:

Obama's VP

Scott Baker — Sat, 24 May 2008 04:23:15 EDT

Since Obama is rumored to be mulling over his choice of VP, I thought I would give my choice: Bill Richardson.

As former secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton, Bill Richardson would would bring both former Clinton supporters and vital experience in the most important area of the next administration. Indeed, Energy Independence was the cornerstone of Mr. Richardson's former campaign for President. It's hard to think of a major political problem Energy Independence wouldn't address - creating green jobs, strengthening our national security by reestablishing our own energy infrastructure and keeping our money out of the hands of terrorists or the states that sponser them (remember, 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 came from #1 oil producer, Saudi Arabia), turning around the greatest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen; Thomas Freidman of the NY Times pointed out recently that if oil reached $200/barrel, Saudi Arabia would be able to purchase Apple Computer, or General Motors, or a number of other large companies within a week, just from their share of the profits. Well, Bill Richardson knows better than anyone how we can turn around this depletion of our national resources - of money, talent, and security, providing non-exportable green jobs for the future of America.

Bill Richardson was arguably the most experienced democratic candidate out there, not only in terms of years, but as the only Governor of a state. Think of it: Obama's vision and Richardson's experience, what could be a better combination?

Bill Richardson is hispanic - he would bring that experience to the ticket just when it's needed most.

Bill Richardson and Barrack Obama get along; something that cannot be said as readily with Obama and Clinton. (I think an Obama-Clinton ticket would be a disaster and an election loser. Besides, we in New York need Clinton in the Senate).

My thoughts on VP - Obama/Sebelius '08

Chuck — Sat, 10 May 2008 11:38:28 EDT

Now that Senator Obama is the presumed nominee, our thoughts move towards who we'd like to see as VP. This post title tells you my preference.

Making Hillary his VP would be against everything Barack stands for - a complete destruction of his principals. So, it's not going to happen. At no point so far has Senator Obama compromised, so he won't start with something so controversial!

For this same reason, he shouldn't pick Evan Bayh. Bayh used horrible tactics against Obama during the Indiana primary campaign, showing his old school leanings.

McCaskill is fantastic, but she is also a Junior Senator, so too inexperienced to be on the same ticket. Barack needs a governor, a general, or an elder statesman (stateswoman). How does he find someone with experience, who also is not too caught into the Washington web?

My choice is Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas: http://www.governor.ks.gov/about/bio.htm and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nHp90Z2NJk. She has had great success in Kansas, is likable, and knows how to run a campaign (she's won twice). Let's not ignore the fact that, as a female, some of those Hillary supporters would feel vindicated.

Bill Richardson has proven through the primary that he is not competent as an executive branch candidate. He should be made Secretary of State.

Wesley Clark often comes across as crazy, like Mike Gravel, so I think he'd hurt the campaign, like Vice Admiral Stockdale hurt Ross Perot's campaign in 1992.

John Edwards - he lost his chance to be VP by not endorsing Obama. By playing it safe, he has at best earned the position of Attorney General.

How about General David Petraeus? Petraeus won't be able to run because he's serving in the Middle East, but he'd be an interesting candidate. Maybe too conservative.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg? That's worthy of a book of comments...

I also would be okay with the idea of Senator Chuck Hagel: http://hagel.senate.gov/public/

Here's an interesting article from way back in December: http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=20&num=17657

Check the excellent comments by politicoswizzlestick, who answered a question about this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080222114338AAazfDL. The answer starts with, "The Obama camp has thus far wisely not leaked any VP choices..."

What are your thoughts?

Bill Richardson as the new George Marshall

John Navarra — Sun, 04 May 2008 11:25:59 EDT

I predict that Bill Richardson due to his many jobs in the executive and legislative branches of government will be a big contributor to the Obama presidency because he has so much experience in government. On the Darfur issue Richardson himself negotiated the 2005 peace agreement between the north and south helping the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration must have known that a Democrat was best qualified to get a peace deal. If Richardson is Secretary of State I bet he will be as high profile as George Marshall and Henry Kissinger. With his experience and cool demeanor I'm sure that in whatever position he gets he may be the go to guy of an Obama Administration. On gas prices, Richardson was Energy Secretary. Since Obama is somewhat new to national government it is a real guessing game as to who will be in his kitchen cabinet. But it appears that pople like Richardson and Susan Rice that have former executive branch experience will be a big part of the administration. I wonder if the race with Hillary will limit former Clinton people from participating? I sure hope not. I'm sure the Republicans would disagree but I think the Democratic party will have a lot of good talent and judgment.

John Navarra

The Futures Market Rates Richardson as top VP Hopeful

Myriam from Warrenville, IL — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:46 EDT

Crossposted at: http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/community/post/myriamkoepcke/CLFk, http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/

The futures market doesn't always predict the correct outcome of an election (they got the Texas Democratic primary wrong) but it is interesting to see where people who have money invest when they put it where their mouth is.

Intrade.com http://www.intrade.com/ doesn't predict a strong showing for Obama at the Pennsylvania polls. He will most likely, as in Ohio, not carry the state. That's ok. Carrying the state isn't necessary; an increased delegate count, as occurred in Ohio, is all Obama needs to win this race.

On another note, the two top VP picks on intrade (today, and these numbers change daily) are Romney and Richardson. Of course, I am thrilled about the latter, having focused most of my blogging energy for the past few months on expounding upon the benefits of the Obama/Richardson Camelot team. I am also not unhappy to see Romney emerge as the most likely hopeful Republican VP.

I see Romney as the lesser of evils on the Republican side. I hope they don't win. I am not looking forward to staying on the fast train to China that the Republicans have put us on. Possible Armageddon aside, I don't agree with the outrageous policy which no administration before, Republican or otherwise, would have approved: paying for an unnecessary war on $4000/household/day credit to China, understanding that this debt is unpayable and they will eventually reposess our house.

Romney seems like a better Republican choice than the alternatives--with two caveats in my mind: 1) his stand on racism is unclear--strange since his heritage is a group that has been similarly opressed, and 2) he supports McCain/Bush/Lieberman national defense: over-secure the top floor of the building with a complicated expensive alarm system while leaving the window-wells open and systematically alienating all neighbors who used to be our friends, rendering neighborhood watch obsolete.

Romney needs to work on his image and presentation, but I believe he understands the financial crisis that Intrade predicts as well as or better than any other candidate. If dig ourselves into a hole reaching China through Iraq, however, I seriously doubt even the best of Romney's ideas can pull us out.

Howie Wolfson Borrows Baghdad Bob's Playbook

Mark Wiznitzer — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:36:03 EDT

In a Pennsylvania “state of the race” telephone conference today, Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson, Howie Wolfson, brushed aside recent calls from some senior party officials for her to end the race before she destroys the Democratic Party. Asked if Senator Barack Obama’s lead in pledged delegates, states and popular votes won did not pose an insurmountable obstacle to Clinton winning the nomination he said: "Pay no attention to those people. The road to 1600 Pennsylvania goes through Pennsylvania, and there are no Obama delegates on that road, just liars.”

Tears of a Clinton

Manya4Obama — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:19:29 EDT

I'm part Swedish and in the old country we have a saying: "rise like the sun, fall like a pancake." This reminds me of Bill and Hillary Clinton's arrogant campaign for the White House. Their sense of entitlement is baffling. Plainly, it's never occurred to them that, given a legitimate choice, the people might have something to say about the matter. Sen. Clinton insolently continues to dismiss every state Sen.Obama wins as insignificant, blythely dissing voters in her own party (!) So I'm glad Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama was a pie in Billary's face. It tickles me that even though it's yesterday's papers the Clintons still can't let it go. On that note, here's a perfectly delicious read from the AP:

Former President Clinton is still smarting over New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama.
During a private meeting with California Democrats this past weekend, Clinton grew red-faced as he talked about how he expected Richardson, who was a member of Clinton's Cabinet, to back Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidential nomination or at least stay neutral, according to several people who attended.
Instead, Richardson endorsed Obama late last month, calling him a "once-in-a-lifetime leader."
"He sort of gets a little redder and redder and redder, but he wasn't off the deep end as I had seen him in the past," said Inola Henry, an uncommitted superdelegate. "It was sort of like, 'Gee, I'm a martyr.' He seemed more hurt than anything."
Clinton used his appearance at the state Democratic Party convention in San Jose to lobby California's 21 uncommitted superdelegates to support his wife.
After posing for a group photograph with the former president, superdelegate Rachel Binah told Clinton she was disappointed that one of his allies, strategist James Carville, had compared Richardson to Judas after he endorsed Obama.
Clinton, according to several people present, distanced himself from Carville's remarks. But he went on to say that he had not expected Richardson to endorse the Illinois senator, especially since the New Mexico governor had invited Clinton to Santa Fe to watch the Super Bowl on Feb. 3.
"He did say he certainly had been led to believe that he was going to get the endorsement," Henry said Wednesday. She was one of about 15 superdelegates — some uncommitted, others backing Clinton — who attended Sunday's meeting with Clinton before he addressed the convention.
Aleita Huguenin, another superdelegate, remembered Clinton saying, "We thought he'd let us know if he did an endorsement." But Huguenin said the comments about Richardson were "a minor blip in the whole meeting."
According superdelegate Chris Stampolis, Clinton said only that Richardson had promised not to endorse Obama, saying, "'He told me to my face five times he would not do that.'"
Binah did not respond to repeated requests for comment, but she previously told The Associated Press she supports Clinton. Other superdelegates interviewed by the AP said it was Binah's statement that prompted Clinton's comments about Richardson's decision.
Pahl Shipley, a spokesman for Richardson, said his boss never promised to endorse Hillary Clinton.
"He never told the president or anybody else, for that matter," Shipley said. "The governor respectfully disagrees with the president."
Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, endorsed Obama on March 21, shortly after the Illinois senator gave a speech about race. It was a blow to the Clintons because of their long association with Richardson, who served as Clinton's energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations.
Clinton's campaign declined to comment, except to say the former president was in California to promote his wife's candidacy.
"President Clinton discussed the importance of this election with Democratic Party members and how after 46 primaries and caucuses, by virtually every measure, this election remains a very close race," campaign spokesman Luis Vizcaino said in a statement. "President Clinton is incredibly popular in the Golden State, and the convention was a great opportunity for him to speak directly with members of the California Democratic Party."
Bob Mulholland, a spokesman for the state party who attended the private meeting, said Clinton expressed himself passionately but insisted the meeting was productive.
"I left the meeting feeling this was great," Mulholland said. "The guy had time to talk to us about the campaign."

Catching up!!

Tovala — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:01:53 EDT

It has been a while since I last wrote on this blog. 3 weeks in fact, but forgive me my absence. I have been working hard on the Obama campaign here in Texas and many things have taken place since then. So I will start from this moment and go backwards and fill you all in on the happenings on the campaign trail. Firstly, I received an internship in Philly to work for the Students for Barack Obama while on Spring Break. I am typing this blog 30,000 feet in the air on Continental Airlines. I am excited but the road to getting me on the plane was quite hellish. First, I saw my friend off to NYC. She had the audacity to leave her minivan with me because I am the responsible one. Needless to say I was in a car accident because some idiot decided to slam on his brakes causing the woman behind him and myself to hit each other. Of course he kept driving, oblivious to the mayhem he caused behind him. Unfortunately, through all this, I came to find out that my friend only had liability insurance and her vehicle was totaled. The SFBO did a fundraiser and raised $600 dollars for me including $440 given to me by my boss who was impressed by the fact that I was sacrificing every thing so that my friend was not assed out. She felt it showed I had character, which caused her to have pity on me. I realized that my friend’s string of bad luck spilled over into my life the day she brought me her car. I know now not to ever drive anyone’s car. Also, I had already purchased my airfare to Philly and the ticket was non-refundable so my family and friends gave me another $200 so that I could eat while on my internship since I had gave $400+ to my friend’s car fund, emptying out my nest egg. Sidebar--I am currently looking for full time employment, if anyone in the Houston area know of any openings in a law firm or government agency please email me. After all that, I arrived 20 minutes late for my flight but the one of the workers took pity on me when he heard I was on my way to intern for Obama in Philly and now I am on my way. I am one of those people who refuse to freak out in the midst of grief and stress. I kept a level head and spun my wheels until things were taken care of. Hopefully, my friend will have a car by tomorrow so that she can return back to Austin and my life can return back to normal and I can begin to repay my family and friends what I owe them. New York The wonderful state of New York has sworn their 55th governor who happens to be their first black American governor and the first blind governor in this nation’s history. I find it quite amazing that black Americans are making history all over the place this year because of circumstances. First, Barack Obama and now, Gov. Patterson. I am amazed at how everyone in New York are opened to the possibility but also sadden that Gov. Spitzer represent the day of old politicians who did not practiced what they preached. This scandal is just another blemish on the American political history and another sore spot in the Clintons’ campaign. What people do not know is that Gov. Spitzer was a super delegate that supported Senator Clinton. He was forced to step down because of his $80,000 involvement in a prostitution ring. Which by the way was what he built his career on—that is, prosecuting government officials for their involvement in the seedy business of prostitution. I find it ironic but not unbelievable. Just a few years ago, we found out that Strom Thurman, a fanatical supporter of segregation and a self proclaim racist had a bi-racial—half black—daughter. I have come to find that those who are fanatical about particular things tend to be those who are guilty of indulging in those very, same sins. The one thing that did actually disturb me about this incident was how Gov. Spitzer’s wife stood by his side as he announced to the whole world that he is another man guilty of not only illegal dealings but also of humiliating his lovely wife who stands by him solemn and near tears. As a woman, this situation borders on abuse. I find it quite distasteful that he allowed her to stand there with him. Even if it were her idea, as a man of integrity—oh yeah he has proven that he lacks integrity-- he should have told his wife that this walk he had to walk alone and refrain from humiliating her further. 2 months ago the Gov. of Michigan did the same thing to his wife. It makes me ill, and believe me I can taste the bile in my mouth, that women in this country have not come much further from the women of the 1800’s who stood by their men no matter what. I need to step off of my soap box before I drown in the deep end, but needless to say this month has been rife with scandal. The good thing is we have another super delegate throwing his hat into the ring for Obama. Woohoo. Philadelphia, PA Currently, I am in Philly helping out with the campaign while on Spring break. I have met many people since I have been here. Took pictures with “Black Thought” at a student rally and took pictures of Caroline Kennedy when she came into the HQ to phone bank. I have had a rough and tumble ride in Philly. My luggage was lost by the airlines when I first got here. I had to spend $50 on my first day for cab fare because my ride had his car locked in the garage—he showed up too late to retrieve it. I have gotten sick and have had my debit card stolen by the security guard who frisked me at an event—I will never see it again, I had to cancel it—and was harassed by a wino on the train. Despite all this I have met the most brilliant of minds, although most of them were a bit narcissistic and micro-managing. I was especially moved by Sen. Obama’s speech on race last week. I liked the fact that he did not let anyone push him into a corner and pretty addressed an issue in this country that needed to be addressed for a long time. I was very proud that he did not throw his pastor under the bus but instead stood firm on his loyalty to the man while denouncing his words. I particularly loved the fact that he brought into the light the grievances that both whites and blacks feel toward each other and at the same saying to each respective groups that these grievances are real and need to be dealt with by working together. I shed a tear when I heard the “We are the ones song” two days ago for the first time—and I am not the least bit emotional--but seeing little Zoe Kravitz all grown up moved me. I almost swallowed my tongue when I saw Bill Richardson endorse Obama--now that's an interesting turn of events and was equally sadden that Michigan and Florida have to suffer and not allow their voices to be heard because the democratic party in their respective state did not stand up to their Republican councilmen when they moved the primaries up knowing full well that their democratic constituents would have to pay the price for it--of course this was done on purpose to cripple the democratic party. I am somewhat perturbed that Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean have not put an end to this bickering between Clinton and Obama and pressure Hillary Clinton to end what is becoming a dirty campaign that has begun to split the democratic party. Let's end this nonsense and form a unified front and stop giving the Republicans ammunition against the front-runner. And for God's sake don't say on national TV that you think Sen. McCain would be a better C.I.C than the guy in your own party. And then say after discrediting him that you think that he would make a good VP--what? Everyone knows that Sen. Clinton cannot catch up to Obama's tally and what is up with her saying that the smaller states do not count--what is she going to be the President of the big states? What happened to running for the President of the United States? Interesting. Despite it all, this movement has proven time and again that when people unite as a stalwart front they will not and cannot be moved.

Why Barack is Letting Hillary Go On As Long As She Wants

Mark Wiznitzer — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:16:26 EDT

First of all, she cannot stop. Hillary has taken new money from donors with the promise she is going to fight till the end. Cowpoke Carville has "branded" Richardson for treason, and Hillary complains the men are at it again. The Clintons won't listen to anybody, so just give them their space.

Second, they don't believe in the graceful exit Sen. Leahy offered. Never mind if they risk humiliation later. Bill Clinton wants to be the Putin-Lite power behind his wife's throne. He says "relax" and "chill". But when he gets on stage at Denver, will he get the same treatment that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee got in Texas this weekend. He would have it coming for injecting race into the campaign and suggesting Obama is not patriotic.

Third, the Clinton campaign is already in serious debt. Just check out this Politico article. If they still owe money from Iowa and Ohio, what has happened in the past few weeks while Hillary, Bill and Chelsea have been campaigning intensly across PA, NC and IN? And if they forget to release their tax returns in two weeks, we won't. And what about the Clinton Library donors list. By the time the Puerto Rico primary rolls around, the Clintons may be yelling "Tio" when their creditors come to collect "la cuenta".

Does Putin-Lite's "Saddle Up" Signal The Final Assault?

Mark Wiznitzer — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:32:48 EDT

No one should be surprised by the threatening letter to Nancy Pelosi from the Democratic Party fat-cats supporting Hillary Clinton. Despite all the high-minded talk of “sticking to the issues”, the Clintons have since the beginning followed a strategy of offering favors to supporters and attempting to intimidate voters in the Democrats' 2008 Presidential campaign. And the Pelosi letter is only the latest example that these tactics are now being applied to superdelegates. For those who have not followed these matters as closely, let me recap some highlights.

After former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton, her campaign arranged for some of her wealthy supporters to pay off some of the $400,000 debt he incurred before ending his own Presidential candidacy the previous month. That was almost 10 months before the Iowa caucuses. At the end of 2007, as evidence mounted of Clinton's inability to contain the growing grass roots movement for Barack Obama, her campaign set out to intimidate out-of-state students, who under Iowa law were legally allowed to register to vote and caucus in January. This was the first, but not be the last attempt at voter suppression.

In NH, poll watchers were prevented from observing some polling stations. I personally met a poll watcher who was asked to leave in Keene, ostensibly because it was too crowded; but Obama was able to carry all five wards in the city. But there were reports of widespread intimidation in areas where Hillary Clinton registered her best results: Nashua, Concord and Manchester.

Stop The Madness!!!!

Nila from Chicago, IL — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:31:55 EDT

I felt it was a mistake for Senator Obama to run as a front runner in the run up to the VOTER (Vermont, Ohio, TExas, Rhode Island) primaries and the loses in three of these four states were the direct result of that approach.

By contrast, now with a nearly insurmountable delegate lead he, and of equal importance the members of his campaign, should now remain above the fray. The only chance that Senator Clinton has to close the delegate gap is if she can either cause an Obama Meltdown or minimally get people to reconsider the message of Senator Obama that he is a different kind of politician.

At this point it is evident that Senator Clinton is desperate and as a result is consistently making noteworthy mistakes. But lately, whenever she says or does something that could possibly further damage her chances, there is invariably something said or done by the Obama campaign that is generally used by the secondary media (i.e., the so-called pundits) to counter the effects of her campaign's gaff. Given the current situation, the Obama campaign NEEDS TO CHILL!!!! Take a page from Bill Richardson's book and simply refuse to get down into the dirt with the Clinton campaign.

I believe that Senator Obama should make a public appeal to Senator Clinton to declare a moratorium on the bickering and mudslinging in the name of party unity and then send out a message throughout his campaign that any "snark attack" on Clinton and you will be asked to leave the campaign. At this stage of the election taking the high road is by far the best option for the Obama campaign.

Tiptoeing around the 800-lb Gorillas -- like the Stained Blue Dress

Andrew Lietzow — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:59:35 EDT

I saw Gordon Fischer's apology at IowaTrueBlue.org. I personally don't think it was necessary, or that the original statement was all that offensive.

Perhaps I'm getting older and more thick-skinned but I'm kind of with James Carville on this -- we may say some outlandish things from time to time but are we so shallow that we're not going to fully vet our candidates -- tiptoeing around the 800 lb gorillas that lurk around each corner on the campaign trail?

Does Hugo Chavez give a rip about the personality quirks of our President? How about Mahmoud Ahmadinejab -- is he a man concerned about our candidates being so civil to each other that we don't address the really difficult questions in this campaign?

Is there a person on the planet who seriously questions Senator Obama's patriotism? Really? Then, like Bill Clinton, I suppose they will try to promulgate anything that favors their perspective, even if they are without merit -- the U.S. flag lapel pin issue, the hand-over-our-heart question; during the national anthem or the pledge of allegiance, both, or (if you're a Jehovah's Witness) neither. Perhaps lots of wasted airtime about nothing of consequence, while 4,000 soldier are being killed in Iraq, yet a serious vetting of our candidates is always appropriate. It's how we determined whether our candidates are qualified.

I mean at least one of these candidates who is running is the spouse of the man who was impeached in the House of Representatives less than 10 years ago. While we might want to move on, shouldn't we also consider, for the future of our Democratic Party, whether installing that candidate as President might not raise the hackles of lots of Republicans? How much work will the President get done if they're spending so much time vetoing legislation? Isn't that the problem with our current Administration; the very thing we're trying to avoid if we win the White House? Now, I may have loved Bill Clinton's Presidency (and, compared to Bush, he was awesome), yet am I anxious to watch Congress fighting all those partisan issues all over again? Not.

I watched "Monica, in Black and White" on HBO. I think it should be mandatory viewing for all High School Seniors. This whole "stain on the blue dress issue" -- which precipitated Bill Clinton's self-denying testimony and lead to him being crowned "obfuscator general" for adroitly pointing out there are 28 definitions to the word "is", before the Ken Starr-lead, right-wing conspiracy lead, persecution team, etc.; well, it's the 800-lb gorilla that Gordon Fischer confronted and isn't it about time someone raised the issue? It's actually no big deal -- compared to 4,000 lives lost in Iraq.

In my opinion, both race and the stained dress issues weren't raised early enough. Out of the unshackling of such gorrillas come the speeches which open up a whole new train of thought. They become immortalized because they show us a way to keep that gorilla tame, though we can never fully remove them from the land. We don't need more heat in Washington, we need more light -- and not talking about issues, or fully vetting our candidates, is what gets us in trouble.

That Hillary Clinton would have the audacity to state, not to just infer but to state, that they were "dodging sniper fire" as she landed in Bosnia and then later retract that statement with a contrite "It was a misstatement" -- this is the muck through which Presidential candidates must traverse, if they are to show themselves worthy of the post. If you can't handle 800-lb gorillas, how will you ever be able to rattle a saber effectively at our supposed enemies?

These issues should NOT be swept under a rug. It's regretable that issues like these come up, but we are human, right? Like James Carville, I don't know that we need to immediately apologize for something we said if it could be a little abrasive, or even offensive. If that's how we feel, we should be held accountable and have to support our statements with reasoned logical analysis, or we should be made to back off through humiliation (like the media playing the video of Hillary disembarking from the helicopter on the Tarmack in Bosnia -- no heads down manuevering going on, so an apology will be forthcoming, right?)

IF we could only talk about some of these issues, openly and honestly for a while, we could either make some progress or even change our thinking on the subject. It's like how we talk about the health care crisis. When Hillary did it, behind closed doors, we got nowhere. What Barack is proposing is that we have an open dialogue -- broadcasting the whole thing on C-Span. This always everyone to get their opinions and facts straight.

Does James Carville REALLY think Bill Richardson is being like Judas Iscariot? Well, maybe that is okay. What if Judas Iscariot was actually asked to betray Christ, by Christ himself, so that he'd have an opporunity to offer redemption to all of mankind. Without Judas' betrayal, we'd have no Easter, no resurrection! (The recently found "Gospel of Judas" alludes to this). He can spin this decision anyway he likes, condemning it in any manner he deems appropriate -- and Bill Richardson is just going to allow him that opinion. It's a very mature approach and I truly admire Bill Richarson's response to that analogy.

So, we can disagree with Mr. Carville, or Mr. Fishcer, or President Clinton, or Gen. Tony McPeak, without becoming disagreeable, so much so that our emotions get out of control, can't we? If Gen. Tony McPeak wants to make the analogy that Bill Clinton is like Sen. Joseph McCarthy, because Clinton is attacking Sen. Obama (where Bill Clinton would really like him to be most vulnerable -- questioning his patriotism), then I think we should allow these fellows to have that exchange. We're all adults here, right?

Will it advance our party in a way that we won't have a few scrapes and bruises? Probably not, but aren't boxes of bandages standard issue to politicians? Didn't Barack Obama respond in "The Audacity of Hope" that in spite of politics being a dirty, nasty business, he was going to jump in anyway, to see if he could do some good?

It's the lack of a response to the Swift Boat ads that sunk John Kerry's ship, not the attacks themselves. If possible, everything that John McBush could possibly raise againt out nominee -- if we air it now -- won't our nominee become immune from those attacks during the general election?

Sen. Obama's speech on the issue of race and religion, made Tuesday, March 18, 2008 -- would we have ever heard it without Geraldine Ferraro's outlandish statement, or Fox News' vilification of Rev. Wright's fiery sermons?

Maybe the next speech that Sen. Obama needs to give is about our human sexuality -- about the mess we are in in this country because we are so confused about the importance of our human sexuality that it pulls down otherwise sane people, of agruably stong character, like Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, Mayor Fitzpatrick -- so we can expand our discussion about one more of the 800-lb gorillas we've been tiptoeing around.

I happen to think Gordon Fischer prematurely retracted this statement about the stained blue dress. His statements could lead us to a discussion on a higher plane, just like Geraldine Ferraro's statement has done.

Our candidates become stronger as we fully vet them and if they can't take a little heat, then they need to get out of the kitchen. Handling jibs and jabs like this, statements that can get under one's skin, and remaining cool, calm and collected -- these are good things to test before our next President has his thumb on a red button or thinks about going to war because some leader of a rouge nation is flipping him the bird.

Toughen up candidates. That 3:00AM call in coming and we need our President to be Mr. Cool (or, heaven forbid, Mrs. Cool), calm, and collected when the red phone rings.

Otherwise we won't just have Vietnam and Iraq, but we'll have Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, ad infinitum.

Carville Unrepentant

Mark Wiznitzer — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:24:09 EDT

James Carville stood his ground today, refusing in a CNN interview to apologize for the "biblical" and "seasonal" metaphor, name-calling of New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. He had compared Richardson to Judas Iscariot for endorsing Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Carville apparently believes Richardson owed the Clintons his support, if not continued neutrality. But he also pointedly signaled that if Obama is the party's nominee he himself is prepared to join the Obama campaign "from Day One". Is his "friend", David Axelrod, really looking forward to having this man join the campaign? If so, please assure us Carville will first be subjected to thorough ablutions.

Carville, who Cecil B Demille would have cast as the snake that got Adam and Eve thrown out of the Garden of Eden, avoided any reference during the interview to his New Testament namesake, the Apostle James. James was rebuked along with his brother John for seeking power and authority above the other disciples. Carville probably knows that James was beheaded and the first Apostle to be martyred.

(Cross-posted on OneMillionStrong)

Bill Richardson

Joe Taylor — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:14:30 EDT

I am glad Govenor Richardson finally gave Senator Obama his endorsement. Too bad it came after California.

Govenor Richarfson could make a good VP candidate.

First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama

Manya4Obama — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:20:41 EDT

From The New York Times:

“I talked to Senator Clinton last night,” Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on Friday, describing the tense telephone call in which he informed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that, despite two months of personal entreaties by her and her husband, he would be endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.
“Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations,” Mr. Richardson said.
The decision by Mr. Richardson, who ended his own presidential campaign on Jan. 10, to support Mr. Obama was a belt of bad news for Mrs. Clinton. It was a stinging rejection of her candidacy by a man who had served in two senior positions in President Bill Clinton’s administration, and who is one of the nation’s most prominent elected Hispanics. Mr. Richardson came back from vacation to announce his endorsement at a moment when Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of winning the Democratic nomination seem to be dimming.
But potentially more troublesome for Mrs. Clinton was what Mr. Richardson said in announcing his decision. He criticized the tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. He praised Mr. Obama for the speech he gave in response to the furor over racially incendiary remarks delivered by Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
And he came close to doing what Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have increasingly feared some big-name Democrat would do as the battle for the nomination drags on: Urge Mrs. Clinton to step aside in the interest of party unity.
“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”
In many ways, the decision by Mr. Richardson, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, was as much a tale about his relationship with them as it was about the course of Mr. Obama’s campaign.
Mr. Clinton had told his wife’s campaign that he had received several assurances from Mr. Richardson that he would not endorse Mr. Obama. One adviser who spoke to Mr. Clinton on Friday said that the former president was surprised by the Richardson endorsement, but described Mr. Clinton as more philosophical than angry about it.
Mr. Richardson looked anguished when asked in an interview if his relationship with the Clintons would withstand endorsing Mr. Obama. In doing so, Mr. Richardson was not only taking sides in the most bitter of political fights, but rejecting the candidacy of a close friend.
“There’s something special about this guy,” Mr. Richardson said of Mr. Obama. “I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.”
Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.
But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.
The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.
“It was cordial, but a little heated,” Mr. Richardson said in an interview.
Mrs. Clinton had no public schedule on Friday, and spent the day at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, played down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.”
Mr. Richardson called Mr. Obama about two weeks ago to tell him that he was “99 percent with him,” Mr. Obama’s aides said. The announcement was delayed because Mr. Richardson had been scheduled to go on vacation in the Caribbean. Even though Mr. Richardson had promised Mr. Obama that his mind was made up, Mr. Obama’s aides said they grew worried that the furor over the racially inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s former pastor might lead Mr. Richardson to reconsider.
But Mr. Richardson, who had sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president, pointed specifically to the speech that Mr. Obama gave in Philadelphia on Tuesday in explaining why he endorsed him.
“Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him,” he said. “He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.”
He added: “Senator Obama could have given a safer speech. He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party’s nomination.”
Mr. Richardson said he was dispirited by the tone of the Democratic nominating fight, reflecting a sentiment that has been increasingly voiced by party leaders. Unlike many others, though, Mr. Richardson placed the blame on Mrs. Clinton.
“I believe the campaign has gotten too negative,” Mr. Richardson said, speaking to reporters in Portland. “I want it to be positive. I think that’s what’s been very good about Senator Obama’s campaign — it’s a positive campaign about hope and opportunity.”
Mr. Obama and Mr. Richardson appeared together on stage of the Memorial Coliseum in Portland on Friday morning. Mr. Richardson was still wearing the beard that he grew during what he called a period of decompression after leaving the presidential race.
On their own, endorsements in contests like this — with two such well-known candidates — do not necessarily move votes. Mr. Obama won a boost of publicity after he was endorsed by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts; Mrs. Clinton, however, then won the state’s primary.
But the audience now is less primary voters than superdelegates — uncommitted elected Democrats and party leaders — whose votes will be critical in helping Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama get the 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination.
Mr. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Mr. Obama since Feb. 5, compared with fewer than five who have moved into Mrs. Clinton’s column since then.
The move by Mr. Richardson could give license to other superdelegates who had been holding back, at the request of the Clintons. His endorsement could prove particularly potent with this group because of the way he chastised Mrs. Clinton for the tone of the campaign, and his call for the party to unify around one candidate.
It also came at a moment of vulnerability for Mr. Obama, in which he was dealing with questions about his former pastor. Mr. Richardson’s decision to step out was a signal to primary voters and superdelegates that he did not believe Mr. Obama had been hurt politically by these events — or at least that he was willing to use whatever influence he has in the party to limit the damage.
At this point, the number of Democrats whose endorsements could shake the race is down to Al Gore, the former vice president and presidential nominee; John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina who dropped out of the race last month; and Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker. Aides to Mr. Edwards and Mr. Gore said that they did not expect either man to endorse anyone in the immediate future, if at all. Aides to Ms. Pelosi said she was unlikely to endorse at all.

Please thank Bill Richardson!

James — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:38:57 EDT

Please thank Bill Richardson. Obama was going through some rough times and Bill Richardson helped Obama when he needed it the most!

Thank you Bill!

http://www.governor.state.nm.us/emailchoice.php?mm=6

http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/contact

WE THE PEOPLE....

Addie Greer — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:54:09 EDT

I wrote Bill Richardson, NewMex.Gov almost a month ago to urge him to endorse Barack Obama for president --perhaps you did too, and look what's happened!:) They would most certainly be a winning ticket; exciting to ponder. Two absolutely amazing people, working to make America great again! I was brought to the verge of tears listening to the entire Obama speech on race and then Richardson's endorsement, reading The Audacity of Hope....it all seems very encouraging for WE THE PEOPLE ! GO O !

5 Reasons Richardson Endorsement Boosts Obama Campaign

Oregon Artists 4 Obama '08 — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:23:34 EDT

source: Washington Post March 21, 2008
[my comments in brackets]
...............................................................

1. TIMING ..."Richardson's endorsement won't eradicate all the problems that have sprouted up around Obama's candidacy, but his timing could not have been more helpful."

2. MESSAGE TO SUPERDELEGATES & OTHER DEMOCRATS: ..."Richardson empowers other superdelegates to begin moving toward Obama now..." [I wish 400 of them would just endorse Obama and get this part of the election over with!]

Bill Richardson's "Endorsement" speech on MSNBC

BobBl — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:57:59 EDT

I just watched Governor Bill Richardson's Obama "endorsement speech on MSNBC. IT WAS FABULOUS!!

For anyone who hasn't seen it already, here's the link:

MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23745548#23745548

At the risk of repeating some things I just said below in a comment to a discussion that's started under my last blog post...I hope after these guys finished up in Portland, Oregon; they BOTH immediately headed out for Pennsylvania to "Tag Team" the "working class" voters.

Democrats there that have been polling more for Hillary than for Senator Obama in that important state.Governor Richardson really knows how to "turn a phrase" pitched toward the "average Joe & Jill" working class American voters.

I believe Bill Richardson's just what Senator Obama needs to help him reach that crucial segment of our national population that's historically made it problematic electing obviously intellectual candidates as out President. (See last posting below for ad nauseum historical details.)

(Look what electing a plain-spoken, NON-INTELLECTUAL "likable" guy got us LAST ELECTION!?!)

I said it in my comment below and I'll say it again: THEY"D MAKE A GREAT TEAM!!

BobBl

Obama/Richardson 08 :)

Virginia S. — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:15:15 EDT

Doesn't that sound great? I think Bill would be an excellent VP candidate and the two seem to have a genuine chemistry, unlike the Kerry/Edwards relationship of 04. Anyway, I know that Sen. Obama will make a great decision when he picks his VP Running Mate, but I just wanted to give a word of support for Bill... Even though, what is up with that beard? He better shave sometime soon.

Governor Bill Richardson

Asher Heimermann — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:55:04 EDT

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.

The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor.

Richardson has been relentlessly wooed by Obama and Clinton for his endorsement. As a Democratic superdelegate, the governor plays a part in the tight race for nominating votes and could bring other superdelegates to Obama's side. He also has been mentioned as a potential running mate for either candidate.

Bill Richardson

Dave — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:26:33 EDT

A big welcome on board to Bill Richardson! This is fantastic news. I think things are getting better and better each day for Senator Obama. The momentum created by his campaign is proving to be unstoppable. I think we are bound to see more and more endorsements like this one.

Message from Bill Richardson

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:51:19 EDT

Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama, and the moving, honest manner in which he delivered it in person, is probably the most important endorsement he has received in months. Bill Richardson sent out this message to his supporters...

OBAMA/RICHARDSON '08!

John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:09:26 EDT

OBAMA/RICHARDSON '08!

Richardson Endorses Obama, Obama Memo Questions Clinton's Honesty and Integrity

jgabriel — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:35:56 EDT

Good news today - it seems that Bill Richardson has decided to formally endorse Obama. Yes!!

The Obama campaign also released a memo that offered one of their strongest challenges to Clinton's honesty and integrity.

http://thepage.time.com/obama-camp-memo-on-clinton-misleading-voters/

Governor Richardson Endorses Obama!

Mark Ungemach (Democratic Committee Person, Franklin Township, Landenberg, PA) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:55:08 EDT

NM Gov. Bill Richardson Endorsing Obama

BY BARRY MASSEY

The Associated Press

Friday, March 21, 2008; 8:34 AM

SANTA FE, N.M. -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership. Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned. The governor's endorsement comes as Obama leads among delegates selected at primaries and caucuses but with national public opinion polling showing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulling ahead of him amid controversy over statements by his former pastor.

Super Delegates: The Reluctant "Elder Statesmen"

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

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

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

Bill Richardson speaking at UCLA, short of endorsement

Farhad Yusupov — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:52:43 EDT

...Bill Richardson described Hillary Clinton as "enormously capable ... but I did run against her." Then he focused on Barack Obama, someone he said "I don't know as well. But I think there's
something that is very special about this guy, that is good."

Richardson related an anecdote from one of the debates: He had fielded a question and then, as the next point went to another candidate, leaned toward Obama next to him on the stage and whispered, "'Boy some of these debates really boring, aren't they?' Or something like that. And Obama said, 'Oh god, yeah, you're right.' " As the two were whispering, a question suddenly veered back to Richardson -- who hadn't been paying attention. "I looked at Obama and he says [whispering] 'Katrina. Katrina.' And I go back and say, 'Well, my three-point plan on Katrina is ...' "Obama could have thrown me under the bus. But he didn't. So I said, 'Thanks, Obama,' and he said, 'Just listen next time.'"

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/bill_richardsons_tough_call_sh.html

Where are John Edwards and Bill Richardson?

Troy Anthony Humphrey — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:14:15 EDT

John Edwards and Bill Richardson, cannot just sit on the fence and stay silent for too much longer. Perhaps each is holding out just in case Hillary's plan B (stealing the nomination Flordia style). Okay, I understand that both might be waiting for a VP offer, however waiting for a winner or an ofference of vice president, and not having the strength to take a stand, does not show leadership skills. Each wanted to be president, both raised money, addressed issues, and even participated in the debates (and expressed positions quite opposed to HRC). While they are no longer in the race, they are still a part of the campaign for the democratic presidential nomination. SO SPEAK UP NOW FELLOWS, OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.

Troy Anthony Humphrey

Bill Richardson: "He is Ready."

jgabriel — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 08:33:32 EST

From the Washington Post:

Richardson, who has not endorsed either Clinton or Obama, warned both candidates about negative campaigning. He was outspoken in his criticism of Clinton's new "ringing phone" ad, which suggests that Obama is not ready to become commander in chief.

"I happen to disagree with that ad that says that Senator Obama is not ready," he said. "He is ready. He has great judgment, an internationalist background."

There's a lot of talk about people feeling sorry for Hillary. Rush Limbaugh, the strident ultra-conservative talk show host, gleefully told his listeners to vote for Hillary today so they could watch the Democratic party tear itself apart. Democrats in Ohio are feeling mad that the media supposedly has anointed Obama.

Are we going to let this happen? Let Hillary pull out a surprise victory again? Hear that wicked witch cackle again as she blathers on about how "she's a fighter" and she's "just getting warmed up"? Are we going to give the election to the Republicans because of party infighting?

Please, if you are voting in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, or Vermont - or if you have friends there - let's support Barack Obama today. One voice. Una voz. Slam the door shut on Hillary Clinton today.

Analysis: The Search for a Vice-Presidential Candidate

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:40:59 EST

INTRODUCTION

This analysis is inspired by the e-mails I have been receiving from the Vice President Speculation Forum and from posts and discussions. Since November, I have been looking for the perfect candidate to be Barack Obama’s running mate, and it is proving difficult. I have set forth what the ideal candidate should possess to adding value to the ticket and the criteria below:

Believes genuinely in changing Washington
Against the Iraq War from the start
Has a number of years experience in high public office
Generally conforms with Senator Obama's positions

Basically, I will explore some of the possible candidates for vice-president (VP) and how some of these candidates could better fulfill cabinet positions, instead. As a note, foreign policy will be used as examples for my arguments, because this is the area of concentration I am most familiar. I welcome anyone who has suggestions based on other areas of concentrations concerning arguing his or her possible VP choices.

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Al Gore endorsements

Dave — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:10:05 EST

Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Al Gore... where are the endorsements from these men? And, by their collective non-endorsements have they, in their silence, rejected the Clinton Machine? By March 3rd, an endorsement by any of those three men for either candidate will, without doubt, be rendered impotent for the T.O.P. firewall that the Clinton's are betting on!

A Richardson endorsement might cinch the Hispanic vote in Texas if he started now. But the man remains silent, watching as Hillary's numbers erode in that demographic. In 2 1/2 weeks, his endorement won't help Hillary a bit in the Lone Star State. I believe if we don't hear from him by Friday night, we won't at all... and I am going to perceive that as a rejection of the Clinton's.

Edwards wields the same power to help Hillary in Ohio with an endorement, but again, 2 1/2 weeks out, we aren't hearing from him. I am however, putting my money on John coming out for Barack before Sun (Feb-17). If, on the other hand, he doesn't come out and endorse either candidate, I will again perceive that as a rejection of the Clinton's.

Al Gore is a horse of another color, and I do believe he holds a small grudge against the Clinton's for the way they acted in the White House the first time, which many believe helped cause Gore's loss in his bid for President. I think Bill and Hillary could wait until the sun burns out, and they still won't get Gore's endorsement. I think Gore's choice is Barack, but I don't think he'll publicly endorse either.

Hawaii & Wisconsin, Let's make it 10 in a row!

Thank you, Senator Barack Obama!

Andrew Lietzow — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:37:52 EST

Thank you Barack! Thank you Maryland. Thank you Virginia, and Washington, D.C. And, thank you to all the other states who have supported this campaign with their votes, their voices and their time, and their financial resources.

The momentum for this campaign's turn for victory started just 3.5 years ago, and it was officially launched just 1 year and 3 days ago. And, even though the train has pulled out of the station with millions of committed Obama supporters aboard, somehow I feel and know that the train has plenty of room for new supporters, and crossovers.

Sen. Obama offers here a speech which makes it so clear -- this campaign intends to reach out to supporters of all candidates whose campaigns just could not catch fire, then to invite them to come aboard and join this movement for change.

Certainly all supporters of the other seven Democratic campaigns should find comfort and acceptance for the vast majority of their "special interests" as they felt were better represented by their candidate. But now it's time to pick up a new banner -- the banner which says "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In".

And just like in Iowa and so many other states who have said, "Yes We Can", Independents and Republicans are joining in the movement, too, because they see hope for accomplishing some of their goals, too. I never had so many Republicans crossover to support a Dem before as I have for Senator Obama. 5-10% of the caucus-goers in many states were registered Republicans who have made the switch.

And once he is the nominee, and Indies and Repubs are actually listening to his messages, we'll see even more crossover.

My hat is off to Hillary, for her attempt to make history. And she has. Yet it may be time to try to find that spot in the Cabinet where she can do the best good for our nation, as Sec'y of Education. Of course, that is not my call, but IMHO, this is the calling for which God could best use her talents.

What a tremendous asset our country would have with HRC as Sec'y of Education. And even more so, with Barack Obama as President.

Awesome campaign, Senator Obama. We're all honored to have touched your robe and to be part of the movement. God bless you & yours!

Obama '08!

The Case for Bill Richardson as Vice President

Scott A. Giordano — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:07:52 EST

He has foreign policy, diplomacy and governing experience; and he can help deliver the West and the Hispanic community ...

End-of-Week Endorsement by NM Gov. Bill Richardson

EMK — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:24:46 EST

Link to the Washington Post:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/29/richardsons_choice.html

California SEIU & MoveOn.org Endorse Obama!

DoctorTodd — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:38:57 EST

Let's hope John Edwards and Bill Richardson follow suit ahead of Tsunami Tuesday!

Good morning!

Virginia S. — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:50:16 EST

It's so great to wake up and read the articles in the various online papers. Isn't the internet wonderful?

I loved this article about Obama's relationship with Latinos. Especially the quote about his Vice President: "I want a candidate and a vice president that is reflective of the country". Bill Richardson???? I want his endorsement!

Okay, this one speculates that Al Gore is going to endorse Barack!!!! Whooo! That would be great. Come on in Al, join the band wagon, have some Kool Aid. :)

Rumors of BIG endorsements...and a new Clinton scandal drops.

CJC — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:34:02 EST

Wow. Lots of news today.

Front page of the New York Times has a story about a potentially huge bombshell for the Clinton campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

There's also a piece in the The New York Daily News saying that Senator Edwards' inner circle is strongly urging him to endorse Obama.

Yesterday morning, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough was talking to Edwards' senior advisor who said he would do "everything in his power" to prevent Edwards from endorsing Clinton.

I also read that Edwards' campaign strategist Joe Trippi was Howard Dean's strategist four years ago...and with Clinton warring with Dean right now over the disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, that would give Trippi all the more reason to convince Edwards not to endorse Clinton.

I'm hearing chatter that Governor Richardson could be endorsing Obama on Friday. Richardson has pledged he'd make an endorsement by the end of this week, and the Obama camp just scheduled two events in New Mexico (where Richardson is Governor) on Friday.

But here's the biggest piece of potential news...and I stress that it is unconfirmed: a blogger at the Daily Kos website claims that it is "his understanding" that Al Gore will be endorsing Obama in California today. The plan is for the endorsement to dominate the news cycle following the debate. Again, I stress that's unconfirmed as of yet. It would make perfect sense, though, given the acrimony between Gore and the Clintons in the past and with the final pre-Super Tuesday debate being tonight.

The following blog has some interesting excerpts from The Washington Post that also hint towards a possible Gore endorsement:

http://richmonddemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/01/now-is-gores-moment-to-endorse-obama.html

Obama is now only three points behind Clinton here in California. Endorsements by the Kennedys, Al Gore, Bill Richardson and John Edwards in the days before Super Tuesday could be enough to put him over the edge...not just here in California, but all over the country.

EDIT: Former president Jimmy Carter has praised Barack Obama, although he has not given a formal endorsement yet:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080130/ts_alt_afp/usvote2008democratscarter

LET'S GET ENDORSMENTS!

Steve Severson — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:12:55 EST

My twin brother sent to me a petition with the intention of getting AL GORE to endorse BARACK OBAMA, and I thought it was such a great idea, I signed it(and did something else, more later..).

When you go to the petition site, a link I will provide, you can make comments. SPEAK TO AL FROM THE HEART, and be sure to include Baracks STUNNING rating of 96 out of 100 from The League of Conservation Voters!!

That statistic cannot be left in the "yesterday's news" pile. It must be repeated over and again.

Here's the link to the AL GORE PETITION: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ALGoreandObama?e

My Letter to Bill Richardson

Asher Heimermann — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:52:39 EST

Dear Governor Richardson,

Thank you for running for President of the United States.

Your campaign offered the American people an opportunity for real change, a leader who has been tested, but most importantly, a descent person who is honest and tells folks exactly where he stands.

Your campaign for the presidency was truly inspiring.

I write you to humbly and respectfully ask that you endorse Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States. Like me, millions of Obama supporters (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) look to you Governor for leadership, inspiration, and vision. We have the opportunity, for the first time since the days of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy, to remake this country and to remake the world. We can solve huge problems, mobilize all of our citizens, heal the nation, and inspire people to believe in America again.

If Hillary Clinton should be our nominee, there will be millions of Democrats that will either stay home or vote for the Republican nominee. Millions of Democrats believe that the Clinton campaign is doing severe damage to our party by employing George Bush style, divisive politics, and that their campaign engaged in blatant voter suppression in the State of Nevada. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, we will lose to the Republicans in November. We must nominate Barack Obama in order to expand our base and to re-take the White House.

Our country and our party truly need your help Governor. Please join Senator Edward Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy, Senator John Kerry, the Governor of Arizona, and the thousands more who have endorsed Senator Obama so that we can win this election and forever change America.

Thank you for the excellent example that you offer to the young people of this country.

This Is Why We Love This Guy

Brad — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:07:27 EST

From a blog post at The New Republic:

>>>

The endorsement of recent POTUS dropout and wildly-popular governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson has been sought with increasing frenzy of late. Both Clintons are said to have called him, and Ted Kennedy, who will be stumping on Richardson's turf this week, has reportedly made his own pitch for Obama.

Richardson obviously has personal reasons to hold Clintons in affection--he worked in Bill's cabinet, for one--but it seems there is an equally personal motivation to join Obama's team. From the horse's mouth:

I had just been asked a question -- I don't remember which one -- and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn't going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, 'So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?' But I wasn't paying any attention! I was about to say, 'Could you repeat the question? I wasn't listening.' But I wasn't about to say I wasn't listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, 'Katrina. Katrina.' The question was on Katrina! So I said, 'On Katrina, my policy . . .' Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, 'Obama, that was good of you to do that.'

Regardless of Richardson's eventual pick, I find this really endearing.

<<<

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/29/quot-obama-that-was-good-of-you-to-do-that-quot.aspx

The truth is out there

Virginia S. — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:59:56 EST

Seriously, sometimes you have to dig deep to get past the spin!

Here is the 11 minute long video clip of Bill Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. You can see that his remarks were not taken out of context, etc. I love the reporter's "facts".

This one might just be the best analysis of Barack's liberalism than any other article I have read. Must read for anyone who wants to see the true differences in ideology between Barack and the other campaigns.

Let's Write a Quick, Friendly Note to Bill Richardson: Endorse!

Lucia - Team Coordinator for OBAMAWOOD — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 22:16:46 EST

http://www.governor.state.nm.us/email.php?mm=6&type=opinion Thank you!

Exploring Bill Richardson’s ‘New Realism’

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:40:48 EST

In the January/February 2008 edition of the Foreign Affairs Journal, Democratic presidential candidate (at the time) Bill Richardson wrote an impressive essay titled, A New Realism: A Realistic and Principled Foreign Policy. The summary for this essay is as follows:

The United States needs a foreign policy that is based on reality and is loyal to American values. The next U.S. president needs to send a clear signal to the world that America has turned the corner and will once again be a leader rather than a unilateralist loner. Getting out of Iraq and restoring our reputation are necessary first steps toward a new strategy of U.S. global engagement and leadership.

You can also read essays from other presidential candidates on the Foreign Affair’s Campaign 2008 site. As a note, I have written my commentary on Barack Obama’s essay awhile back.

Why You Should Vote "Uncommitted" in the Michigan Primary

Seth Kramer — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:55:28 EST

I've seen several appeals to folks to vote "uncommitted" in the Michigan primary, but I haven't seen anyone explain why. As someone who's naturally suspicious of being ordered around I thought I might be able to give a thoughtful explanation of why voting "uncommitted" is the best option for Michigan Democrats.

The Media Spin Favors Obama, McCain

Scott A. Giordano — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:53:48 EST

The media is finally recognizing what I've known all along: Authenticity Matters.

ABC News New Hampshire Primary Debate

Scott A. Giordano — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:18:19 EST

Highlights and analysis of all the key issues covered in the debate ...

Barack Obama: The Practical Choice

Brett Robinson — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:26:24 EST

After months of collecting my thoughts and weighing the choices of the presidential candidates available right now, I have decided who I will be endorsing for President of the United States.

Granted, my endorsement will mean very little. After all, I am a mere eighteen year old from the South Shore of Massachusetts. I have no influence over voters in Iowa, as well as in New Hampshire and South Carolina. But I’m just as engaged as they are, and just as attentive to this campaign as they are, and, sooner or later—like them—will have to come to a final decision as to who they will support in a caucus or a primary. And so, I have decided to give my full support to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and I will be donating to his campaign as a result.

I will have to admit, however, that my support is not absolute. He is not, in my mind, the "ideal" candidate to take on the Republican nominee next fall, but, when you think about it, nothing in life is as "ideal" as you would want and there has never been an "ideal" candidate in any election cycle. When making any sort of decision, you have to choose the best option of the choices available at that moment. For all practical purposes, you cannot reasonably reach up for a "pie in the sky," as the cliché goes. And so, even though I have real doubts that Obama has the ability to win the White House in 2008, when you look at what the rest of the Democratic field has to offer, he is realistically the best candidate to support.

The Democrats in the Final Iowa Debate: Winning the Hearts of Voters

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:48:54 EST

The Democrats held a presidential debate this past Thursday, December 13, in Iowa. The contenders were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Senator Mike Gravel (AK) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH) did not meet the criteria to attend the debate.

The Des Moines Register wrote in Why Kucinich isn't in the Democratic debate?:

Neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel had a campaign office in Iowa by the Oct. 1 deadline, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission. Gravel also did not have any paid staff in the state by the deadline.

This debate was hosted by The Des Moines Register and was shown on Iowa Public Television, although some of the major networks, such as CNN, Fox News Channel, and others broadcast the event. It was moderated by the editor of The Register Carolyn Washburn. As a note, I found this debate to be much more civilized than the previous.

Hillary Dealt the Losing Hand in Vegas, the Democrats Debate

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:58:20 EST

On Thursday, November 15, the seven Democratic presidential candidates debated the issues in Las Vegas, Nevada at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV). This debate was broadcasted on Cable News Network (CNN) with moderator Wolf Blitzer. As the title partially suggests, this debate further spiraled in the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The candidates at this intense debate were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel was not invited due to the CNN criteria-failure of raising $1,000,000, in which, his campaign has reported $240,000, thus far. In this post, I will highlight the foreign policy issues, as well as, the building rivalry between Senators Clinton and Obama, and why I did not like the quality of the debate.

The Democrats Truly Square Off in the MSNBC-Pennsylvania Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:56:24 EDT

On October 30, 2007, seven of the eight Democratic presidential contenders faced off at Drexel University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was moderated by Brian Williams and Tim Russert. The seven candidates that participated were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (OH), and Governor Bill Richardson (NM). Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel did not meet the three criteria to participate, which was based on not campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, polled below 5 percent, and did not raise $1,000,000 for his campaign. Senator Gravel wrote his rebuttal at the Huffington Post, titled Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates.

This debate brought forth the first beginnings of the candidates taking their gloves off and making distinctions from Hillary Clinton. The debate covered several issues from Iran, Social Security, to UFO (unidentified flying object) sightings. This was probably the best debate since the discussion hosted by CNN and YouTube. With 63 days to the Iowa caucus, this intensity came at the right time. If you did not watch the debate, MSNBC has the transcript on-line.

Does anyone else wish

"Barbara Gordon" — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:32:49 EDT

they would narrow the number of candidates appearing in the debates?

There are certain candidates (who shall remain nameless) that I'd rather not hear ramble anymore.

The Sound of Inevitability

Tony Loyd — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:32:30 EDT

If you believe the mainstream media, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, all the other candidates should just fold their tent and go home. This kind of rhetoric reminds me of a scene from the movie The Matrix. In the scene I’m thinking of, Agent Smith is holding our hero Neo in front of an oncoming train.

Agent Smith: "You hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Anderson..."

Neo: "My name... is Neo."

And with that Neo jumps away, leaving Agent Smith in front of the train. I’m just guessing here, but I’d say that it didn’t turn out like Agent Smith had expected it to.

The MSNBC New Hampshire Democratic Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:36:13 EDT

This past Wednesday, the eight Democratic Presidential candidates squared off in their seventh debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. It was broadcasted on MSNBC with Tim Russert as moderator. The eight candidates who participated were Senator Barack Obama (IL), Senator Joe Biden (DE), Senator Hillary Clinton (NY), Senator Chris Dodd (CT), former Senator John Edwards (NC), former Senator Mike Gravel (AK), Representative Dennis Kucinich (OH), and former Governor Bill Richardson (NM). I will, as usual, analyze on the foreign policy issues of the debate.

Should Americans Support a Candidate Who Allows or Ignores the Privatization of Iraqi Oil?

Kevin from Mishawaka, IN — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:40:05 EDT

To all of my fellow Obama supporters...

Do you support the privatization of Iraqi's oil? Let me rephrase that. Do you support plans to allow U.S. corporations to take the wealth of the Iraqi nation, which is its natural resource, oil? And one more time, I will ask. Do you support the "hydrocarbon law" that we are forcing the Iraqi government to pass so that companies can gain control of the Iraqi oil?

Now, I also add, do you realize that this is why we have not defunded the war and allowed our troops to come home? Do you understand that until they do as they are told we will not be bringing our troops home? This continues until they allow us to rape them of a natural resource that allows their country to sustain itself.

I ask you directly and repeatedly because I find little in the way of a response to this matter, privatization of Iraqi oil, on your candidates' website.

On Obama's, I could not find any mention on his campaign site. And in fact, I went to his Senate website and typed in "privatize" "Iraq" "oil" and I got three results. None of them referred to the privatization of Iraqi oil at all.

On Clinton's, apparently, she does not want people snooping around in her records. She does not want people to know what she has said in the Senate because there is no search bar on her Senate website. Or on her campaign site for that matter. However, she does have places to click to read her stances on Iraq on both sites. Sadly, both sites fail to mention the privatization of Iraqi oil.

On Edwards, he does not have a Senate site. But he does have a campaign site. And, finally, I get something that looks like it might mention the privatization of Iraqi oil. You see, what made me write this was that I was reading a response to the GAO report where the "hydrocarbon law" was mentioned. And on Edwards' website, you can go to press releases and read Edwards' statement on it. However, if you do read through it, you will find that he fails to mention the privatization of Iraqi oil or the hydrocarbon law.

On Richardson, his campaign website does not have a press release on the GAO report. I clicked on his "Iraq" section under the Issues tab. And what I found was his 7 Point plan. I think he may be missing a few steps but anyways, bottom line is that nowhere in this section does he mention the privatization of Iraqi's oil or the "hydrocarbon law".

On Biden, I found a place where I could "search" so I typed in "privatize" "iraq" "oil" and what I got was nothing. Zero results. And then, I checked out his press releases. No press releases for August 30th. I went to a section under his Issues tab that said "War in Iraq". Nothing. There's a small blurb praising Biden. On his campaign site, no press releases exist on the GAO Report. Alas, I went to "Iraq: A Way Forward" on his website to find out about the privatization of Iraqi's oil. Thankfully, his policy proposal for handling Iraq mentions oil. It even goes as far as to mention oil revenues. But it doesn't mention the privatization of Iraqi oil by U.S. companies. Here, you read:

<blockquote>The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would convene an international conference to secure support for the power sharing arrangement and produce a regional nonaggression pact, overseen by a Contact Group of major powers. It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the summer of 2008, with a residual force to keep Iraqis and their neighbors honest. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program and seek funding from the oil-rich Gulf Arab states.</blockquote>

Biden supporters, help me out. I have no clue what he is talking about. Of course, his plan is weird in the first place. I think he supports dividing Iraq into three states---one Kurd, one Sunni, one Shiite. If you scroll down, you can see how step 2 in his plan involves oil.

<blockquote>2. Share Oil Revenues

* Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
* Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, which would attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure</blockquote>

Again, Biden supporters, help me out. However, at least his plan references oil. The rest of these plans seem to ignore the fact that this resource is a major source of wealth for Iraqis. (I wonder why that could be? Hmm?) Oh, and there is no mention of the GAO report on Biden's website either.

On Dodd's site, his press release for the day ignores the GAO report and details how we should consider foreign investments impact on national security. In the "search" bar, I typed "privatize" "iraq" "oil" and found nothing. On his campaign website, well...to cut back on the amount of redundance in this article, I will just tell you flat out there is nothing here on the privatization of Iraqi oil.

However...

Dennis Kucinich's House of Representatives website has a statement in a press release in reference to the GAO report. A portion of that <a href="http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=72672">statement</a> reads:
<blockquote>
The report states the Iraqi government is making unsatisfactory progress toward enacting and implementing a ‘hydrocarbon law.’ This ‘hydrocarbon law’ is in reality a law that would privatize Iraq’s own oil. There has been a broad deception about the content of the hydrocarbon law, a deception which has taken in Members of Congress and the media,” Kucinich said.

Central to the coercive benchmarks is the privatization of Iraq’s oil, a wholesale theft of nearly $30 trillion of Iraq assets. This is what the war was about and the Administration and the Congress continue to pressure Iraq to give away the wealth of their nation to U.S. companies. This theft of Iraq’s oil resources through the ruse of ‘mandated benchmarks’ constitutes a violation of international law.

We do not have to fund the war. We must tell the President NO to any additional funding. No legislation is required. No vote is required. We have the money to bring the troops home. It does not require a vote. The only thing required is honesty, integrity and a willingness to end the war. The war is not going to end if we try to privatize Iraq’s oil. </blockquote>

And on his campaign website, nothing because the webmasters who update and run the website are doing a horrific job. I can attest to that because I am part of the campaign and many of his supporters have issues with how he gets his message out on his website. We feel he doesn't do a good enough job of putting buttons and links in places where people will see them and click on them to find out more about how great he is. But, that is not the issue here.

The issue is Dennis Kucinich is the only one speaking about the privatization of Iraqi oil. None of the other candidates have anything or have said anything. So, supporters from the other campaigns, how does that make you feel? And what are you going to do about it? Because something needs to be done.

(*The GAO report being discussed cannot be found yet as it still being drafted. Kucinich mentions <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001942.html">this article</a> in the Washington Post, which explains why a GAO report involving Iraq is in the news. )

The ABC Iowa Democratic Debate

Matthew Negrete — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 19:01:04 EDT

Yesterday, the Democratic Presidential hopefuls participated in the ABC Iowa Debates. It was part of a special edition of This Week, moderated by George Stephanopoulos. The presidential candidates present at this debate were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel. The issues debated included experience, prayer, education, and other issues. I will analyze what I felt were noteworthy moments concerning U.S. foreign policy issues and my critique of the debate and Barack Obama’s performance.

The AFL-CIO Democratic Presidential Debate

Matthew Negrete — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 21:07:47 EDT

This past Tuesday, seven of the eight Democratic Presidential candidates debated in the AFL-CIO Forum at Soldier Field in Chicago. It was broadcasted on MSNBC and moderated by Keith Olbermann. The candidates addressed and answered the questions on issues ranging from Obama's counterterrorism strategy, the growing influence of China, to the outsourcing of jobs. The seven candidates, who wooed current and potential supporters, were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson. The only presidential contender not invited was Mike Gravel. The controversy was surrounded by the AFL-CIO contending that Gravel did not fill a questionnaire on time. He has called the AFL-CIO's reason a poor excuse, since he has worked with labor issues for many years. I will analyze the foreign policy issues that I found noteworthy.

The Democratic Presidential CNN/YouTube Debate

Matthew Negrete — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 17:13:11 EDT

This past Monday, the eight Democratic presidential candidates held their fourth discussion on the main issues in the historic CNN/YouTube Debate at the Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina. This debate was formatted on questions via video that were submitted by YouTube users. Then, CNN selected what they perceived were the best and most creative questions, and they were played live during the debate to the Democratic candidates. The contenders for the presidential nomination included Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd. If you missed the debate, you can watch it on YouTube.

Third Round of Presidential Debates

Matthew Negrete — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:49:48 EDT

The third Democratic Presidential debate, called the All-American Presidential Forum, took place this past Thursday at Howard University, a historical African-American university. The eight contenders each tried to win over African-American voters with issues, such as racial profiling, HIV/AIDS, Hurricane Katrina, and the current situation in Africa. The eight candidates that participated were Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd.

The New Hampshire Presidential Debates

Matthew Negrete — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:51:04 EDT

This past Sunday, the eight Democratic Presidential candidates concluded their second debate at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. The same eight from the first debate included Barack Obama, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel.

First Round of Presidential Debates

Matthew Negrete — Sun, 06 May 2007 00:47:26 EDT

The first set of Presidential debates has been concluded this past week (Democratic Party - April 26 and Republican Party - May 3). Both of these debates have shown where potential candidates stand. The following candidates that participated in this first round of debates are as follows:

Democratic Party: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel

Republican Party: John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, Tom Tancredo, and Ron Paul.

Commentary on First Democratic Debate

Troy Olson — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:42:54 EDT

Barack Obama is now tied in the polls and his candidacy is getting brighter by the day thanks to all of your help and support! Keep up the great work Obama supporters!

Now my thoughts on the first Democratic Debate:

Barack Obama – Did a great job here, he was clear, concise, hit most of his major campaign points. He made it a point to maintain that he has refused campaign donations from Lobbyists and Special Interest groups. He took the only safe position on abortion that one can take which was a good move. Emphasize with both sides, on abortion that is truly the only way to go these days. He could have done more to emphasize the importance of energy independence and alternative energy resources and I feel he needs to adopt a more aggressive and progressive stance on these issues later on. Its not that he doesn’t support Progressive Environmental Politics, its just that he needs to talk about it more often and be a bit louder about it. His strong stance on taking down terrorist networks was a smart move that will help later on down the road. Only major candidate to be consistently against the War in Iraq and he continued that here.

Hillary Clinton – For the most part she spoke very well tonight. She has definitely already established herself as the establishment candidate and that is why I think she has been losing steam the last few months. She didn’t actually get a lot of chances to talk here which is a shame for her because I feel it could have helped her to go toe to toe with either Edwards or Obama for a bit. It could also backfire however.

John Edwards – He has a few key issues in his campaign that have become definably his. Poverty being the major one and also Children’s Issues – which is surprising since that has always been Hillary's issue or at least she has worked on Childrens issues for much of her career, especially before Bill Clinton rose to national prominence. Out of the top 3 candidates, I feel Edwards needed a bump here the most and it never came. He was just as solid as Hillary overall - but he needed to be impressive more than Hillary and Barack Obama needed to be.

Bill Richardson – Even though I felt Barack did a wonderful job tonight, Richardson I feel did this best job. He has the most experience and is an excellent candidate for the VP should Obama win the nomination – and I believe Barack will, Richardson would be the best VP choice. He was very clear on every issue and question he was asked and I wouldn't be suprised to see him jump up in the polls.

Joe Biden – Out of the second tier candidates, he did the best job outside of Richardson. I love how he handled Mike Gravel during the debate. He didn't talk much, only Dodd said fewer words but he is looking good in the eyes of Conservative Democrats right about now.

Dennis Kucinich – He has no chance of winning and never would I vote for him – but I’m glad he’s running he makes the race more entertaining. “Moving away from Global Warring, and Global Warming.” Nice! Kucinich means well and you have to love the way he challenges Obama here – I feel it ended up helping Obama a lot here.

Chris Dodd – He is a candidate that does not have much going for him, not terribly charismatic at all. Has no key issues that define him like Edwards has.

Mike Gravel – This guy is angry! The only voters he could have possibly won over with that performance was the anti-Americans who happen to live in America. He was the source of a funny exchange between himself and Biden though and just like Kucinich he makes the race a bit more interesting. I don’t like the way this guy talks at all. Anger doesn’t get you anywhere. This guy is a bully.

Overall I felt Obama came off looking best between the major candidates, Edwards and Clinton were also very strong. Obama and Gravel went toe to toe for a bit that was the most exciting moment of the night. Edwards avoided taking a shot at Hillary at the beginning and did the smart thing by avoiding it. Overall they treated each other with respect though and I felt the person who will gain the most from tonight out the second tier candidates is Bill Richardson. Biden did very well too, “YES! Best moment of the night probably.

Thats all for now, hopefully Obama gets a bump or at least holds his momentum. Surely his performance will at the very least not hurt him. Which is really the key here when you are a frontrunner or near the top.

Who Should be Obama's VP Running Mate?

Nathaniel Krefman — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 12:34:11 EST

Can you imagine if Al Gore were humble enough to accept the nod for Veep again on an Obama/Gore ticket? There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it, right? Unlikely story, but it would be an unstoppable ticket.

It can't be Barack Obama/Bill Clinton unfortunately (although that would be swell!), because the 12th Amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." *single tear*

The following post is in response to a question posed in the Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack Obama) Facebook group: "Who should be Barack Obama's Vice Presidential running mate when (not if) he wins the Democratic nomination?"

It's only March '07----why all the fuss?

Eddy Arriola — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 09:33:39 EST

I've had a lot of folks say to me, "Hey, I care about politics, but its still early--the election isn't until November 2008." Whether we like it or not, many decisions will be made well before then. For example, the next Democratic Nominee. Even Gov.Bill Richardson, who is running a decent 4th, agrees.

"I believe the first four states, with Iowa and New Hampshire being the top ones, will determine who the president is. I always felt that way," Richardson said Sunday in an interview with The Associated Press as he wrapped up a two-day visit to Iowa.

Florida is trying to move its primary to Feb. 5th and the Western States are trying to do the same, so we have 11 months to find out who will be the nominee. Considering each candidate other than Hilary is running a start-up campaign, there is a lot to do--build a staff, raise money, meet folks across the country.

If you care, you need to get involved and be active regardless of party affiliation or candidate.

The Barack Obama grassroots initiative is well underway, but it takes time. Spread the word.

FP!

Leo — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 05:13:47 EST

First blog post!

I have high expectations for Barack Obama. He's a fresh face, a great writer, and I believe unbridled popular enthusiasm means something.

If any major Democratic contender can win the general election, it's him (sorry, Bill Richardson!). If I was a Dem political operative, after Mark Warner dropped out, I would've sent out my resume to Barack, no hesitation. Unfortunately, I'm not. I'm missing out on all the fun.

So instead I'll be writing this blog.

Hopefully I'll be updating it every once in a while with my thoughts on the campaign. Check back every once in a while!