Dean is first!!

 Well, actually it looks like John Edwards is currently in first. For those who haven't noticed, the Pulse Poll Results are now LIVE on our home page: www.DemocracyforAmerica.com

test

 test

<>

What a sad day for America when people like Horowitz can grab the spotlight for one week.  The ChristoFascists can't take the log out of their own eyes.

The news here is all about Bhutto and it looks like the blame will fall on *terrorists.*  A little aside that may not have been mentioned in the states....Bhutto was on the potty when the attack occured.  Isn't Bhutto a political enemy of Musharaf and threatening his power?  I would think so.

Very timely brought subject, imo!

The explanation to others of the fact that:
Horowitz&Co = Bush&Co <> Jewish People, must be the priority of EVERY PROGRESSIVE individual.

Instead of listening Horowitz&Co. American people should of been listening Neturey Karta

http://www.nkusa.org/

Posted by fitsnews in 2008 Presidential Primaries.
trackback

WOULD-BE “STUDENTS FOR BARACK OBAMA” TOLD ATTENDING HILLARY PRESS CONFERENCE WAS “PART OF CLASS”

FITSNews - October 18, 2007 - Students at Claflin University, a historically black college in Orangeburg, S.C., are accusing the school’s administration of prohibiting them from forming a “Students for Barack Obama” chapter, yet simultaneously compelling them to attend a press conference supporting his chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton.

In fact, several students who serve as volunteers on Obama’s presidential campaign tell FITSNews that they were coerced into holding Clinton signs and standing behind State Sen. John Matthews, who unveiled Clinton’s higher education plan at a press conference held at the school last week.

Which would probably explain some of the unenthusiastic expressions visible in this photograph.

Here’s what we’ve been told …

About three weeks ago, an honors student at Claflin University says she approached the administration about establishing a Students for Barack Obama chapter at the school. The student was told that she and fellow students could not form such a group on campus, but no reason was given for the school’s decision.

Fast-forward to last week, when this same honors student says that she and other Obama supporters were in a class that was cancelled so that students could attend Sen. Matthews’ presentation on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She and other scholarship students say they were “coerced by administrators” into standing behind Matthews during his address. About half of those students are Obama volunteers who felt they had “no choice” but to stand behind Matthews at the event.

Not surprisingly, Clinton stickers and placards were passed out while the Senator was making his presentation, and a sign-up form for the Clinton campaign was circulated, which many of the students said they felt they were obligated to sign.

Claflin is technically a private institution, but it receives millions of dollars in government grants each year due to its historically-black designation.

According to a senior U.S. Department of Education official who spoke with FITSNews on the condition of anonymity, the school’s political favoritism - if proven true - may violate the First Amendment rights of these students, as well as a federal prohibition against using tax dollars to promote a political campaign.

...

AIPAC's sticky fingers

It has been revealed that the patriots of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) wrote the draft for the Kyle-Lieberman resolution which received 76 Senate votes including that of Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton. We must congratulate our Senators on this expression of bi-partisan comity! In store later this fall are a series of extravagazas designed to educate Americans about the need for war with Iran. They include:
--the Islamo-fascism awareness week at college campuses across the country starting Oct 22.  The American patriot David Horowitz is responsible for this event http://www.terrorismawareness.org/
--A 200 million dollar Bomb Iran Campaign brought to you by Freedom Watch  

john dordan's diary

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/17/174735/20 

Uh, excuse me, Charles Chamberlain and HQ...Jim Dean...

WHAT???

"VOTING IS STILL OPEN!! Polls close at midnight on November 5th, 2007. Cast your vote now at http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/Pulse..."


NOVEMBER 5????????? This isn't a poll this is a marketing scheme allowing folks to come on and manipulate the numbers.


I've never seen a 3 WEEK POLL???? Can we be a bit more honest and transparent and complete this? 3 weeks? 3 days are the max I've ever seen on a poll, especially because you allow any mailing address and name to be added. It is not controlled.

This is wrong.


Please. Complete this if you want it to have any merit.

Thank you, Charles.

Linda in SFN....8

tHAT IS why I posted several times and wrote to Ilya Sheyman before the poll started, that the Poll would be divisive. Nobody seemed to be concerned then.

At this time, it looks very much as if we're headed for a razor-thin finish between Edwards and Obama.  Frankly, that won't do much good, in my opinion, because it will guarantee that no one gets the DFA endorsement.

And DFA, as one of the most consistently progressive and antiwar groups out there, and as one of the best fundraising and publicity vehicles out there for those causes, NEEDS to endorse.  Organizations like ours need to get into the fray or we will wind up with DLC/Vichycrat Hill as the Dem nominee.

So I suggest that we start looking at this endorsement poll not as a single survey but as a weekly survey that restarts every Monday and continues through November 5th.  Don't forget that you can change your vote as much as you like because it's keyed to your email address.  Every time you cast a vote you are required to furnish your email address.  If you've voted before then your previous vote is thrown away and your new vote is counted instead.  In addition, as I understand it, unless one's email address is in the DFA database, your vote will not be counted at all, thus ensuring that this survey will be of, by, and for, DFA members.

Look at me, for example.  I named as my first choice Al Gore.

But I will make this pledge to my fellow DFAers.  I will re-examine my vote this coming Monday, and probably change it if current trends persist.  If that trend persists then anyone like myself who persists in voting for Gore, or any candidate who is not sharing the majority of votes in this survey, is merely ensuring that no candidate will receive the needed 66% DFA has called for in order to issue an endorsement.  And that would be a loss ultimately for our cause of returning control of the Democratic party to the Democratic wing.

So I pledge that on Monday I will name as my first, second, and third choice whomever I like of the current field FROM AMONG THOSE RECEIVING A MAJORITY OF DFA POLL VOTES at that time.  At this moment, for example, the top three finishers are Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich.  The three of them combined total a whopping 69% of the vote.  If, on Monday, that continues to be the case, then I will name as my top three choices these three candidates.  You will ask "well, then how are you voting your preference?  Aren't you simply going along with the majority, like a lemming?"

Well, no, because I will only vote for candidates whom I like.  For example, if I don't like one of the top three majority vote-getters, then I will simply name one of the also-rans as my third choice; or if I don't like two of them then I shall name two of the also-rans as my second and third choice, and so on; and if I like NONE of the majority vote-getters then my current vote will remain unchanged.  But the bottom line is that if I like ANY of the majority vote-getters I will vote for him or them as my first, or first and/or second and/or third choice.  Specifically in my case, if Gore doesn't make it as a majority vote-getter, then I will not vote for him, provided I can find three other candidates whom I also like but who are doing better in this survey.

By doing this, I believe we can increase the likelihood of a bandwagon effect, and thus increase the odds that a candidate will receive the 66% needed to qualify for DFA's endorsement.  It is my hope that we will see a winnowing effect emerge, week by week, as this vote continues, resulting, by November 5th, in a candidate successfully emerging as the DFA consensus choice who receives the magic percentage of 66.

Now as to how we get the absolute number up from 25,000 to 100,000, no ideas there.  Hopefully that will be a challenge that will take care of itself because of the loyalty and persistence of the DFA membership.

Yours in reform,

Charles

audrey, I was, and I was when they did the first one and it was uncontrolled, but I don't think anyone even thought they would go this far to run an uncontrolled voting for 3 weeks and call it a poll.

Mr. Riggs, so nice to see you... Long time. Many of us were concerned when you disappeared and feared you may had been a pilot that went missing. Glad you are ok.

But my vote is my vote. I will not play a game, because others do as well, so nothing is a given. Vote real and you can be happy with yourself.

No pundit rhetoric of "vote your head, not your heart" You'll only have played their game and sell out your correct vote and in the end, we ALL LOSE.

And, I side with Howard Dean, the founder, primaries are for people to get involved. We should act as a referee, not decide who. We should not be endorsing no matter WHO is running.

Evidence of other work---

Mr. Riggs, so nice to see you... Long time. Many of us were concerned when you disappeared and feared you may had been a pilot that went missing.

+++

Huh ?  Charles flys a plane ?

I must have missed something in the conversation.

lol rd, no, I don't know if he does, that was somes guess when he left suddenly and a situation happened and the two were tied together...only out of concern. But, he's OK. :)

Linda in SFN.....

YESSSS!!
If either of the top Corporatists Hill or Obama are the choice, I will sit this one out. We should concentrate on getting a veto proof Congress elected.

16. Linda -

I'm glad that Charles is ok.

After what happened to Fosset and much earlier to John Denver, the freedom to soar, can be sadly a dangerous thing at times.

Monica Smith
Fri, 10/19/07
12:58 pm
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lowes is having a sale on leaf blowers this weekend..............$60 gets you a nice toro electric one.......

19.

Michael Ellis
Fri, 10/19/07
1:31 pm


buy green

The relative merits of each candidate are for each of us, as individuals, to decide. 

But I think there's also a question here of how important and helpful we believe it to be to enable DFA to make an endorsement.  I strongly believe that enabling such an endorsement will be extremely helpful and important to the progressive/antiwar/liberal cause.  Linda in SFNM has also answered this question, clearly, unambiguously, and very strongly in the negative:  "primaries are for people to get involved. We should act as a referee, not decide who. We should not be endorsing no matter WHO is running."

Obviously I completely disagree.  However I also believe that BOTH positions have merit, and it's a question that would benefit from further discussion.

I greatly look forward to others' take on this question, which I will restate for clarity:  Would it be useful and helpful to our cause if we help DFA make an endorsement by banding together behind a candidate with the best chance to make that 66% threshold, even if that candidate might not be our first choice?  Do we judge the DFA endorsement helpful enough, and valuable enough, to warrant such a compromise?

Yours in reform,

Charles

I take this as a method of asking the membership who to endorse not a poll.

"membership vote" is more like it

this is very close to my idea for a multi-week national primary except mine would be IRV to the extent necessary to allocate convention delegates

I urge you all to follow along with the voting in this "membership vote" as a test case as to how to nominate our 2012 Presidential candidate

audrey wrote "If either of the top Corporatists Hill or Obama are the choice, I will sit this one out."

I’m following you. Community organizer, constitutional law professor and state senator Obama is a corporatist. That must make hedge fund special consultant and investor Edwards a populist.

I’m attracted in this poll to the idea of voting for people who are not actually running on the assumption that if they indicate they have no interest in doing so, they are just stating in code that they are biding their time. DFA could cement its relevance in the political firmament by funneling all its contributions and organizing on behalf of Candidate Other for President.

Well, I'm still sticking with OEB, including the B(iden) part.

I would argue that the current results are not unlike results you would get of a national vote of the Democratic  Party membership. I don't think DFA members differ greatly from average Democrats. They do differ from the actions of the party as it operates in Washington, closer to the non-Republican citizens(who live in a different state of mind). 

Chris Dodd has just moved up on my list of preferred candidates for his stand on FISA and not giving immunity to telecoms. Dodd is taking his hold on the BIll which Reid and the weak Dems are ignoring, and he's willing to filibuster. WTG, Sen. Dodd. Senators Clinton and Obama are followers.

http://chrisdodd.com/home

... well, i'm glad all the 'elders' have weighed in now. sheeez

This election will be the same as the last for 'DFA'... blow all the money in the primary trying to be a 'big dog', then be completely unhelpful for many many congressional House races.

Even tho Dennis could really really use the support, and he's my guy 100% at this point, i don't advocate leaving some 10-20 house seats in the hands of the fascists.

... maybe it's just me. I'm sure that the South wouldn't be anywhere in the calculation, either way, but sometimes it would help to have 15+- more real Dems in the House

... no matter who is the pResident.

Charles......

DFA has put a lot of $$ and sweat into trying to reform the Dem. Party and that has included the realization that we need to remove the Corporate influence from the Party and even our government. How does supporting either of the two top Corporate Dem. candidates further that effort in the event they emerge as the winner of the poll? It seems to me that it will muddy what started as a clear direction. Are we or are we not for doing away with corporate influence?

This is very close to my paper absentee ballot only idea. I don't think you would want to do it on-line.

it is at least close enough to use as an illustration

 announcing the result mid-voting is how you build excitement and get more people to vote, in my case by Congressional District since that allocation determines the outcome at the National Convention

in this case a ticket of Edwards and Obama would be one outcome, but another might be a deadlocked convention and a Gore draft

Deaniac we can only give $5000 directly to a candidate. It is all about building community.

Kucinich will need the help if he gets the nomination.

My opinion as to who would be the top two Corporate Dems would be Hill and Obama. I think that is without dispute.

audrey wrote "I think that is without dispute."

I just disputed it so I think your statement is difficult to support. 

audrey 

any Senator is friendly to the big interests in the state, and Biden and Dodd are not exceptions

I don't think Biden and Obama differ much as far as pro corporate interests go, my concern is there an agressive global agenda that includes use of the military

that is the point where the need for Gore rises

in this case a ticket of Edwards and Obama would be one outcome

...

+++

and another outcome would be Obama and Edwards

Just read at Huffpo how the Religious Right (which is neither IMO) isn't keen on any of the R nominees. What's so disgraceful about their comments - they're so bloody bigoted. *Mormon from Massachusetts*, *...a New Yorker*. Gee, I wonder how Mormons from New England and New York or just plain regligious folks from the east coast feel about these comments. Just sayin...

IMO, DFA should endorse a primary candidate. An organization that sits on the sidelines in a critical election is not progressive. WE are an advocacy organization, not a branch of the DNC.

If this is just a tactic to get emails and people to sign up, I would be VERY disappointed.

Phil Specht
Fri, 10/19/07
1:56 pm


$5000 is about what it takes just to be on the ballot, at least here in GA. That is from an email straight out of the SOS, GA, office. If a candidate could use $5000, not spent just filing, on gas to hold fund-raisers or be visible that would sure help folks think they are viable.
... or the reThug could just run unopposed.

... oh what am i thinkin', the elder has put me back in my place. Guess i'll just go trimble.

... :~(

35.

speaking of R nominees --

-- Brownback has backed out of the race:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101800755.html

I would agree with audrey's characterization of Obama as being not a "the people not the powerful"  candidate Hillary's Senate District includes Wall Street. I personally have no problems with Corporate profits per se as long as the aren't derived from predatory practices.  I have real problems with using the military to force market access. (nuclear power plant fuel to Iran).

study the India deal

outsourcing the production of nuclear weapons to counter-balance China

where does this leave Pakistan? who profits from different senarios? are those entities backing a certain candidate?

we know they are fawning over the Republican crowd

Susan Rowe
Fri, 10/19/07
1:34 pm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Smart gal......a few years back I ditched my uber heavy, noisey,smokey, 2 stroke leaf blower for a lighter electric one...........now my wife can help with the leaves and she loves it becasue its so light.....we have a bag attachment so we will suck up a bunch of leaves, mulch em up and spread them on whats left of our lawn(we are in a severe drought).................

Rock on

 rdorgan
Fri, 10/19/07
2:11 pm
___________________________________________________________________________

Why some of these clods run is beyond me.............

Tom....

Because you have disputed my statement doesnt change a thing except in your mind.
Hill and Obama's corporate donors have been published. Others have taken such donations, but not to the brazen extent of the leading two.
Supporting either clouds our goal, the others, not so much.

I think that any endorsement from BFA must be a candidate who is not a corporatist and who will get us out of the ME.  If we all right now voted for "other" or Kucinich or Dodd as our number one choice, we could end up endorsing a good candidate.

I will not vote for the top tier, no way, no way.  And if DFA endorses Clinton or Obama, then shame on DFA and what a slap in the face of Howard that would be.   

Mike -

Speaking of clods, does Sam own a dog ?

43. 

I'd never think of slapping Howard in the face. I've voting for Obama and IMO that's no slap.

I do hope that you seashell are feeling better (I'll be taking along with me on my trip overseas some heavy-duty anti-diarrhea medication and staying away from fresh fruit and fresh vegetables, due to the water).

Gore is now ahead of Clinton.  :-)

breaking news ! (hold the presses !) --

-- Al has just moved ahead of Hillary in DFA's PPP:

Total Votes: 32602 as of Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:26:39 -0400

CandidateVotes%John Edwards972129.82%Barack Obama733922.51%Dennis Kucinich570417.5%Al Gore29148.94%Hillary Clinton27808.53%Bill Richardson17205.28%Other10543.23%Joe Biden5531.7%Mike Gravel4851.49%Christopher Dodd3321.02%

audrey wrote "Because you have disputed my statement doesnt change a thing except in your mind."

Except it disputes your statement, which you said you thought was without dispute.

Tom...... funny

audrey wrote "Hill and Obama's corporate donors have been published. Others have taken such donations, but not to the brazen extent of the leading two.'

1) How do you take donations to a brazen extent?

2) How do you become a corporatist by taking donations from corporate donors to a brazen extent, but not by taking corporate donations?

Thank you, rdorgan, I'm feeling better and you prolly didn't read the overnight.  I saw a doctor and have inflamation of the colon, due to the massage therapist who hurt my groin 3 weeks ago.  Water and food have NEVER bothered me here.   I've been on an anti-inflamatory drug for only about 12 hours and I'm almost ready to chase cars I feel so much better.   Inner swelling is nasty stuff. 

I'd like to know what other write ins there were/are and the numbers and names.

And I just changed my vote and put Kucinich in third. Al and Dodd remain in first and second.  I can't comprehend such a low turnout for Dodd.  Is it possible the poll rigged? 

HERE'S ONE FOR YOU, MIKE

if you read it, Paul Offit (PR-offit) is beat up in the blog for not being unbiased, "LeBlanc doesn't tell us that Offit is himself a vaccine patent holder and part of the CDC advisory committee for the vaccine schedule."
-------------------------------------
Parents Use Religion to Avoid Vaccines

...From 2003 to 2007, religious exemptions for kindergartners increased, in some cases doubled or tripled, in 20 of the 28 states that allow only medical or religious exemptions, the AP found. Religious exemptions decreased in three of these states -- Nebraska, Wyoming, South Carolina -- and were unchanged in five others.

The rate of exemption requests is also increasing.

For example, in Massachusetts, the rate of those seeking exemptions has more than doubled in the past decade -- from 0.24 percent, or 210, in 1996 to 0.60 percent, or 474, in 2006.

In Florida, 1,249 children claimed religious exemptions in 2006, almost double the 661 who did so just four years earlier. That was an increase of 0.3 to 0.6 percent of the student population. Georgia, New Hampshire and Alabama saw their rates double in the past four years.

The numbers from the various states cannot be added up with accuracy. Some states used a sampling of students to gauge levels of vaccinations. Others surveyed all or nearly all students.

Fifteen of the 20 states that allow both religious and philosophical exemptions have seen increases in both, according to the AP's findings....

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/newsda...

THE FIX IS IN FOR MUKASEY

http://www.stepfour.com/xdem/

The senators of the judiciary committee had met with the worthy judge in private and had all their fondest hopes fulfilled and all their worst fears dispelled. He must have assured them he would be a modest caretaker for the remainder of the Bush term. On the record, he was cautioned in the most respectful terms to be independent and not to repeat the missteps of his predecessor. There was a lot of hoping among Democrats on the committee. Mukasey promised nothing in the way of justice.

You would think, at a time when justice department employees and other executive officials have committed notorious abuses of authority that amount to racketeering, that a hearing on the confirmation of an attorney general would make reference to the enforcement of the criminal laws the leaders violated. You would be wrong. Commandeering the Department of Justice for political ends is a crime, and Leahy accused somebody of doing it, but he didn’t call for a criminal accounting. Is it now not politically correct to prosecute high-ranking officials or even mention their criminal culpability, or “wrongdoing,” as Leahy would toothlessly have it?

Introducing the nominee, Senator Lieberman offered a fond reminiscence of his and Mukasey’s days together at Yale Law School, and Senator Schumer, who talked to some mutual friends from the ruling class, was confident of the nominee’s probity and suitability.

Mukasey vowed to respect fundamental human rights but only if it doesn’t impede the gathering of intelligence. In response to Graham’s question, the nominee acknowledged being “uncomfortable” with what used to be called water torture. He didn’t give a suitable answer to any of Graham’s questions. Graham’s conclusion: “I have every confidence you will do a good job.”

This confirmation process looks like a sham, a deal that was concluded in private. The guy’s a totalitarian, and the senators know it. They are going to give him the job not in spite of his fascist tendencies but because of them. They have his pledge to preserve the imperial courts for the Democrats, if they can win them. The “unitary executive,” which has no existence in traditional legal doctrine, is the main point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans, and this attorney general, who hopes to uphold the Constitution and may choose to heed the rule of law if it doesn’t get in the way of intelligence gathering, is just the man to make it happen.

pulse poll results

http://democracyforamerica.com/

seashell wrote "I can't comprehend such a low turnout for Dodd."

It's because he's a corporatist.  The banking and insurance company donations are pouring into his coffers.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_071018_the_difference_betwe.htm

The difference between the Republicans in Congress and the Democrats in Congress is striking.

The Democrats are in the majority in the House, and are a narrow majority in the Senate, yet they cannot pass any consequential legislation.

The Republicans, however, in House and Senate, though in the minority in both Houses, have managed, by asserting their unity and collective strength, to block a bill that would somewhat restrict spying on Americans by the National Security Agency, to block a bill putting a deadline on the US occupation of Iraq, and to uphold a presidential veto on a bill expanding subsidized health insurance for children.

Democrats, on the other hand, claim to be against the Iraq War, but they continue to support funding it, to the tune of over $300 billion since they took control of Congress.

They could stop this war in a heartbeat if they acted like Republicans and just refused to introduce a war funding bill in the House, or if 41 of them would filibuster any war funding bill to death in the Senate.

They could stop NSA spying the same way. If they can’t muster the votes to pass a law outlawing warrantless spying by the agency, they can just hold the NSA’s budget hostage until Bush agrees to their terms.

There’s no need for more dead-end investigations by various gutless House and Senate Committees. The Bush/Cheney administration has made it clear that it is simply going to stonewall those investigations and refuse to honor any subpoenas—if the Democrats even have the ganas to issue subpoenas. But an impeachment panel would be something else. It’s pretty hard for a president to stonewall an impeachment committee, since unlike other committees of the Congress, an impeachment committee is a Constitutionally sanctioned body—one which would likely win the backing of any sincere “constructionist” jurist on the bench. Moreover, in an impeachment inquiry, a president could not make a supportable argument of “national security” or “executive privilege.”

But the Democrats in Congress know all this. They know that they could do these things, and yet they are not doing them.

Only the Republicans are playing hardball. The Democrats are playing wiffleball--as in, it's a fake game.

Why is this the case?

Progressives typically attribute it to spinelessness. But this misses the point. The Democrats are no more or less spineless than Republicans.

What they are is devoid of principle.

FRED from OR
Fri, 10/19/07
2:44 pm
___________________________________________________________________________

Well Fred, thats their choice..........being in health care since 1985 and having seen it all, Iam not one to put too much pressure on the Almighty spirit for survival..........too many rely on him (it)as it is these days as it is.............

So good to see Charles H. Riggs!  (i'm the former Barbara*in*Seattle)

The front page story scared the hell out of me.  i'm sure they having the blessings of our current administration.  probably even the encouragement, if not a directive.

The Hillary "class" turns my stomach!  i hope they do charge the organizers with as many crimes as they can.  Barack is not my favorite, but NO ONE should be forced to attend something like they did.  Hillary, of course, is my LEAST favorite.

51.

Good you're feeling better (yes, Argentina is more advanced than some other SA countries, so water is probably fine there; when I was in Peru, caution about water was the vogue)

59.

Mz*Little -

Thanks for that post.

55.

It's because he's a corporatist.  The banking and insurance company donations are pouring into his coffers.

Tom: 

And your source for such previously unknown information is????

 I've been an Obama supporter since he was one of the orginal Dean Dozen

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/3902 

 Barack Obama for United States Senate from Illinois. In the race to regain control of the U.S. Senate, Democrats have few better chances to pick up a seat than in Illinois. DFA volunteers all over Illinois helped Obama win his primary, now it's time to help him win the general. Stay tuned: I will be on the trail with Barack soon. www.obamaforillinois.com

From Open Secrets:

Chris Dodd as of Sept. 30, 2007

OT
WUFT FM Friday afternoon classical music trivia question:
Where did Khachaturian get the name for his ballet Gayane?

Joan wrote "And your source for such previously unknown information is????"

Open Secrets, from which I quote:

Dodd brings 34 years of fundraising experience with him, having served in Congress since 1974, first as a representative and then, starting in 1981, as a senator. In the final three months of the 2006 cycle, the Connecticut senator raised $3.2 million, mostly from Wall Street, which is about what he managed to bring in during the second quarter of the presidential race. As chair of the Senate Banking Committee, his ties to the banking, insurance and financial services industries have proved to be beneficial."

I's a rich resource of information.  Here is an impressive list of Dodd's top ten bundlers:

SAC Capital Advisors $344,100Citigroup Inc $152,050United Technologies $149,950Royal Bank of Scotland $129,050Bear Stearns $122,650Goldman Sachs $104,100St Paul Travelers Companies $98,800The Hartford $93,700American International Group $81,800Merrill Lynch $75,700

So it looks like Chris Dodd's contributions are 60% from individual, 4% PACs, and other 35%.

Joan wrote "From Open Secrets. . . "

I see you don't require my assistance.

...lol, fighting PRINCIPLES Demos DO NOT HAVE (or do not have DIFFERENT from Reps ones) is impossible..., UNTIL there is an intent to create an IMAGE of fighting.

Imaginary life American People live for too long is coming to an end, reality is awaiting to be realized!

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

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2...

Pelosi Makes Political Misstep in Reversal on Armenian Genocide

By Laura Litvan and Nicholas Johnston

...........
Pelosi said Oct. 11 that she decided to advance the legislation because the U.S. has a moral obligation to take a stand and declare the World War I-era killings of 1.5 million Armenians genocide.

``There's never a good time,'' Pelosi said, adding that the entire Democratic leadership team, and a bipartisan coalition comprising most of the House's 435 members, supported it.
..............

This week, Pelosi backed away from her pledge to advance the bill this year, saying it would be up to its sponsors to decide whether it comes up for a vote. Schiff said he would ask her to bring the measure to the floor only if he has enough votes to win.

Murtha said he is working to persuade Pelosi to drop the matter, and that as many as 60 Democrats would oppose the resolution and it would fail any vote of the full House.

``It's impractical at this point to go forward with it,'' Murtha said.

The dispute has cost Pelosi some credibility, Pitney said. ``This is proving to be a lesson to the leadership to think through the long-term consequences,'' he said. ``There's a great deal of difference between taking positions in the minority and moving legislation in the majority.''

68.

LOL Right Tom.

But Dodd probably does need some financial help at this point.

Huron John.....

It was reported on a previous thread a while back that there were 84 such bills set aside by the Repubs. Pretty good record, for them.
I agree, it's not all spinelessness, Harry and Nancy have decided that's how they win.

Joan wrote "But Dodd probably does need some financial help at this point."

Everyone does.  We all do without public campaign financing, because politicians are forced to sell themselves to fund their elections.  Remember when Gore, unable to cite controlling legal authority, caught heat for making phone calls from the White House?  It's a cancer in the system.  There are almost no political office seekers who are immune.

63.

Julia -

Thanks for the reminder about Obama being one of the Dean Dozen endorsed candidates in 2004.

One thing though, that archived info regarding the link  www.obamaforillinois.com , well that link is no longer active (page not found). That was likely the run for Senate campaign website.

57. Michael Ellis

=================
I don't think most people use the religious exemption for that reason. They use it in the absence of a personal/philosophical exemption.

There is a balance of risk verses benefit. The industry and government agencies (a de facto branch of industry these days) see the risk from disease and the benefit of vaccines, but they refuse to see the risk of the vaccine, and parents do, and private organizations do.

This refusal is critical because it precludes making improvement and progress in the shortcoming inherent in the present vaccines, and with a captive market, the industry has no incentive to do R & D for improvement and progress in the safety.

Julia Bailey.....

You're here to promote Obama. well, you're right DFA did help win the primary big time. But it's not time to help Obama, what it's time for is for Obama to try some humility and go to Howard Dean and apologize for acting like the opportunist that he seems to be.

75.

audrey.nc -

In all due respect, wouldn't a friendly geeting have been in order from you.

When I guest comes to my house, even if uninvited, I ask: "Can I help you ?"

Telling people what to do right off the bat is IMO not that neighborly.

ok, I can't spell

typo - geeting   s/b - greeting

(BTW, I'm glad Gore is moving up in the pulse poll)

I think Obama might make an interesting President. He does have a different approach to some things.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My Congressman isn't afraid to shamelessly use his supporters to raise money. lol

bbl

(off for the day and weekend - tomorrow night go Red Sox !)

Audrey wrote:  "How does supporting either of the two top Corporate Dem. candidates further that effort in the event they emerge as the winner of the poll?"

I'm very glad you asked that question because it gives me the opportunity to make crystal clear that that is NOT what I'm advocating.

Each of us has our own ideas as to which candidates we can support and which ones we cannot.  Yes, some of us may only be willing to support one candidate while others may actually view ALL of the Democratic candidates favorably.  But most of us, I'd venture to guess, like some of them and dislike others. 

For example, I would guess that my likes and dislikes with regard to the current candidates are somewhat typical of most here, if not an exact mirror necessarily.  Specifically, I like Gore, Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel, in that order of preference.  I dislike Biden, Clinton, and Richardson.  For me therefore, while Gore is my first choice, a victory for one of my other five "like" candidates would be perfectly acceptable to me.

In your case, as another example, Obama and Hill are two sides of the same coin, pro-war corporatists for whom you could not vote and whom you would not support.  Fair enough.  However I seriously doubt that you like ONLY ONE of the remaining candidates.

What does this mean, if you were to follow my proposal?

The following:  Next Monday, when you take a look at the current standings of the candidates, you may find that three candidates currently divide the majority of the vote between them, Hillary at 21, Obama at 20%, and Edwards at 19.  In that situation, if you were to follow my suggestion, what would you do?  It sounds as if you think I would then suggest that you vote for Hill, Obama, and Edwards.

I AM SAYING NO SUCH THING.

Here's what I'm suggesting you do.

Suppose that your list of likes and dislikes are as follows:  You like Dodd, Kucinich, Gore, Edwards, and Gravel, in that order, and you dislike Biden, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson.  Obviously, this week, you voted for Dodd, Kucinich, and Other (Gore) in that order as your first, second, and third choice.

Now, next Monday, if you were to follow my suggestion, you would look at the majority vote-getters of the first week of voting.  Hill by herself, at 21% though, obviously does not enjoy the support of a majority of DFA voters.  Then you add in the second-place finisher, Obama, at 20%.  That STILL doesn't add up to over 50% but only 41%.  So you look at the third-place finisher, Edwards, at 19%.  Adding Edwards makes the total 60%, a MAJORITY of the DFAers voting this survey.  So those are the three majority vote-getters thus far.

So now what do you do?  You need to consider voting for one, two, or all three of those candidates.  Let's take them up in turn.

How about Hillary?  Out of the question; you don't like her.

How about Obama?  Out of the question; you don't like him.

How about Edwards?  Acceptable; you like him.  He therefore becomes your first choice.

You still have to name two more choices.  There is no reason now for you not to simply pick your two favorites.  So you name Dodd as your second choice and Kucinich as your third.

Why?

Well, none of this makes sense unless you buy into my basic fundamental premise, which is that it will be good for our cause if DFA endorses a candidate.  If you accept that, then everything else follows.  You know that DFA could be on its way to endorse Hill or Obama and you don't want that.  On the other hand, you now realize that the odds are very small now that they will endorse Dodd or Kucinich.  So you do your bit to help Edwards, the likeliest champion in DFA to defeat Hill and Obama.

I submit that this logic is consistent and rational, provided the premise is acceptable.

Obviously if you do not believe a DFA endorsement is important enough to compromise by picking a candidate whom you view with mild favor rather than with strong support, then there is no reason for you to consider my "weekly runoff elimination survey" approach to this vote.  But if you believe that a DFA endorsement is an absolute good for our cause in and of itself, provided they endorse a candidate who is at least acceptable to you, then I submit my choice is both rational and philosophically appropriate.

Yours in reform,

Charles

rdorgan

 someone who has been with DFA since 2004 is hardly a "guest", and anyone who does primary politics is familiar with a rough and tumble world

audrey wrote "what it's time for is for Obama to try some humility and go to Howard Dean and apologize for acting like the opportunist that he seems to be."

I’m not privy to these theories of opportunism. Perhaps you could enlighten us, but I already know that Gov. Dean’s son is an Obama supporter, and I would lay good odds that Dean is one, too.

Look at it from a practical standpoint. His clashes with Clinton and Edwards are well known; Kucinich literally gave his Iowa caucus support to Edwards against him; Richardson, Biden and Dodd all supported authorization while Dean was asking "What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?" I think it’s a slam dunk.

Charles

 DFA HQ set a very high bar for endorsement. It does give everyone a feel for how an Iowa caucus might work and it is much like you described except compressed into a couple of hours. Because we allocate six National Convention delegates per typical Congressional District we have a 15% viability thresh-hold and I would suggest starting to follow your plan if none of your top three make it to 15%. This exercise does show how hard it is to get a majority in this big a field.

Charles, that is very impressive work.  I'm with you.

 I already know that Gov. Dean’s son is an Obama supporter, and I would lay good odds that Dean is one, too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll take that bet. name the sum

No answer to the trivia question yet - not even the UF music majors know the answer I guess.

My problems with Edwards are he wrote the Patriot Act (I thought), he's a less than one term senator in gov't experience, he went after Howard in the last primary, he's a fluff piece. I'm not going to be happy if 'my' blog endorses him. I can see this Pulse Poll getting us all fighting and huffy. It's important that everyone know that WE CAN VOTE EARLY AND OFTEN IN THE PULSE POLL-OLD ANSWERS ARE OVERRIDDEN WITH NEW ANSWERS.

OK -- we have an answer to the trivia question -- Gayana was Khachaturian's wife's name.

Monica I like your addition-nice work.

Nixon library live at 8 ET on CSPAN.

86. Gayana s/b Gayane I think.

Phil wrote "I'll take that bet. name the sum."

I'm prepared to wager one American dollar.  Just give me a little time to save up, but how are we going to find out the winner?

IMF Badmouths The Dollar In Open Attack On American Middle Class
As part of broader elitist strategy to lower living standards and create two-caste Chinese model

Prison Planet | October 19, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson

Mirroring recent rhetoric from Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, the IMF has publicly badmouthed the dollar, claiming it is "overvalued" despite the fact it has lost over half of its value against the Euro since 2001, and predicts its plunge as part of a broader strategy to sink the American middle class.

Countering the pleas of the French and other eurozone countries, who have been forced to beg Bernanke to restore some trust in the greenback as EU exports begin to feel the bite, the IMF has openly and enthusiastically given the green light for traders to continue to sell the dollar.

"The Fund thinks that the US current account deficit will remain close to 1.5 per cent of world output until 2012, raising the likelihood of a disorderly plunge in the dollar and protectionism growing over the next few years," reports the Financial Times .

In their World Economic Outlook brief, the IMF brazenly states that the agenda in continually badmouthing the dollar is to exalt the Chinese Renminbi in order to contribute to "a necessary rebalancing of demand and to an orderly unwinding of global imbalances."

In layman's terms, this means lowering the living standards of the American middle class by tanking the dollar and sending oil prices skyrocketing towards $200, as part of the "post-industrial revolution" agreed upon by the Bilderberg Group. This would eviscerate the middle class and create a two-caste system based upon the Chinese model, where the super-rich live in opulence and the rest of the population are forced to struggle on the poverty line.

With the effects of the credit crunch hitting more and more lower level lenders, it is clear to see that the fallout is spreading and propagating a general decline. We are seeing the unfolding of an overall meltdown that represents a gutting of the United States by neo-mercantilist institutions bent on the formation of a new global monopoly.

The ceaseless bad-mouthing of the dollar in public is clearly part of an orchestrated move to destroy the U.S. economy and pave the way for the Euro to become the world's reserve currency, eventually heralding the birth of the Amero - the currency of the North American Union.

I loathe political games and will not change my vote just to give a candidate I don't like any more than Hillary 67% of the votes. This smells like that Edwards/Kucinich scam before the 2004 IA caucuses.  I can only hope others will stand by their principles.

Schwarzenegger Gets Heat For Signing 'Sexual Indoctrination' Bills
Parents slam governor for signing bills that mean children as young as kindergarten-age could be taught homosexuality, transsexuality and other lifestyles.

Infowars.net | October 18 , 2007
Steve Watson

Parents and conservative groups have blasted California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for signing a number of bills, two of them dealing with public schools, which encourage the positive portrayal of various sexual lifestyles in all school instruction and activities.

Supporters of the law, which will come into effect next year, say it will "eliminate "confusion about the state's responsibility to ensure that all school programs, textbooks, instructional materials and activities are free from unlawful discrimination."

rdorgan....

In all due respect, and if I may, you will find nothing that I said in my post to the visitor where I suggested she do anything. But, you on the other hand, so anxious to come to the defence of your candidate told me I should have welcomed her. You have been more than assertive in promoting your interests, You don't need to be telling others what to do.

I would lay good odds

~~~~~~~

I gave Fred 40-1 on Biden. but would settle for 20-1

 PRICE*CHANGE% CHANGETIMENymex Crude Future88.60-.87-.9714:54Dated Brent Spot84.83-.97-1.1315:24WTI Cushing Spot88.60-.87-.9715:47

Friday, October 19, 2007

1 US Dollar = 0.70175 Euro

1 Euro (EUR) = 1.42501 US Dollar (USD)

This means:
You buy 1 US Dollar :     0.70175 Euro
You sell 1 US Dollar :     0.70170 Euro
You buy 1 Euro :     1.42501 US Dollar
You sell 1 Euro :     1.42511 US Dollar

Phil wrote "I gave Fred 40-1 on Biden. but would settle for 20-1."

Those seem fair, but you might as well know that I don't gamble and I'm probably not good for it.  Regardless of that, I think we're discussing the unknowable.  Dean is too good a chairman, and won't pull that champagne toast crap like McAuliffe was wont to do. 

Sitka wrote:  "I loathe political games and will not change my vote just to give a candidate I don't like any more than Hillary 67% of the votes."

Just to nail this down, is that what you believe I am proposing?

I am not.  You might want to read my reply to audrey above.

The bottom line is that AT NO TIME do I advocate anyone voting for anyone they DON'T LIKE.

If you still believe I am advocating folks vote for someone they don't like, please let me know and I will attempt to clarify.

Yours in reform,

Charles

93.Phil Specht

I gave Fred 40-1 on Biden. but would settle for 20-1
====================

I picked him third. I don't think he'll make it to top three in Iowa. Pretty sure he promised to drop out if he didn't. He was in it mainly for promoting the Federation Plan. I was with him for that too.

Once he got it through the Senate, I was happy but now there's the work of helping people understand what it is, because of the disinformation and innuendo that came with the idea, especially with mistrust that has developed for anything American.

I voted for Edwards in the Poll.

Tom Bearse wrote:  "Charles, that is very impressive work.  I'm with you.'

I appreciate the compliment; thank you.

Yours in reform,

Charles

Sitka
Fri, 10/19/07
3:58 pm

Edwards / Kucinich scam? It's called politics and there are rules. If someone doesn't achieve the 15% threshold in Iowa, their supporters choose another candidate to support.

It's too bad Kucinich supporters didn't choose Dean, but that isn't a scam at all. I give Edwards credit for getting them to come over to his side. Dean strategists didn't win them over, and Edwards did. No "scam" at all.

What is the point of having second and third choices? If we aren't going to use IRV, they play no role in the process.

I would propose that IRV voting be used to see if one of the candidates gets over the threshold. Presumably, if you voted FOR three, you support them. There is NO WAY in a field this large that any candidate will get over 67% so DFA has in fact decided NOT to endorse a candidate by setting this rule. That's a mistake, IMO.

Indy wrote "It's too bad Kucinich supporters didn't choose Dean, but that isn't a scam at all."

It was a total scam.  At this point in the campaign, Edwards was in full Clinton mode, guns blazing on the authorization vote he wouldn't regret until November.  He was just critical of the prosecution of the war, as was Sen. Clinton. 

Kucinich betrayed Dean in Iowa because Dean pulled rank on him as an antiwar candidate with actual super delegate support.  You can call it politics, which is fine.  It is, it's petty politics.

Indy wrote "What is the point of having second and third choices?"

You're right, but I would think the data is useful to the organization if its purpose is truly to measure the pulse of its membership.

103.Tom Bearse

It was a total scam. At this point in the campaign, Edwards was in full Clinton mode, guns blazing on the authorization vote he wouldn't regret until November. He was just critical of the prosecution of the war, as was Sen. Clinton...

==============

He could have been against the invasion AND the prosecution. Many who voted for the Iraqi Authorization thought it was not for an invasion, but for the use of military force to stand behind the inspections.

There were people in the Bush Administration who thought he didn't even need the authorization to invade, and he would have without it, I am sure. The authorization vote is overvalued today, and was, and still is, nothing but political cover for Bush.

The new thread has descended like bugs on Jacobs Field.

Leading The News   GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping By Alexander Bolton October 16, 2007 ( ... )

In August, Clinton voted against an emergency law that temporarily expanded the government’s power to conduct surveillance on American soil without a warrant. The bill was criticized for being overly broad and sidelining the role of a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Senate’s other Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), and Joseph Biden (Del.), also voted against the bill.

Clinton’s chief political strategist, Mark Penn, became embroiled recently in a controversy over intercepted electronic communications. Mitchell Markel, a former vice president at Penn’s firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, filed a lawsuit against Penn accusing him of intercepting e-mail. Markel claimed that the firm illegally monitored messages sent from his BlackBerry after he joined another company.
Markel dropped the suit in July after reaching a settlement with Penn, Schoen & Berland.

Charles, you're idea is commendable, but...what do you do if you don't like clinton, obama or edwards?  I have problems with all three, for many of the same reasons, the big one being the reluctance to promise to leave Iraq before 2013. This is unacceptable.

Edwards / Kucinich scam? It's called politics and there are rules. If someone doesn't achieve the 15% threshold in Iowa, their supporters choose another candidate to support.

Your memory is short or faulty. Kucinich instructed his supporters to go with Edwards before the caucuses. It was a betrayel on the Kucinich to all who helped him along the way, and rigged result which I hold both Edwads and Kucinich -- and those who gave up their consciences --  in contempt for.

Charles, you're idea is commendable, but...what do you do if you don't like clinton, obama or edwards?

What's commendable about a rigged result?