Deans are first.

Thank you Howard Dean for the 50-state strategy!

12:11 pm est

the obama speech at the richmond JJ is in 4 parts. I am not going to put all up because it might mess up the blog and for god's sake, we don't want that to happen.

12:23 PM EST

thanks linda b (and rich) for all your feedback yesterday regarding the Old Dominion turnout (nothing like firsthand experience)

It was quite exciting to have seen both candidates last weekend, I loved both of their speeches.

It was really hard to pick who to vote for.

I went with Obama. I think Bill Clinton has been a negative in her campaign.

He should have stayed home. I always liked Bill but enough is enough.

She is the candidate, not Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: Crystal Strait, Political Director, California Democratic Party
To: Susan Rowe
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: Give Debra Bowen a "kiss"


The California Democratic Party

*ACTION ALERT*

Dear Susan,

On Valentine's Day, we're sending some love Debra Bowen's way. And by "some," we mean lots; and by "love," we mean chocolate.

Why? Because for months Secretary of State Bowen has been unfairly attacked for standing up for our voting rights, and things got particularly nasty last week. So now is the time to thank her and make sure she knows that we appreciate her courageous efforts on our behalf.

We know that giving chocolate to someone can mean a lot of things, from "I love you" to "Please take this away from me so I don't eat any more." So we put together a petition to go with the chocolate that explains what we're up to.


Since Friday, over 3,000 people have signed it. And for every signature we get on the petition before we deliver it tomorrow, we'll give Secretary of State Bowen a chocolate "kiss" to go along with it.

Take a moment to sign our petition, and we'll send a little bit of love Debra Bowen's way on your behalf.

http://www.cadem.org/petition

Why is it so important for us to Stand up for Debra Bowen right now?

When Debra Bowen campaigned in 2006 on a platform of election integrity, she promised voters throughout the state of California that she would do everything she could to make sure that their ballots were counted accurately. And that's just what she's done.

To ensure election integrity, Bowen sent electronic voting machines out last summer for a top-to-bottom review at UC. Shockingly, the Diebold and Sequoia machines used in California failed that test. Engineers were able to hack into machines used in 43 out of 58 counties and change the results without being detected.

So what did Debra Bowen do? She did exactly what we elected her to do. She promptly decertified the faulty equipment.

Debra Bowen put her political career on the line to stand up for fairness and the principle that every vote should be counted. As a result of her brave decision, Bowen has received non-stop criticism from Republicans and other Diebold apologists.

That's why it's so important for each one of us to stand up against the people who would corrupt our elections and send some love (and a "kiss") to Debra Bowen.

So sign our petition. It reads:

"Thank you for the courage you have shown in standing up to the electronic voting machine corporations to make sure that our elections are secure and that each one of our votes is counted accurately.

"We know that you have bravely fought to protect the integrity of our votes, and we want you to know that you're not standing alone. Don't back down. We're proud of you and we're standing behind you!"

It's not too late for you to sign onto the petition right now and add another "kiss" for Debra Bowen.

Sincerely,

Crystal Strait
Political Director

P.S. Don't forget to pass the message along to your friends. Ask them to Stand up for Debra Bowen and give her a "kiss"!

a comment about super delegates

if pledged delegates take 10,000 votes to earn, how many do you think your average Congresscritter superdelegate took to earn?, mayor? U.S. Senator?

do you really think Howard Dean hasn't earned a vote running the DNC?

or the State Chair of any State won an election and represents hundreds of thousands?

here in Iowa the DNC spot at the state convention is selected by a competitive vote of duly elected, then re-elected delegates that represent thousands each and there are 2000 of them, in other words they represent the same people that allocated the pledged delegates, and have the consent of their vote

one of the reasons to not have all pledged delegates is that candidates drop out, so in effect making super delegates out of all of their elected pledged delegates, should the supporters of a failed candidate break a tie any more than a US Senator, or the people that keep the Party going from one cycle to the next so it is available as a structure for the candidates?

no delegates are bound anyway, they are all super-delegates, each and every one

thanks linda b for the video

you might want to run for the DNC slot in Virginia, you are super enough to be a super delegate

One thing we might want to keep in mind is that professional politicians and our commercial class have, in many cases, accepted failure as a viable option in life.  I don't think most ordinary folk think that way.  They don't vote for someone because they expect him to fail in the long run.

Voting for something in the expectation that it is going to fail is a pernicious habit.

from americablog

If you need more evidence of which side is fired up, look at the results from Virginia. 972,633 Democrats voted in Virginia. Compare that to 473,500 Republicans. More than twice as many Democrats went to the polls in a state that is turning bluer by the day. And, Obama received almost 620,000 votes -- almost 150,000 more than all the Republicans combined.

over a half million more dems than rethugs.

1:03 PM EST

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080213/NEWS01/302130097

One of the worst-kept secrets of the Ohio presidential primary is that Republican party leaders have a candidate they are rooting for on the Democratic side.

Her name is Hillary Clinton; and they believe that if she wins the Ohio primary and goes on to become the Democratic nominee, she will be the one who unites their dispirited and divided party and give them their best chance of keeping the White House this fall.

...

One thing we might want to keep in mind is that professional politicians and our commercial class have, in many cases, accepted failure as a viable option in life.

~~~~~~~~~~~

elections are either/or decisions and there is always a "loser" for every "winner" which should lead politicians as a class to be able to except failure half the time on average

might have something to do with it

The 50 state strategy is all fine and good, but why was it even necessary?  How did it come about that the citizens of some states were considered insignificant?  Why did the "new' Democrats write off the south?  Because LBJ said the south was lost?  That's a justification?  More likely northern Democrats were glad not to have to worry about that part of the country.

There's a difference between trying one's best and not coming out on top and planning to fail.

As a former Edwards supporter I can say that his endorsement one way  or the other wouldn't mean much to me. 

At this point I think it's a reasonable bet that Barack Obama is our nominee.  At least we could say, the presumptive nominee, for now.

I hope and assume that his team is preparing for the right-wing attack that is inevitable.  I've been lurking at a few of their sites and it's not a pretty picture.

mho:  They'll pull some sort of Willie Horton on him since he has had the courage to stand up for prison and penal code reform.  They'll twist that up.

They'll, of course, say he's not ready to be CiC (their blogs are full of that one already).  They will focus group this msg to the nth degree and work it into anti-Obama sound bites.

When they get really desperate they'll dredge up someone who alledgedly did coke w/Obama in his college days and try to portray him as debauched or something.

So far, Barack has a dream team...let's help him keep it going.  One small step is to 100% ignore freeper statman/foxmulder. 

*dorgan--So, what you're saying is that Ohio Republicans are voting for Clinton because they expect her to ultimately be rejected at the ballot box.  What an underhanded attitude.  If that's what Ohioans are about, they should be ashamed of themselves.  And such upstanding Christians they are too!

But, then, our neighbor across the road is from Ohio.  He's the fellow who was so proud that he made a profit off the insurance every time one of his kids wrecked another car. 

being a candidate is an expensive personal sacrifice, just in the opportunity cost of time spent running, even if there was public financing

running a party takes bucks at every level

the whole targeting phenomena is simply an extension of a need for frugality since there is never quite enough resources

progressives have decided to put their money where their mouth is, hence the fifty state plan

but we have to pony up 

1:17 PM EST

Monica 

Ohio -- after what there in 2004 (long lines of dems disenfranchised, standing out in the rain at 2 am, on gen election day) -- does not give me much encouragement about that state.  It has been in the repub column so long, that I don't trust them. 

Monica Smith
Wed, 02/13/08

I'll weigh in here. It's not that some citizens were considered insignificant. It's that funds and resources are limited. To put them into Districts where the chances were low means they are not available in other Districts. It's a matter of priority.

Of course, there is a return to putting time/effort/funds into a 50 state strategy because it engages people and they will feel a part of the party (if it's open and inclusive). That may result in greater funds/resources coming in, not less.

Whether a 50 state strategy will result in a more progressive Dem party is debatable. From living in a red state and running for office, I feel it is more likely it will shift toward the right even more. Like in Indiana, we will be electing even more "bluedogs" from those Districts.

Yes, we'll widen our majority but we might strengthen the DLC side and weaken progressives as more Dems will be in that swing vote position. This is something that MUST be considered if you want a more progressive nation. If we are dissatisfied with the Dems in Congress now, successful elections might be even less progressive.

Donna Edwards is a bright light in taking out a DINO last night. But that was NOT a conservative district.

1:20 PM EST

typo - Ohio -- after what there in 2004

s/b - Ohio -- after what happened there in 2004

I have always been a supporter of Gov. Dean's 50-state plan simply because it seems wrong to cede a state.....giving up without even trying, in other words.

However, I think he is overreaching in Michigan and Florida and I think it will backfire on him and I would hold this position regardless of who was ahead in the race.

What this MI and FL and all over the country pressure for earlier primaries tells me is that people are tired of the Iowa/NH first status quo.  We need to change the schedule so that everyone feels invested and counted.  As much as I personally would really miss the first-hand telling from folks like Phil who get to spend significant one-on-one time with candidates ....retail politicking in these smaller states, I think the time for change has come.

I'd live to see Gov. Dean in charge of such a change.  I would trust him to do  a fair and square job.

 But again, I think he really shouldn't be telling two states that their delegates won't count.  That just doesn't feel right to me.

<>if pledged delegates take 10,000 votes to earn, how many do you think your average Congresscritter superdelegate took to earn?, mayor? U.S. Senator?

<>Phil is democracy-challenged. He'll never stop believing that elected officials and party hacks deserve the privileges of power to order things as they will for our good in spite of our will.

And no, I don't think Howard Dean deserves a vote at the convention since not one person voted for him to be a delegate in any primary or caucus. 

"Whether a 50 state strategy will result in a more progressive Dem party is debatable. From living in a red state and running for office, I feel it is more likely it will shift toward the right even more. Like in Indiana, we will be electing even more "bluedogs" from those Districts."<<<<

Indy, interesting.  I said up (or maybe it's downthread by now, lol) that I support because it just "feels right"...or feels wrong to simply give up on certain states.  Truth is, we have nothing evidence-based yet (quantitative) to tell us that it is working.  But that we are fighting the battle in all states seems right to me.  You've given me food for thought with your comments, though.  I'm glad you're here:) 

Shameless pimping:

Of Infragard - on the surface it looks like a good thing; underneath is looks real scary. Guess it depends on whether or not you think the 'government' is a good thing?

Quote from Wiki:

In early 2008, the journal The Progressive claimed that there were 86 chapters and 23,000 InfraGard members in various businesses involved in critical infrastructure in the United States, and that several InfraGard members had stated that they had been told that in the event of martial law being declared in the United States, the InfraGard members would have the right to "shoot to kill" and would not be prosecuted for this.[1] Blogger Jim Lippard stated in his blog that he has been a "member of the Phoenix InfraGard Members Alliance for years" and denied the "shoot to kill" authorisation, stating that 'InfraGard members get no special "shoot to kill" or law enforcement powers of any kind'.[2]

Wiki link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infragard

and Infragard

http://www.infragard.net/

I think it smacks so of Big Brother.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More pimping - Of cute beagle champions and homeless pets - Pedigree's matching our donations to a homeless pet fund:

http://www.dogsrule.com

for donation form:


https://secure3.convio.net/tpadf/site/Do...

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I may get in trouble for this one -- beautiful paintings, buckles for your shoes, and more!

http://web.mac.com/maxonmagicalimages/iW...

With all the good news and wins by Obama, I hope they are still running as if they are behind. The Clintons and their top staff will NOT give up for sure. They have two weeks to work the system and we're going to see a lot more of "leaked" slams that the MSM will now be willing ot pick up, since Obama is the "frontrunner".

I suppose, Indy, that it depends somewhat on how you define progressive.  If what we're moving towards is greater equality and more citzen participation in the affairs of state, then, other than having to print up more ballots, I don't see how it's a resource issue.

And if people prefer not to be helpful to their neighbors, that's a risk we have to take.  If people have a choice, they also have a right to choose to be selfish.   

Her name is Hillary Clinton; and they believe that if she wins the Ohio primary and goes on to become the Democratic nominee, she will be the one who unites their dispirited and divided party and give them their best chance of keeping the White House this fall.<<<<<<<<<<<<

If there was a grain of truth to that despicable quote then we should all be supporting Hillary to our last breath.  It isn't true.  From the perspective of those Repugs whose minds are twisted in the way the post implies....they'll be happy to unite against a n*gger.....they would feel as righteous about that as they would a woman.   

20. underneath is looks s/b underneath it looks

and you are no better, rd, than the slime that you quote when you attempt to use their sickness to promote your candidate.  You are, without question, Barack Obama's worst supporter.  If he knew how you roll he'd ask you to simply vote for him and STFU.

sheezus. 

One thing that seems to be happening here in WA states is that a WHOLE bunch of young folk turned up to caucus (for the first time in 8 years) for Obama, yet none wanted the responsibility of being a delegate.  All the delegates for him were the older people.  So what happens after the caucus, they all go back to ignoring the state of our country?  And let all of us work horses carry the load as usual?

And no, I don't think Howard Dean deserves a vote at the convention since not one person voted for him to be a delegate in any primary or caucus.<<<<<

Who suggested this? 

Scroll down a little for a Clinton TV spot in WI criticizing Obama for lack of a debate:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/200...

Puerto Rico's Governor endorses Barack:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

I actually think Hillary is done/toast.  Very hard to break the kind of momentum that Barack has.  If she does squeak out a win in Ohio, PA and any other state that has been hit hard economically it will be because they are responding to her plank and policies.....not because someone on her opponent's side dreamed up a conspiracy theory that the evil repugs gave her Ohio.

Give it a rest. 

Monica Smith
Wed, 02/13/08

The 50 state strategy is more than just printing ballots. It is about the DNC giving staff/funds to state dems that usually don't see it. And it's about running Dems even in the most difficult Districts and giving them some funds (at least startup) to boost their candidacy.

I'm not sure how this all works out for progressive issues (which to me is much more than civic participation). heck, monica, the far right has been great at getting more "civic participation" from people who tended to stay non-political. So Progressive has to go far beyond that basic.

The question of whether progressive values and candidates who espouse them can win in more Conservative Districts where they will be seen as insurgents by the status quo dem party (like Mark Pera losing in South Chicago) is yet to be answered. Donna Edwards is an example as is Carol Shea-Porter. But I'm still waiting to see someone like Barry Welsh in IN-06 get support and win. He has been neglected by all traditional Dem groups. yet he got 40% in a VERY conservative District in Southern Indiana.

But again, I think he really shouldn't be telling two states that their delegates won't count. That just doesn't feel right to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Agree with most of the post, cC, but. . . . The Party is made up of state parties, the state party delegates elected Howard, and the "Rules Committee" AND agree to abide by the rules. Same as when you go to a grocery store, you agree to abide by *their* rules. Some lines are for peeps with fewer items. When the one who does not wish to wait, despite the fact s/he doesn't have the smaller count, and pushes into the wrong line, doesn't it piss you off? Does me. *I'm* playing by the rules, and everyone in the game should, too. No difference. FL and MI want the goodies of being Dems (the peeps involved are free to register as their own, whatever, party), but want the privilege of writing their own rules. Excuse me, but I say: Screw that! Just me.

1:46 PM EST

looks like Ed Rendell is clueless about how many whites are voting for Obama:

http://wearecentralpa.com/content/fulltext/?cid=5195

"Why did the "new' Democrats write off the south? <<<<<

Because we lost the south by supporting (appropriately) the civil rights movement. 

 "Because LBJ said the south was lost? "<<<<<<

Yes, he said it.  He was prescient on that one.  These are facts, Monica.  Supported by data and not debatable by semantic acrobatics. 

Mz*Little
Wed, 02/13/08

yeah, I heard that too. Let's hope they at least show up to vote in the General election in the Fall. Bringing in new people is unpredictable, but exciting nonetheless.

"Some lines are for peeps with fewer items. When the one who does not wish to wait, despite the fact s/he doesn't have the smaller count, and pushes into the wrong line, doesn't it piss you off? Does me. *I'm* playing by the rules, and everyone in the game should, too. No difference."<<<<<<<

You make a good point, puddle.....and yes, it really p!sses me off when people sneak into the express line! 

1:51 PM EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-brandzel/why-john-edwards-believer_b_86333.html

Ben Brandzel

Posted February 12, 2008 | 09:14 PM (EST)

Can We Still Build One America? Yes We Can

(Note: I was the former Director of Online Engagement for John Edwards for President. The following reflects only the personal views of the author, and in no way represents the views of John Edwards, his campaign, nor anyone else currently or formerly affiliated with his campaign.)

The first time I spoke to John Edwards about joining his campaign, I mentioned the Wellstone quote that's in my email signature, 'Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives.' His voice brightened considerably. "That, right there," he said, "is the point of this campaign." I believed him. I gave up everything and moved to Chapel Hill. And that remained the point of our campaign for One America through the very end.

Now I, like many Edwards people, face a choice we never wanted, but we cannot ignore. We must decide after John, which remaining candidate is the best bet to finish what we started -- making real improvements in the lives of the people who really need it?

After many conversations, comparisons, and soul searching, my personal answer, and my advice to other Edwards believers wrestling with the same question, is Barack Obama. Here's why:

...

The Movement
If the candidate's commitment and record tell us who is most willing, how can we evaluate who is most able? From where I sit, both Hillary and Obama appear to be both highly intelligent, competent people. But as John Edwards so often reminded us, no president can end poverty on their own. Transformational change of that magnitude requires an equally large movement of people fighting to make it happen. So who is building that movement?

Again, I'm a web guy. If you look at the numbers, they both have passionate grassroots support, but the difference is clear. Obama supporters have created 9x more local groups, 10x more national groups, and 15x more personal blogs. Obama's web traffic, donors, and online to offline volunteers smash all records. And I can tell you, there's no technology or trick to generate that kind of energy -- it just has to be real.

But this goes beyond the numbers, and yes, far beyond the web. After all, Barack Obama isn't John Edwards, and I can't know if he'll actually put ending poverty at the top of his agenda. But by inspiring millions of people to believe in their own power to create change, I do know his campaign is laying the groundwork for those of us who will.

The Future
We always thought of winning the presidency as merely the first step in a generational effort to build One America -- and so it remains. We must keep speaking out, organizing, and fighting at every opportunity -- in every town hall, statehouse, Congressional house and the Whitehouse until poverty is history and the dream of One America becomes reality.

And right now, I believe we have to pick our best hope for a president who will be a partner in that effort. If Hillary is nominated she will deserve our vigorous support. But because of his commitment, his record, and his unique ability to swell our ranks with people fired up and ready to begin the struggle of a lifetime, I believe Barack Obama is that best hope.

So, can we still build One America? Yes. Yes we can.

How many of you are going to Democracyfest? I am. See you all there I hope.

1:55 PM EST

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CmkF#comments

By Sam Graham-Felsen - Feb 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm EST

Obama currently leads the pledged delegate count by 136 delegates -  1139 for Obama – 1003 for Clinton...

• After sweeping the past eight contests by large margins, it now appears that Senator Obama has an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Senator Clinton would have to get 56% of all the remaining delegates in all contests in order to take a pledged delegate lead. This appears extraordinarily unlikely given the history of contests so far.

• From February 5th through today, there have been 30 primaries and caucuses and the results are clear. Barack Obama has won 21 of those elections while Senator Clinton has won 8 with New Mexico still undetermined.  In total, there have been 34 elections and Senator Obama has won 23, winning more than two out of every three contests. Obama is also ahead in the popular vote by 52-48%.

• Senator Obama has won landslide victories from Maine to Washington State, and from Maryland to Nebraska.  In Virginia, Kansas, and North Dakota, Senator Obama won more votes than all the Republicans on the ballot combined, demonstrating the grassroots excitement of his candidacy and his ability to appeal to Republicans and Independents.

• Barack Obama continues to dominate among Independent voters. Continuing a trend, Senator Obama won 2-1 among Independents in Virginia (66-33%) and Maryland (68-24%), which is driving his lead over John McCain in general election polls. Senator Clinton’s weakness among Independents is her critical weakness versus Senator McCain in the general election.

• Senator Obama has won big states and small states, red states, blue states, and swing states. Senator Obama has won 12 primaries, while Senator Clinton has won 9. Senator Obama has won 11 caucuses to Senator Clinton’s 2.

• Senator Obama has won states across this country by appealing to Americans of all races, religions, and education and income levels. He has won the Hispanic vote in 5 states (CT, VA, MD, IL IA).  Senator Obama has also won the women’s vote in 16 contests (IA, SC, AL, DE, GA, IL, MO, UT, LA, MD, VA, KS, AK, ID, Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia), while Senator Clinton has won the women’s vote in 11.
• On Monday, two polls confirmed what a Time poll recently showed – Senator Obama is the candidate best suited to win Independents, play well in Red States, and beat John McCain in November. A USA Today/Gallup poll showed Senator Obama defeating Senator McCain, and Senator Clinton losing to Senator McCain; and an AP/IPSOS poll showed Senator Obama beating Senator McCain by a wide margin and Senator Clinton edging out Senator McCain by a razor-thin margin.

...

And no, I don't think Howard Dean deserves a vote at the convention since not one person voted for him to be a delegate in any primary or caucus.<<<<<

Who suggested this? 

did you know that clinton campaign manager terry mcawful is a super, also donna brazzille.

Looking at recent history, it seems the only times we get an opportunity to run a progressive in a "red" district is when it is seen by the establishment of the party as unwinnable.  Then, if in spite of starting far behind, without support from the national (or often state) parties and a history in the district of voting for the GOP, the progressive exceeds expectations, the establishment will find their own candidate to plug into that district (see TX-22 for one example) and the progressive won't get the chance to build on his or her momentum from the first run.

Those who toe the line of the major contributors aren't going to give up by our asking nicely.

And the Doc may be first, and all, but just once I'd like to get an email from the party that wasn't an excuse to ask for another contribution! 

The other thing on 50-state strategy is that DNC gives staff and funds to existing state Dem parties which in red states are far from progressive.

So without requiring any reforms, is it just enabling DLC-types to field candidates who will vote to the right? I raise this as a question because it is a possiblity rather than just being a booster of the 50 state strategy.

BTW, I voted for John Edwards.  He was still on the ballot, and to vote for one of the remaining two would really have been voting against the other guy (or gal).  I doubt I'll do that in November, unless they really piss me off, but in a party primary, I'm comfortable voting for who I support.

Now that I think of it, I should have written in Russ Feingold. 

rich^kolker
Wed, 02/13/08

Yes, that is exactly what I'm raising too. Another example is Cegelis in Chicago and John Laesch who ran a decent campaign against Hastert in 06 and now appears to have been beaten by a DCCC-supported candidate.

Donna Edwards is a positive exception to that disturbing trend. I will not be a money patsy for the DNC if they haven't thought this through.

I'm going to DemocracyFest.  Since I live 10 minutes from the hotel, I'll even volunteer to put together the restaurant guide!

2:07 PM EST

http://www.examiner.com/a-1218435~Obama_Proposes__210_Billion_for_New_Jobs.html

Obama Proposes $210 Billion for New Jobs

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters.

...

Obama heads into Tuesday's Wisconsin primary as the favorite in the state and the front-runner for the nomination. His victories this week in eight contests have put him ahead of rival Hillary Rodham Clinton in the delegate chase.

But Obama did not pursue the front-runner strategy of ignoring rivals. He repeatedly criticized Clinton in an effort to beat back the challenge she still poses to him.

He tied her to likely Republican presidential nominee John McCain for their shared vote to authorize the war in Iraq.

...

Combining exit polls from 19 states that had competitive Democratic primaries before Tuesday, Clinton had a 49 percent to 46 percent edge over Obama with voters who named the economy as the No. 1 problem.

But Obama seemed to be turning that around in his most recent victories Tuesday. In Virginia and Maryland, Obama dominated among the one-half of Democratic voters who named the economy as their chief concern. In both states, about six in 10 Democrats who cited the economy voted for Obama.

from the end of the previous thread


47.

Susan Rowe
Wed, 02/13/08

Reply to this

35.

mary vb
Wed, 02/13/08

After Mr. Edwards promised to stay in the race all the way to the convention and our local newspaper endorsed him. I sent my vote by mail ballot in early and endorsed him. A lot of Edwards' supporters in California did the same. At this point I could careless if Edwards endorses anybody. His word is meaningless to me. The hack lost all his creditability with me. I feel sorry for Elizabeth.

On election day I made as many calls and went out to get out the vote for Obama. One person I spoke to on election called his wife and she got their whole network of folks to vote for Obama. It was around 60 votes.

btw, John Edwards should have shaved his head for Elizabeth and every other women who has ever gone through breast cancer. Trippi is as loser. It's not good for political hacks and there pets to lie by making false promises to honest working people and the poor.

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Democrat Barack Obama said Wednesday that as president he would spend $210 billion to create jobs in construction and environmental industries, as he tried to win over economically struggling voters.<<<

This is GREAT news (devil in the details and all) but nevertheless great news.  A public works program is something I've believed was needed for 15+ years now.

Manufacturing work that has gone off-shore is not coming back despite any tax-incentives that a new administration might provide.  The low cost of labor there vs. here is like crack to the corporations.  

We've got to retrain, provide education for those whose jobs are lost forever.  These are the people who have no hope. 

During discussion in the senate about the Surveillance act, one Repub says to the Dems, that you call the Act unconstitutional, but you just voted to extend it for 3 weeks. lol

Then another Repug says to the Dems, that they wouldn't have any problem with the bill if they would just call all of their TERRORIST friends overseas and ask them not to call them at their homes anymore. lol

What we need to do is get to know some Repugs well enough that they divulge to us where all of the Democratic critters buttons are, because we sure don't know.

Indy wrote "But I'm leaning Obama so what's the beef?"

There's no reason that should bother me.  My disquiet came after I accidentally ran across your piquant rant about Kerry's selection of the made for television vice presidential candidate in 2004 on these very pages.  It went for days, and outstripped the closest competitors by far in ferocity.  Four years and one apology later, you're here banging his drum and trying to warn other readers about the dire consequences of a Clinton presidency, giving some tepid compliments to Obama in passing as at least a preferable progressive candidate to her reactionary candidacy.

Now if I read your posts correctly, you might vote for Obama but his stock is down and Clinton is on the rebound.  The pattern tends to be you shred a candidate before boosting his or her campaign, and give begrudging praise to the candidate you'll eventually dump on, at least until you vote for him.  To be honest, based on your comment history only, your guiding political principles are virtually opaque to me.

BLUE BUSH DOGS are barking again. See what I mean about these sellouts and 50 state strategy could result in a less progressive nation? once you have a bluedog taking up a Dem seat, it is VERY unlikely you'll unseat him/her.

CQ is reporting (no link yet link here) that the House Republicans will try to derail the effort to pass a 21 day extension of the existing surveillance law and force a vote on the Senate bill:

House Republicans engineered a series of procedural votes Wednesday in a bid to derail the Democrats’ prooposed extension, which President Bush said Wednesday he would veto. They argued that the House should simply take up and send to the White House a surveillance overhaul bill (HR 3773) that the Senate passed by 68-29 Tuesday.

Because 21 conservative Blue Dog Democrats have endorsed the Senate-passed bill, Republicans might be able to win approval of the Senate bill through a motion to recommit the extension with instructions to amend it with the text of the Senate bill.

The Blue Dogs that have endorsed the Senate passed bill wrote to Pelosi last week.

Some House Democrats were prepared to support immunity, regardless. In a Jan. 28 letter, 21 Democrats in the conservative Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., supporting immunity and listing other provisions that they believed were needed in a FISA bill.

They wrote that the Senate bill "contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/13/134654/941/584/456059

Tom wrote: Four years and one apology later, you're here banging his drum

Tom,

That is the critical part. Four years later. And Edwards like any person has recognized mistakes and changed. He ran a much more substantive, specific, and progressive campaign. I prefer specifics and substance than inspirational. Edwards had both this year.

Part of Obama's appeal to people is they don't know much about him. He can say things generally and thus include lots of people who ordinarily wouldn't support him. But when it gets thick and specifics are necessary, will he be able to make the tough decisions or not?

People tend to see what they want in an undefined candidate. And a lot that is going on with Obama.

A thumbnail history--

http://www.getunderground.com/underground/features/article.cfm?Article_ID=2244 

Tom Bearse
Wed, 02/13/08

Also, spending time reading posts 4 years ago is a waste of time, in my book. Bringing up what someone said then and criticize them for changing their views because of new circumstances is sad. People change their minds and views, Tom. That's the point about Edwards.

Time to get beyond your "gotcha" moments.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign
To: Susan Rowe
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:55 AM
Subject: Obama vs. Clinton: Did you hear the bad news?


Dear Susan,

We warned Los Angeles County about the impending trouble with the "double bubble." Now, the Sacramento Bee editorial board is calling it "a major voting disaster." And there is speculation that the outcome could change how many delegates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama receive in California.


94,500. That's roughly how many people in Los Angeles County voted for Obama and Clinton on Super Tuesday, only to see their votes rejected by the now infamous -- and fatally flawed -- "double bubble" ballot.

Here's the bad news: Despite a record-breaking turnout of 189,000 voters registered as "Decline-to-State" (DTS), Dean Logan, L.A.'s Registrar of Voters, is still refusing to physically hand-count these ballots, effectively disenfranchising 94,500 -- at least HALF -- of DTS voters because they didn't fill in an extra, redundant bubble before voting for President.


Time is running out to change Dean Logan's mind. Nearly 20,000 people have signed our "Count Every Vote" petition. Have you? Please sign it now and forward it to your friends immediately, so we can deliver as many signatures as possible directly to Dean Logan:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEver...

Calling it "a major voting disaster" and a "raw deal" for Decline-to-State voters, the Sacramento Bee's editorial board puts "94,500" in perspective:

"The scale of disenfranchisement is huge - 94,500 of 189,000 decline-to-state votes. That's half of the nonpartisan ballots. By comparison, in the infamous Florida "butterfly ballot" debacle in the 2000 presidential election, 19,120 Palm Beach County ballots went uncounted because of the bad ballot design."

That's right. Five times as many voters are now being disenfranchised than in Palm Beach County's "hanging chad" catastrophe of 2000. The only difference is that Dean Logan, the L.A. County registrar, knew this would happen ahead of time -- because a lawyer for the Courage Campaign warned him in a detailed letter prior to the primary.

18,007 (and growing). That's the astounding number of people who have signed the "Count Every Vote" petition so far, building a movement for election integrity that could become our largest signature-gathering campaign ever. Sign your name, tell your friends, and demand that Dean Logan count every vote today:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEver...

Excited by the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, an unprecedented number of Decline-to-State voters rushed to the polls last Tuesday to vote in the Democratic Party primary. But at least HALF of these voters in Los Angeles County -- 20% of the electorate in the largest election jurisdiction in America -- are now finding out that their vote was rejected because they "failed" to fill out a meaningless bubble on a confusing ballot.

We don't know if -- as the Los Angeles Daily News speculated -- the "double bubble" debacle "could affect the number of delegates each candidate gets -- potentially determining the Democratic nominee for president." We do know that, no matter the speculation, we can't take one vote for granted:

Sign the petition. Spread the word. Count every vote:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CountEver...

The stakes are high. And, with a deadline looming to certify the vote, time is short.

Your signature will help make sure the "double bubble" disaster does not disenfranchise independent voters inspired by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Please sign today so that we can bring the largest number of signatures possible directly to Dean Logan and remind him that the integrity of our elections -- and the faith of people in the process -- depends on counting every vote.

Thank you for taking a minute of your time to defend our democracy today.

Rick Jacobs
Chair

P.S. On Thursday, we told you about Julian H., a young man who told us his first vote "amounted to nothing" because he didn't fill in an irrelevant bubble. Julian wasn't alone in his disgust and disappointment. Hundreds of frustrated voters have contacted the Courage Campaign. Charles C., another first-time primary voter, just wrote the following to us about his Election Day experience:

"When I walked into the polling place, I was asked what party I was with. I told them I was an Independent. They asked me which party I was going to vote for, and I stated Democratic. They handed me a ballot and pointed me to a particular booth. Because this is the first time I have voted in a primary, I was really excited. When I saw my candidates name, I marked it and then moved on to the remainder of the ballot. I didn't know I had to mark Democratic again. I felt proud to cast my vote, but now feel like a fool knowing my vote will not be counted."

If you know of any "Decline-to-State" voters in Los Angeles like Charles or Julian, please send them to a special web page we have set up specifically for disenfranchised DTS voters:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/LosAngele...

Indy, republican civic participation is limited to voting.  After that, it's expected that the people elected will facilitate the enterprise of their relatives, friends and business associates.  They have no concept of the "general welfare," and certainly don't perceive government as being "tasked" with such responsibilities.  Disasters, whether man-made or natural, are fate.  That's why they don't believe in science; it would require them to actually pay attention to the forces of nature and do something about them.

Mainly, I think Republicanism is for lazy people who think that harranguing other people is work enough. 

And Edwards like any person has recognized mistakes and changed. He ran a much more substantive, specific, and progressive campaign. I prefer specifics and substance than inspirational. Edwards had both this year.<<<<<<

Agree with every word.  My candidate in the 92 Dem primary was Paul Tsongas.  Loved, loved, loved that guy. What a policy wonk.  However, we had an upstart, charismatic governor from AK ultimately taking the lead.

I recall an interview with then gov. Clinton the day after he'd won the general election in 92.  He was asked what he was most concerned about now that he'd won.  His response:  "We've raised so much hope....I want to be able to deliver".

Again, Barack Obama's campaign style and message seems to me very similar to Bill Clinton in 92.  

In the end, I look at it like this:  If I wake up the morning after the general election of 2008 and we have a first african-american president it will be joyful day, indeed.  I'm likely to break out in the souldja boy dance, Crank Dat (taught to me by my niece and nephew over the Christmas holiday).

Crank dat. 

and if y'all want to learn how to Crank Dat.

Follow the link to Soulja Boy's instruction video on YouTube:)

Have a great day, all.

err, umm, Clinton was from Arkansas, not Alaska, lol.  "AR"

Bye, now:) 

3:21 PM EST

When are these "Who Let the Dogs Out" supporters of Hillary going to stop their hit and run (ie. attack Obama and then seemingly apologize afterwards)

http://www.wjactv.com/politics/15293057/detail.html?rss=john&psp=news

Monica Smith
Wed, 02/13/08

I'm not so sure about that. They have a huge GOTV operation. And organized down to the precinct level. While most people are just voters and do little else, it is always the few active who define the word civic participation.

I'm just not that interested in building up the Democratic party, I guess I'm more progressive than Democrat. And the way I see Bluedogs calling the shots in Congress, I see more of that with the 50 state strategy.

I think we ought to pour our efforts into forming a progressive party nation-wide and let the Dems curve toward the vacuous center. But it would take an enormous movement to do that.

And no, I don't think Howard Dean deserves a vote at the convention since not one person voted for him to be a delegate in any primary or caucus. 

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

excuse me but they did have an election for Chair, and everybody voting had been "elected" besides and right in the job description is an additional responsiblity to be a Super Delegate

each of you think about the exact specific person who is your "pledged" delegate and how that individual has the right to represent you in Denver Colorado; did you raise your hand, mark a ballot with their name on it?

Howard Dean is the most special delegate of all because as Chair he only votes if there is a tie, an exact tie, which he has the authority to break with his vote(his worst nightmare)

but Roy Roemer (former Gov. of CO and Party Chair) has a super delegate vote too, and when Harvey Gantt (African American) went up against Jessie Helms; Roemer went to the mat to counter the slime(too good a word) that Helms used to defeat Gantt

Barack Obama is standing on the shoulders of Harvey Gantt and before you put down super delegates as some kind of party hack remember it was Gantt who brought the idea of "kitchen table issues" as central to being a democrat and whoever wins the nomination this time, Clinton or Obama will be the person that has a seat at that table

The question is not what JE supporters would do if it's a HC/JE ticket (which I doubt, but it's not a bad idea) but what would BO supporters do.  :-)

The JE/BO ticket was the winner IMO.  The warm fuzzy appeal of BO (that the affluent and youth feel)  and the fiery populist who'd go after the corps and actually get something done and get outta Iraq.  His message was consistent. (tom and sitka don't need to chime in here)  BO has definitely shown himself to be an adept chameleon, depending on what crowd he's addressing.  Perhaps that's a good thing...dunnno.

I'm comforted in hoping that Gore is a part of whatever's going on, cuz it's gonna get nasty.

*****************************

Anni, thanks for the kudos and for posting my new website link.  You may have been the only one who opened it.  :-) 

busy day........gone 

And no, I don't think Howard Dean deserves a vote at the convention since not one person voted for him to be a delegate in any primary or caucus. 

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

excuse me but they did have an election for Chair, and everybody voting had been "elected" besides and right in the job description is an additional responsiblity to be a Super Delegate

Phil can you explain how terry McAuliffe and Donna Brazille are super dels??

Indy wrote "Part of Obama's appeal to people is they don't know much about him."

They should go and find out, in that case.  I haven't experienced the same problem.

Regardless of that, the peculiar distinction in this case is that the people to whom he appeals at this stage of the nomination process didn't spend their time before riding him up and down for his regressive policy positions.  I have bad news for you about a candidate, like Edwards, who you think has found religion.  All he did is change his rhetoric and you bought it.

The case of Clinton is more comical yet.  You (and others I would add) traduced her for voting in favor of the invasion and actually sticking by it, which was Edwards' old trick until he saw how counterproductive a tactic it was for his political fortunes.  She didn't even have to change her sales pitch to get a recommendation from you. People either change their minds and views, or they don't.  It's all the same to you.

"Today's rally is part of an erratic uptrend that began on Jan. 23 when the market hit its lows in the wake of the near-global panic from French bank Societé Génèrale's $7 billion trading loss and the first of two big Federal Reserve interest-rate cuts. The Dow is up more than 7.6% since."

That is the day Phil, with his ever positive and sunny outlook, express that 600 points down would be a GOOD day.  Some people are like my mother in law and fight the urge to ever find anything positive in anyone or any event.  That my friend's make's the perfect Democrat.  BO is just the opposite and that is why people are drawn to him.

Most professionals in the securities industry, fox, know that the market is volatile now, some advising their clients to sit it out in cash.  I know this first-hand and by financial press accounts as well.

But thanks for showing your true freeper colors fox/stat: 

"Some people are like my mother in law and fight the urge to ever find anything positive in anyone or any event.  That my friend's make's the perfect Democrat.  BO is just the opposite and that is why people are drawn to him."<<<<<<<

This is a freeper troll, folks.  Plain and simple.  Don't be fooled by his feigned Obama-love. 

59.

Indy Steve
Wed, 02/13/08

Part of Obama's appeal to people is they don't know much about him. He can say things generally and thus include lots of people who ordinarily wouldn't support him. But when it gets thick and specifics are necessary, will he be able to make the tough decisions or not?
----------------------

Who knows, we (unfortunately, so far) can only hope..., lol.

However there are some “specifics” Obama does say.
For example, he says more then just few things about “change” but at the same time His&Co’s enemies and Bush&Co’s enemies seems are the one and the same people and that’s again Al-Qaeda.

Now it’s not clear how much “change” (“progressive” change, of course..., lol) can Obama&Co. bring to this country while having the same enemies as previous Bush&Co.?

Does “changing mindset that brought us into this war” involve changing the enemies? If not, then how can we change that same “mindset”?

Susan,  I'm sorry to see that you wound up with Dean Logan - King County's reject.

Here's what's more humorous yet.  Indy wrote "Bringing up what someone said then and criticize them for changing their views because of new circumstances is sad. People change their minds and views, Tom. That's the point about Edwards."

Except this is total nonsense.  I never criticized you for changing your views, because your views haven't changed.  My critique centers around your support for candidates whose views are antithetical to yours.

You criticized lawmakers for choosing to back the President's war resolution, then slagged Edwards mercilessly for being a blow dried war sypathizer, then hacked on Clinton for the same or similar reasons, criticized Blue Dog Democrats for the same or similar reasons, and ran in a Democratic primary for the same or similar reasons.  You even ragged on Dean for his apostasy when he spoke out on behalf of Democratic office holders.

Astonishingly, Edwards became the new populist of the day after a remarkable epiphany, and you sopped up his message like a sponge.  Ask yourself, as I have wondered, why is it that Edwards had this wonderful change of heart while, during the same period, you maintained your unshakable progressive view of what direction we should be heading.  Is it possible, and likely, that it was simply because it was better for him if people believed that indeed he did?

Rendell said to a Pittsburgh newspaper, "I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." Deacon Jeffrey Wilson of the Pleasant Hill Baptist Church said, unfortunately, racism still exists and, in some cases the statement is true.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

You can't have lived 40+ years in this country and not know that this is true.  It was a most politically incorrect statement, but nonetheless true.  Blaming Hillary for Rendell's statement would be like blaming Barack for your trash-talk about Hillary.  Not his doing, not his fault.  I hold Barack totally blameless for the trashy remarks made by some of his overzealous supporters about Hillary.  Says nothing of his character.....speaks volumes about some of his supporters' character, however. 

There is a NEW THREAD that I thoroughly disagree with. Take a peek!

Tom wrote: Is it possible, and likely, that it was simply because it was better for him if people believed that indeed he did?

No.

The proof is that it wasn't better for him. You have no evidence that Edwards was so opportunist. Repeating the same deceptions doesn't make them true. IMO, Edwards had a change of heart, apologized and has never looked back. Until something happens to make me doubt his sincerety, I'll stick to this position.

I haven't changed my view on the war. I attended rallies against it before it happened, I ran for Congress against the war and I'm still against it. True. Edwards changed to fit with my view. And he had the best withdrawal plan of the top three. No combat troops. Both Clinton and Obama will be chasing AQ around for years.

And no, I don't think Howard Dean deserves a vote at the convention since not one person voted for him to be a delegate in any primary or caucus.<<<<<

Who suggested this?

excuse me but they did have an election for Chair,

But not one for Dean as a delegate. Dean was chosen by Party insiders to do a particular job, not choose the party's nominee. Other officials were elected to serve the public, not choose the nominee. And some. like donna Brazile, weren't elected by anybody for anything, much less choose the nominee.

Superdelegares are undemocratic, and should be unDemocratic as well. No one who isn't chosen directly by the people to be a delegate to nominee.

I come down every time on the side of democracy and inclusion. Phil comes down every time on the side of disenfranchisement and exclusion. Maybe it's because he fancies himself to be a party insider and wants his share of undo influence -- or maybe there's a streak of Republican subservience to authority in him?

Beatles in their breakfast food.

The Air Force can't make due on $144 billion a year.  The service is telling Congress it needs nearly another $19 billion for fiscal year 2009 -- including about $1.7 billion worth of extra fighter jets. 

Earlier this month, the Office of Secretary of Defense sent lawmakers its core budget for the next fiscal year.  (War costs are funded separately.)  But even that massive, half-trillion package - one that's been called "as good as it gets for defense contractors" -- doesn't grant each and every item on the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines' wish lists.  So each service submits to Congress an array of "unfunded requirements" that it wants lawmakers to pay for. 

This year, the Air Force's list is particularly long -- and particularly pricey.  At $18.75 billion, it's more than two-and-half-times what the Army and Marines are asking for, combined.

Fox I called the bottom within fifty points.

Jeff:

A delegate represents the people who voted -- a Super Delegate does NOT represent the people who voted -- a Super Delegate represents the Democratic Party's leadership trying to protect itself against the will of the people; -- this sounds like orthodox democracy -- TOTALITARIANISM -- rather than actual democracy, George Orwell's "Inner Party" and "Outer Party" of "the Party".

To Thomsa G Miller, Post # 85    Agreed!  That's pretty much what I was trying to say in the title post and the below post back to Phil (which strangely never appeared) thus the re-post!     JM-in NY

To Phil:     I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I'm by no means stumping for Hillary! She does have an advantage in the Super Delegate Dept.(75-80, differing counts) Some of these Super Delegates committed to her a while back when she led in the polls by 25+ percent. My how things can change. I'm saying it wouldn't be right if the Super Delegates were to ignore the will of their constituents and opt for Clinton even though the majority of the Dem Primary voters prefer Obama. I go on to state how I feel he is the more electable candidate in 08 due to his ability to win in the North, South, East, West, and in the Heartland!( Still not sure Hillary can win there) I'm a bit perplexed by how anyone could conclude that my post here is stumping for Hillary? Quite the opposite actually! I'm stumping for the will of the majority of the Dem Primary voters to not be over-ruled by the parties own Super Delegates.    Jeff M.- NY