Yes, of course, Howard Dean is first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a joke, right? Wrong! Macaca is endorsing John McCain and speaking for him while they await the royal nominee McCain.

How many mistakes can McCain continue to make? You can always tell a lot about a person by the friends he/she has.

It's a joke, right? Wrong! Macaca is endorsing John McCain and speaking for him while they await the royal nominee McCain.

How many mistakes can McCain continue to make? You can always tell a lot about a person by the friends he/she has.

3:29 PM EST 

The view from Canada:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Worthington_Peter/2008/02/07/4832166-sun.php

Peter Worthington

TORONTO SUN

Thu, February 7, 2008

Barack Obama's Super triumph

...

Obama's triumph (which doesn't translate into delegates ... yet) is that a few weeks ago he lagged Hillary Clinton by 20 or 30 points in some states. On Tuesday he won 13 states -- more than any other candidate, and not all of those states loaded with African-Americans.

Hillary won eight states -- the delegate-rich states.

...

Obama's surge is mindful of John Kennedy's transformation in 1960 from a dilettante candidate into leading contender. Obama invokes that magical time for America, even though he's the most liberal or left-leaning of the candidates, making Hillary Clinton seem hawkish on Iraq by comparison.

...

But he's personable, and people (left and right) like him. He's smart enough not to poormouth the intentions and beliefs of political opponents, acknowledging that sometimes Republicans might be correct. So Hillary has reason to worry

...

Hillary's coronation as president is on hold. The more one sees of Obama, the more people seem to realize that they (and the country) have had a bellyful of the Clintons. Obama's momentum is unlikely to fade.

...

3:34 PM EST

Howard's 50-state strategy even filters down to those counties in blue states's that are red:

http://www.mysuburbanlife.com/lemont/news/x469094787

More votes cast in DuPage for Democrats in presidential primaries

DuPage County has long been a stronghold for the Republican Party in the Chicago area and Illinois, but more ballots were cast for Democratic candidates than Republicans in Tuesday’s presidential primaries in the county.

Voters filled out 131,345 ballots for Democratic presidential candidates, while 107,769 were cast for GOP candidates, according to unofficial election results.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois grabbed the most DuPage County votes of any presidential candidate with 80,690. On the Republican side, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, on the heels of campaign stops Friday in Villa Park and Oakbrook Terrace, received 57,090 votes.

In second place for the Democrats was U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York with 48,499 votes.

...

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23811

last thread

Discussing racism and sexism in US society, HOW it affects the campaigns, and how to counter it is legitimate discussion. It is neither racist nor sexist.

But saying that Hillary is just Billary and an appendage of her husband or she couldn't make it on her own is sexist crap. It would be the same as saying Obama got where he was because of affirmative action or is an Uncle Tom or some such nonsense. Neither sentiment should be supported on a progressive blog

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

Your analogy is comparing apples to oranges, or more like apples to nut-cake. 

First of all nobody's saying "she's an appendage of her husband...couldn't make it on her own"

We are just saying she did not make it on her own - neither did Bush, the son.  His success is obligated to his father, as Hillary's is to Bill.  Sexism has nothing to do with it.

This is no comparison to obligation to social environments and government programs, which are available to the masses and offer no intense personal advantage as would family ties.  So your

FRED from Ashland OR
Thu, 02/07/08

Fred,

You just don't know what Hillary might have done "on her own", do you? One could argue that Bill wouldn't be where he is without Hillary!

Anyway, let's talk about the relative merits of each candidate, not their race or gender or who they're married to.

Well, Joan, McCain got Macacca and Obama just scored Marion Berry - remember him? Caught smoking crack. So...I'm sure they all have endorsers they'd rather not have. Although if McCain is embracing Macacca's endorsement that's another thing. LOL

Fred first wrote: Hillary is where she is today because she da master's wife

Then Fred wrote: First of all nobody's saying "she's an appendage of her husband...couldn't make it on her own"

 ~~~~~~~~~~

Contradiction, you think?

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/23813

The number of red states Obama got was counter-intuitive Hillary is more conservative and right wing on many issues, especially national security, the big issue in red States.

Not only was Obama's sweep surprising, but his margins in those States were much greater than the margins Hillary got in the blue states she won.

This makes one think his chances in the general election would be better.

5. Fred,

You just don't know what Hillary might have done "on her own", do you? One could argue that Bill wouldn't be where he is without Hillary!

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

I agree totally.  We never think it sexist or weak for a man to say, "I owe everything i am to my wife..." or "to my mother"

obligations  to husbands and fathers is equally neither demeaning nor sexist.

7.

Well, Joan, McCain got Macacca and Obama just scored Marion Berry - remember him?

As you said they get endorsers they don't want. I'm sure Obama didn't want Berry either. But Obama, to my knowledge, has not embraced Berry and no doubt never will.

But Mcacca was on stage speaking for McCain waiting for his late arrival at his winning rally.

Obviously Macacca wouldn't have been there if McCain and his campaign didn't want him there.

Fred first wrote: Hillary is where she is today because she da master's wife

Then Fred wrote: First of all nobody's saying "she's an appendage of her husband...couldn't make it on her own"

 ~~~~~~~~~~

Contradiction, you think?

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

No contradiction.  The first statement states an indisputable fact.   It does not imply she could not do it on her own in a different life, but the fact is, she did not...

Calling her "an appendage..." implies she is nothing nobody without Bill. Saying that about any woman would be sexist.  Did not say that.

Did not say she could not be president without Bill, that's a hypothetical statement that cannot be proven or disproven, but it is a hell of a "coincidence" that with millions of woman in this country, no doubt many better qualified than Hillary, that she gets to be a candidate. 

More %$#*&% begging from the Hillary campaign to seat FL delegates.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1816

McCain has lost any measure of credibility he once had. Macacca and McCain will spell defeat in Nov for McCain.

---------
Obama's servers are down again. No wonder you can't donate, Joan. ;-)

Based on what I have read from a pragmatic standpoint, McCain did what he had to do.

- Introduced by two people who are credible to CPAC

- 6 months from now the average swing voter will have no idea that Allen and Coburn introduced him

- He focussed rightward drift on security and immigragtion (little downside) in the general

- He said enough to be blessed by the right 

For Pat:  from Indy's link

Reactions to Senate Vote on the Peru FTA
Freshman Senators Stand Against Modified NAFTA Expansion
Citizens Trade Campaign, December 6, 2007
In Peru Trade Vote, Senate Democrats Break with Base Lori Wallach, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, December 4, 2007
Hoffa Condemns Senate Passage of Peru Free Trade Agreement
Teamsters Press Release, December 4, 2007

U.S. Senate Roll Call Vote: United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act November 4, 2007

Printable version

Dr Williams interview

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

Puddle, thanks for the tip on Mercury going retrograde -- no wonder nothing works!

When Hill got in trouble with her campaign what I recall is Bill coming out fighting till they finally had to put him under wraps again after SC -- it just looked like she couldn't do it on her own. I'm sorry if this is Hill bashing to some -- but to me it is what it is. She's certainly a very bright and accomplished woman and I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination, but I don't want the dynasty or the corporate cronyism or the K street consultants. Just my take. Sorry if it looks like Hill bashing.

BO voted to continue funding the occupation so that more people died and will die.  Perhaps we could call him war monger lite?  The name isn't important.  And he's stated that he would go into Pakistan with "actionable intel."  Sound familiar?

I've gone from Gore to Kucinich to Dodd to Edwards and now I'm stuck...but I wouldn't call myself inflexible or unable to change my mind when new info comes along.     LOL 

No quarrel; just keeping the record honest.  Either one will have to earn my vote and they're not doing it yet.

No contradiction.  The first statement states an indisputable fact.   It does not imply she could not do it on her own in a different life, but the fact is, she did not...

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

nobody becomes President "on their own"

ask Romney, IMHO he just tried and failed

in fact run for any office and you will need the list

and on the list you will have concentric circles that start with those nearest you your family, close friends, people you have worked with, those with similar interests, and outward to single issue voters who are on the same page on only one issue, or those that liked a picture they saw in the paper

and successful candidates have solid support from the inside out

no one should doubt Hillary has solid support from Bill, but she is at the center of this effort, and if she is not will as likely fail as if she did it "on her own", because a candidate needs to be "centered"

For Seashell,

Read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope.  In the section on politics he talks about the legislative process wherein in a single bill there are good and bad sections and you have to prioritize and make a choice.  In one of his speeches, he talked about this bill, saying that what it did was equalize Americans in trading with Peru, that there were in fact environmental protections and as I read through the first URL, it talks about the environment in terms of exposing American practices to foreign regulation, whatever that means.

What I guess I have to say is that bills are complicated. Do I believe Obama? Yes, I do.  So far, he seems to me to have enormous integrity and honesty.  If you want to peruse the bill, go on line and read it in its entirety and come back and let us know what you have learned.

Your wording of Obama's vote to fund the troops is distorted and slanted.  Yes, the troops will continue to suffer maiming and dying.  But, they would have anyway, since the Senate didn't have the votes to bring the troops home.  It became a matter of protecting the troops with the equipment and services they need while there.  To portray it any other way as I said is specious.  It doesn't hold up.

Our representatives are there to serve us, but to say that a superficial understanding of the process is the measure by which they should be judged is laughable, shows little or no understanidng of the legislative process which, in my understanidkng is simply not worth discussing. 

The link Anni posted yesterday opened my eyes a bit.  Hillary has been demonized horribly and maybe even by some jealous women. Who knows? 

"Well-behaved women seldom make history."  can't remember who said that.

Men have notoriously grabbed for the money bags right outta school.  Why shouldn't Hillary?   Misogyny is alive in these here U.S.

Men leave school and become nurses.  Roles, schmoles.

******************************* 

puddle:

Now  I understand, and we virgos prolly have it worse.  Everything electronic and electrical in my house is acting up weirdly.  Not breaking, just doing strange things...Thanks for that great post. 

JE took a beating here yet an unpleasant fact about BO sets people off.   And I'm not sure yet, but I think HC is slightly more progressive, I like her health care plan better and I think she has higher marks on womens' issues but I'm not sure.  I have to research that.

These are opinions only...no need to attack or criticize.   

Very little daylight between the two.  :-(

4:53 PM EST 

Obama's servers are down again. No wonder you can't donate, Joan. ;-) 

+++

mary vb -

I got on to donate with no problem just now:

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yeswecan?source=mainnav

Watchdogs press Pelosi to change ethics rules By Susan Crabtree

Six watchdog groups are calling on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to withdraw the official House ethics guidelines on lobbyist-sponsored convention parties and rewrite them to comport with a new, stricter Senate interpretation.

The groups have railed against the House guidelines, arguing that they introduce “gaping loopholes” eviscerating the ethics rules enacted last fall that Democrats promised would help usher in a new era of ethical standards.

“We’re going to send a letter this week to the Speaker asking her to take all possible steps to help get that guidance withdrawn,” said Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, one of the groups complaining about the rules. “The House guidance creates a pathway for the wholesale circumvention and evasion of the law adopted by the House last year.”


Other groups upset by the House rules include the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. ...full article: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/watc...

The link Anni posted yesterday opened my eyes a bit.  Hillary has been demonized horribly and maybe even by some jealous women. Who knows? 

"Well-behaved women seldom make history."  can't remember who said that.

Men have notoriously grabbed for the money bags right outta school.  Why shouldn't Hillary?   Misogyny is alive in these here U.S.

Men leave school and become nurses.  Roles, schmoles.

******************************* 

puddle:

Now  I understand, and we virgos prolly have it worse.  Everything electronic and electrical in my house is acting up weirdly.  Not breaking, just doing strange things...Thanks for that great post. 

JE took a beating here yet an unpleasant fact about BO sets people off.   And I'm not sure yet, but I think HC is slightly more progressive, I like her health care plan better and I think she has higher marks on womens' issues but I'm not sure.  I have to research that.

These are opinions only...no need to attack or criticize.   

Very little daylight between the two.  :-(

Pat, how come you rag on me and  never on Indy or Huron? 

You wrote: "Your wording of Obama's vote to fund the troops is distorted and slanted.  Yes, the troops will continue to suffer maiming and dying.  But, they would have anyway, since the Senate didn't have the votes to bring the troops home.  It became a matter of protecting the troops with the equipment and services they need while there.  To portray it any other way as I said is specious.  It doesn't hold up.

Pat, these are repug talking points.  Frankly, you sound like bush.   FILIBUSTER!  Where were our 2 rock stars?  Also, I believe s/o pointed out that there was plenty of money in the pipeline to protect the troops, which , BTW, ARE NOT BEING PROTECTED even with the money BO and HC voted for.

Do you really think congress would have shorted the troops on food and clothes?

Please, go rag on s/o else.  Why don't you ever confront Indy or Huron?  

gone now.. 

  To portray it any other way as I said is specious.  It doesn't hold up.

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

Pat

could you cite votes on war funding where Clinton and Obama differed?

"on final passage" I think is the wording for the conference report

have Clinton and Obama ever voted against each other on final passage of funding bills?

Pat in Colorado
Thu, 02/07/08

Pat,
I listed the many organizations which OPPOSED the Peru trade agreement, so you should address it to me and not Sea!

When something is "complicated" I look to organizations that I respect to determine what's worth supporting. Just look at that list. Many Labor unions and respected environmental groups opposed the Peru agreement. They know best their issues and how it would affect their constituencies.

To say it would protect the environment when so many were against it is to deny the truth. Obama should have opposed this and he did not. Neither did Clinton though, so they are equally indifferent to what it takes to get REAL, ENFORCEABLE protections in trade agreements.

BTW, Edwards OPPOSED the Peru trade agreement and supported stronger labor and environmental standards as unions and environmental groups recommended.

Just sayin'.

looking at FEC reports shows clearly that Clinton will have a hard time breaking with the status quo with K Street, and her vote for Kyl-Lieberman was a clear indication that she is more aligned with the War Party, but really Obama's main difference is not in policy differences which are very similar, but with leadership qualities, and that pesky bugaboo of electability because of her polarizing character and long standing battles with the hard right (which I admire because she never backed down, but are an electability issue)

Hi,

Seashell,

"Rag on" Indy, Huron John, I've argued with all of you, though I wouldn't have called it "raggin on", rather insulting I think.

No, these are not Republican talking points; they are mine.  And, yes, the troops have been underfunded, under servered, neglected when they came home wounded mentally and physically. In order to have a successful passage of a bill, they needed 60 votes. They didn't have it.  I may not like that or I may have tried something else, but that's what they did, and I do  believe Obama's reasoning.

I've met two families who collected money to buy their sons Kevlar vests.  I've listened to speeches and read that the troops haven't had what they needed.  Dog Soldier spoke to that a week ago. And yes, I do believe that Congress did short the troops.

Phil, as far as war funding, I don't know that Clinton and Obama differed. The real difference is that Obama was opposed to the war in the beginning as a stupid war, that would put us into a quagmire, that he never changed his mind on that, and now says we have to deal with the reality we've created.

I can't know someone's motivations, but Clinton did vote to give Bush the opportunity to attack Iraq, said she read the bill, and it turned out she didn't. She's never said it was a mistake, and she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman Amendment which could be argued that it gave Bush the opportunity to attack Iran.  As I've said, I can't know someone's motivations like some others profess to do, but I suspect she wanted to appear strong, resolute, and tough.  I think that worked in the sense that that's the perception of many people  I think she made a bad decision with respect to our country, our policies, and internationally in approving an illegal, immoral war that has caused enourmous suffering that only a minority of Americans realize. 

So, yes, I'm passionate about debating, and frankly the labeling and superficial judgments are not worthy of discussion.  Harumph.  Just kidding. 

not ganging up on you Pat, but I too think there is not a lot of daylight between the two on votes where both were in the Senate, I have chosen Obama, but not because I think he differs greatly on Iraq on the way out

Hi Indy Steve,

About the trade bill with Peru, I haven't read it.  I've only read the statements of the group opposed to it.  Have you read it?

I'll Google it and get back to you on it.  I think it's entirely possible that Obama's vote may have been a mistake and indicates he's not as strong on the environment and he needs to be, but I'll have to read it for myself.

I'll drop in when I've read it. 

13.

floridagal .
Thu, 02/07/08


It is unethical and immoral to reward cheaters. Any K-12 or Sunday School Teacher will tell you that truth. They got their day in court and lost. They're sounding like a bunch of very spoiled children. They earned an "F". They'll need to take the class over. As for now they are being allowed to observe. They're still taking their time-out.

.... but really Obama's main difference is not in policy differences which are very similar, but with leadership qualities, and that pesky bugaboo of electability because of her polarizing character and long standing battles with the hard right (which I admire because she never backed down, but are an electability issue)

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

Well said in a nutshell, but will add...

Obama's attraction as a "ground-breaker"  is not only for race but on a number of issues.  He not only prosyletizes change from Republicans but Obama professes to want change within the Democratic party itself and the entire political system. 

Hillary's "ground-breaker" status seems to be confined to  gender.  And with the "dynasty" baggage,  she personifies the antithesis of change.

Otherwise they are both good people and good Democrats.

5:43 PM

FRED from Ashland OR
Thu, 02/07/08

+++

Fred -

Good comment.

Glad to see you back on this blog.

Monica Smith

"My motive for getting into government is not to see what government can do to fix the problems. I want to try to awaken people to realize that government CAN'T fix these things.

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

At least he talks straight.  That's his appeal, but such philosophy is getting obsolete.  People have come to realize that if government isn't part of the solution, government becomes part of the problem.

Here's Obama's words from The Audacity of Hpe, pp. 211 & 212, the chapter on politics

"In some ways, the longer you are in politics, the easier it should be to muster such courage, for there is a certain liberation that comes from realizing that no matter what you do, someone will be angry at you, that poitical attacks will come no matter how cautiously you vote, that judgment may be taken as cowardice and courage itself may be see as calculation.  I find comfort in the fact that the longer I'm in politics the less nourishing popularity becomes, that a striving for power and rank and fame seems to betray a poverty of ambition, and that I am answerable mainly to the steady gavze of my own conscience."

 ..."After one town hall meeting in Godfrey, and older gentleman came up and expressed outrage that despite my having opposed the Iraq War, I had not yet called for a full withdrawal of troops.  We had a brief and pleasant agrument, in which I explained my concern that too precipitous a withdrawal would lead to all-out civil war in the country and the potential for widening conflict throughout the Middle East.  At the end of our conversation he shook my hand.

'I still think you're worng,' he said, 'but at least it seems like you've thought about it. Hell, you'd probably disappoint me if you agreed with me all the time.'

"Thanks," I said. As he walked away, I was reminded of something Justice Louis Brandeis once said: that in a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen." 

Fred -

Good comment.

Glad to see you back on this blog

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

Thanks.  It seems better now.  I will try to avoid scuffles.  I've taken up learning Swedish language now.  Met a friend from Sweden to help - and would like to go there on a boat that will let me sleep on the deck or something.  I could never tolerate a fumigated plane, the air saturated with "body care" chemical vapors and perfumes from people and laundry scents.  I would die with my MCS.  Boats are usually moldy, funky and confined, but offers more feasibility in general.

Pat in Colorado
Thu, 02/07/08

Hi, Pat.,

No, haven't read the actual document. I read CAFTA, even assigned it to my class on international trade. I wouldn't recommend it. There are analyses of it. Many, not all, labor unions opposed it and most, but not all, environmental orgs, said it didn't go far enough. That's what I rely on.

Obama was better when he was outside of gov't. than when he has been inside in the Senate. That's what gives me pause. How far will he go to compromise for the sake of "unity".

Compromise is essential to getting anything done but too much compromise is capitulation. And we've seen enough of that.

6:07 PM EST

http://www.khqa.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=93578

Gov. Culver tells AP he will endorse Obama

Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2008 at 3:42 p.m.

DES MOINES, IOWA (AP) -- Iowa Governor Chet Culver will endorse Barack Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination during a rally Thursday night in Omaha, Nebraska.
   
Culver says Obama has been fighting for ordinary people for many years, and will continue to fight for them as president.
   
The governor says he will make his announcement in Omaha, where Obama has scheduled a rally just days before Nebraska's Democratic
caucuses on Saturday.

...

Cheers, boos for McCain at conservative gathering

(CNN) -- Sen. John McCain Thursday told a conservative-rich audience that he has what it takes to unite the Republican party.

Sen. John McCain lays out his conservative credentials in a speech Thursday.

"I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for president, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November," McCain told the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Critics say he's too liberal to carry his party's nomination. Conservatives point to him breaking with the party on immigration, opposing the Bush tax cuts and co-sponsoring legislation on campaign finance reform.

The meeting is the nation's largest annual gathering of conservative activists, students and policymakers, according to CPAC.

The speech came just hours after McCain's chief rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, announced he was suspending his campaign.

McCain congratulated Romney for an "energetic and dedicated campaign" and also praised former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for his Super Tuesday wins. ...

...On the issue of immigration, McCain received a mixed response from the audience, with boos turning to cheers.

"Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it," he said.

Unlike his original immigration proposal that included a path to citizenship, McCain said he would secure the borders first before offering other ways to deal with illegal immigration.

"All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep," he said.

The crowd responded enthusiastically when McCain said he would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. McCain voted against the president's first two tax cuts in the Senate. ...full story: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...

Hi Indy Steve,

Here's the URL on the section on environment in the Peru Free Trade Agreement.  On superificial reading it affirms environmental controls but leaves them to the entities in Peru which would be government and companies.

It's complicated, dense, legalistic, and I've not read it with any scrutiny, but I think it's fair to say before we label, automatically accept what groups we approve of say about it, we should at least have a sense of what it reads like, what we as individuals can interpret.

I guess I'm arguing for skepticism, scrutiny, and caution when it comes to judging someone by a legislative act that we ourselves haven't read and have no experience with legislating.  I think all the candidates deserve a more careful scurtiny and more evidence before we judge them.

Here's the URL  

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/Peru_TPA/Final_Texts/asset_upload

_file953_9541.pdf 

I didn't realize you were a teacher.  That's great.

Will be back later. 

Oh, dear.  With Mr. Hucklebee, we too might be facing American Sharia.  :-)

If MH is on their ticket, it will be formidable.  He will sound moderate, tell half truths, omit hard truth and snow a lot of zealots and most likely some moderate dems as well who are not happy with the dems and who don't follow politics closely.   The base will adore him.

INDY, what a sweetie you are to jump in, and rightly so since you posted the link.  Of course you can help me out if people pile on me.  Or JE.  :-)

Has BO declined to debate HC on Monday?  That would be a shame for people like me who want to see more of them and have never seen them up close and personal.

Isn't FISA coming up soon? This week?  Whoever stands with Dodd in a filibuster will prolly get my vote.

In a debate, which may not happen, HC needs to recant her war vote and BO needs to explain why he voted since then to fund this horror.  What Pat quoted from the book didn't do it for me.   I think both of them didn't want to be  labeled soft on terror during their campaigns.  That means that being prez is more important then our troops and that they can just continue to die so one of these two can be prez.   The votes are bad enuf, but looking deeper is very distressing cuz we know that there was plenty of money for the troops.

And neither one climbed on the impeachment wagon,  The thirst for power is great in both of them, rather than doing the right thing.  And the fact that there is so little daylight between them leads me to believe that it'll be a HC/BO tickiepoo.

The CMWs are starting to float the idea of a "dream team."   

Neither one is suited to be prez.  John Cleese is right.  LOL 

Pat and Indy - thanks for taking the time to educate us on these trade agreements, and to do a bit of analysis as well. I learned something today!

But both would be excellent vice presidents!!!  LOL  I'm serious.  Or perhaps co-presidents.  We need to re-vamp our system for the new century.  Shared power among 3 vice presidents is something I've advocated for a long time.

David Shuster just dropped considerably in appeal to me. He just showed a clip of Howard's speech from Iowa and said *will this be the man to determine the nominee* or something close to that.

Tabloid journalism from Shuster.

So if I understand that  Peru deal, the gov't and corporations would be in control of the environmental standards, and we all know how well that's worked here.  Perhaps Al Gore had a comment about it.

Also, what's not discussed much is what happened in Costa Rica and I think that may have slid by w/o our knowing it.  I'll look for info later. 

6:37 PM EST

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1711123,00.html?xid=rss-nation

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois.

The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that "independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, "are a key battleground."

...

Fascinating info on trade deals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/secret-trade-deal-can-th_b_51291.html 

re: ... I think both of them didn't want to be  labeled soft on terror during their campaigns.  That means that being prez is more important then our troops and that they can just continue to die so one of these two can be prez. 

And neither one climbed on the impeachment wagon,  The thirst for power is great in both of them, rather than doing the right thing.

sea, can't you see that it's comments like these that take you out of the realm of bearing facts and into the realm of your own bias?  if people argue against your constant attacks, it's not 'piling on', it's trying to keep the conversation based upon the FACTS instead of the mean comments you make because you seem to have an intense dislike of everything Obama.  you throw a few facts in but then you add comments like these...  I'm not saying you don't or shouldn't believe in what you say, I'm just saying don't try to defend stuff like that as FACT.

  The first inkling of the issue of trade came when Edwards responded to a question about the economic stimulus. He said this:

There is one other issue that was mentioned in passing by the two of them, which is the issue of jobs. And there is a difference between myself and my colleagues on this issue of jobs, because they both supported the Peru trade deal.

My view is the Peru trade deal was similar to NAFTA. And this is crucial to the state of South Carolina...

BLITZER: But...

EDWARDS: ... no, no -- and crucial to the state of the South Carolina and jobs in South Carolina. South Carolina has been devastated by NAFTA and trade deals like NAFTA.

  Sen. Obama, then, responded a but later:

But the only thing I want to differ on John is this whole notion of Peru. The Peru trade deal had labor and environmental agreements in it. Peru is an economy the size of New Hampshire. Over 90 percent of the goods coming from Peru already come in under various free trade agreements.

  Edwards responded:

And the problem with Peru, Barack, is you are leaving the enforcement of environmental and labor regulations in the hands of George Bush.

I wouldn't trust George Bush to enforce anything, certainly no trade obligations.

Sen. Obama:

Well, the only point I would make is that in a year's time, it'll be me who's enforcing them.

  Sen. Obama fundamentally misunderstands so-called "free trade" and this should be of great concern to voters.  Sen. Obama is wrong that the problem lies simply in not having a president who will "enforce" labor and environment provisions. He incorrectly gives the impression that it was just fine to vote for the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru. That is not correct. As the Citizens Trade Campaign pointed out:

The Peru Free Trade Agreement replicates many of the problems in NAFTA and CAFTA...
Some Members of Congress are operating under the mistaken impression that Labor supports the Peru deal, but it's not true. While some unions have chosen not to actively oppose the Peru FTA, there is not ONE that supports it. Likewise, not one civil rights organization supports this agreement.

 The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements, is precisely like NAFTA. The deal with Peru includes NAFTA-style Chapter 11 foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).

 http://www.workinglife.org/blogs/view_post.php?&post_id=1382

Hillary raised $13 million in January, much less than half of Obama's total. She now faces the prospect of a tour through Obama's territory with no lead in delegates and a huge gap in financing. The money gap could tamp down her advertising and event staging, leaving a clear field for Obama in Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, and Nebraska. Even Washington DC and Washington state look grim.

The massive loan may not seem unusual given Mitt Romney's self-funding, but Mitt has plenty of his own money. Where did Hillary get $5 million to loan a presidential campaign? Bill and Hillary have done well on the speaking circuit, and Bill recently got $20 million or so for backing out of his partnership from Ron Burkle. At the time, speculation had Bill wanting to eliminate any potential conflicts between Burkle's business and Hillary's election.

Now, however, one has to wonder whether Burkle may have attempted to float money into Hillary's campaign while bypassing campaign-finance regulations. Did the $20 million, which came just two weeks ago, actually represent a fair-market settlement for Clinton's services and ownership stake in Yucaipa? Or did Burkle inflate it in order to allow Hillary to "loan" herself $5 million to keep pace with a surging Obama campaign?

Burkle Bio:

Ronald W. Burkle (b. November 12, 1952 in Pomona, California) is a Los Angeles based billionaire with roots in the supermarket industry and personal wealth estimated to exceed US$3.5 billion.[1] He founded The Yucaipa Companies, a Los Angeles-based private equity firm, in 1986. He was once a bag boy[2] and is now recognized as one of the preeminent investors in the retail, manufacturing, and distribution industries. The Yucaipa group recently worked with The Newspaper Guild and the Communications Workers of America to explore alternatives to Rupert Murdoch's buyout of Dow Jones & Company by his News Corporation.[3]

Burkle has served as Chairman of the Board and controlling shareholder of numerous companies including Alliance Entertainment,[4] Golden State Foods, Dominick's, Fred Meyer, Ralphs, and Food4Less. He is currently a member of the board of Occidental Petroleum Corporation,[5] KB Home[6] and Yahoo![7] He is also part owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins[8] National Hockey League team, although his exact share is unknown.

Burkle is a well-known Democratic supporter and fundraiser who has raised more than $1,000,000 for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.[9] He has supported California State Treasurer Phil Angelides and employed former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, both of whom are former CALPERS board members, but has also made contributions to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.[10] Robert Novak reported in June, 2007 that 98% of Burkle's $1.5 million political contributions to date have gone to Democrats. Burkle is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton, who calls Burkle's Boeing 757 private jet "Ron Air."[11] Clinton is employed by Burkle's investment firm, The Yucaipa Companies. Burkle co-hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Rodham Clinton at his Green Acres Mansion. Burkle and Steve Rattner helped finance Al Gore's cable Current TV network.[12]

As of May 2007, real estate developer Raffaello Follieri, the boyfriend of actress Anne Hathaway, was being sued by billionaire Ron Burkle for $55 million, an amount which Burkle alleges Follieri and Hathaway spent on a private jet, care for their pet Labrador, and shopping sprees. The money had been intended for a land development project.

Burkle is also a close friend of superstar Michael Jackson[13].

Oh, dear.  With Mr. Hucklebee, we too might be facing American Sharia.  :-)

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

I would love to see Huck explain how the fossils were left by Noah's flood, during a debate.

Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each...

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

Bill could have never won a third term, were they allowed, and he didn't win the first term with 50% (Perot got 8%). 

Hillary would energize the base - of the other side - and our base would be discouraged.

Jo, those are opinions.  I think they're still allowed.  Those are my opinions...altho many many people were wondering the same...why so many dems voted for more funds...especially those two.  We can't know the facts about that, unless they all come clean and talk about wanting to stay in power or being paid by corps....

Opinions, Jo, that's all they are.  Gut feelings about motives.  Not facts and I never claimed them to be facts.

Toughen up if he's the nominee and ask yourself why my opinions offend you so much.  If you can't find the answer inside, then scroll please. 

Psych 101...people seeking the presidency are attracted to power. This is not necessarily bad, except when our troops lives are at stake. 

I think what might be upsetting some of you BO people is the new talk in the CM of a "dream ticket."  I said might..might.. just an opinion.  :-)

Fred, I would like to hear Huck explain where all the people came from if the original family consisted of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel.

Incest is a family value!  LOL 

I think BO or HC would energize the repug base.  Together they would infuriate it. 

rdorgan: Howard's 50-state strategy even filters down to those counties in blue states's [sic] that are red:

Well I'll give a big, ol' w00t to that!

Sitting here in one of the reddest counties in one of the bluest states, it's very hard to get anyone with a D after their name elected. But we have progressive Democrats in office because of resources supplied by Howard. Last November, we won elections in almost every municipality -- something we haven't done in ages. In this town, where Rs outnumber Ds by almost 3 to 1, we have a majority on the Council, and we couldn't possibly have done that w/o help from Gov. Dean.

On Super Tuesday, even though Hillary won the state, DFA members in this county got the win for Barack, even though her statewide organizer lives here.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Jacobs, Courage Campaign
To: Susan Rowe
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:48 PM
Subject: Obama vs. Clinton: I've got bad news for you


Dear Susan,

I've got some good news. And I've got some bad news for you -- bad news for the election integrity movement in California as well as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

First, the good news.

In the days leading up to Super Tuesday, your people-powered activism made it possible for the Courage Campaign to contact 1.1 million independent "Decline-to-State" voters -- yes, one-third of the 3 million total DTS voters in California -- to inform them about their right to vote in Tuesday's Democratic Party presidential primary.

Your support also made it possible for the Courage Campaign to place "Yes, You Can... Vote for President!" radio ads with Bradley Whitford on the air in Los Angeles and San Diego, expanding our original ad buy from radio stations in San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield.

The bad news?

In what the media is now calling "Double Bubble Trouble," 94,000 "Decline-to-State" votes in Los Angeles County -- 50% of the total DTS ballots cast -- are being rejected due to a ballot design flaw, despite the Courage Campaign's discovery of the "double bubble" problem and official notification to the Registrar prior to Election Day.

Unfortunately, Dean Logan, the Registrar in charge of Los Angeles County, is refusing to conduct a physical hand-count of every "Decline-to-State" vote before the official vote is certified in just a few weeks.

Every vote must be counted. And time is running out. Please sign our petition to Registrar Dean Logan today demanding that he conduct a physical hand count of all "Decline-to-State" votes cast in the Democratic primary. The more names we add to this petition, the more likely it is that the Registrar will count every vote:

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

Last weekend, lawyers for the Courage Campaign uncovered the "double bubble" problem -- a shocking requirement that "Decline-to-State" voters fill in a redundant "Democratic" bubble (on a ballot clearly marked "Democratic Party") as well as a bubble next to their preferred presidential candidate. Our legal team realized that -- without the "Democratic" bubble filled in -- the county's optical scanners would void votes for "President of the United States," regardless of voter intent.

On Monday morning, 24 hours before polls opened, we sent a letter from our lawyer to the L.A. ROV, threatening legal action if the Registrar did not rectify the ballot problem before the primary. Unfortunately, on Election Day, polling places across Los Angeles erupted as the votes of DTS voters were rejected, even though almost every one of these voters clearly intended to vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. According to the Los Angeles Times:

The registrar's comments followed an uproar among decline-to-state voters in the county who discovered too late that they were required to mark a bubble on the ballot denoting which party primary they were voting in. Some complained that poll workers told them not to mark the bubble; others said they were unaware of the requirement, which is unique to L.A. County.

Had we not warned Dean Logan and the press on Monday, the numbers of disenfranchised voters could have been significantly higher. As a result of our threatened legal action, the Associated Press, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and several TV and radio stations jumped on the issue immediately and Logan issued a Public Service Announcement and last-minute directions to poll workers.

But now Mr. Logan is refusing to do everything in his power to count every vote cast by "Decline-to-State" voters. What does this say to DTS voters -- who represent 19.3% of the total electorate in California? Please sign this petition to Dean Logan today and tell him to conduct a physical hand-count immediately. Then tell your friends to demand that every vote be counted as soon as possible. With only 26 days left before the L.A. County vote is officially certified, there's no time to waste:

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

We don't know if this "Double Bubble Trouble" will change the number of delegates that either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will receive. But we do know that we need to protect voter rights, increase voter confidence in our elections system, and prevent this from ever happening again.

We live in a democracy in which every vote is supposed to count. But, in Los Angeles on Tuesday, the votes of almost 100,000 Decline-to-State voters were rejected because they didn't fill in an extra, irrelevant bubble.

Never again. Not in California. Not in America. Please sign our petition to Registrar Dean Logan right now:

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

We know Secretary Debra Bowen is paying attention. And we have friends in Los Angeles who are focused on this issue as well-- like Eric Garcetti, President of the Los Angeles City Council, and Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky -- but they need your help. With hearings being set up by State Senator Dean Florez and the eyes of California voters converging on Los Angeles County, there's no time to waste.

Thank you so much for your activism, especially today.

Rick Jacobs
Chair

P.S. Please read this heartbreaking message that we just received from Julian H., a young man voting for the very first time:

"I've been following politics before I even hit my teens. And 2 weeks before this election, I turned 18, with my registration in weeks before. I knew the issues, the candidates, the propositions, and for the fist time in my life cast a ballot. I heard the next day about the double bubble. No one at the polls mentioned it, and I didn't see instructions that even pointed to its existence. It's not such a great feeling that you're first close up experience in a system you've watched for so long at a distance could have amounted to nothing."

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

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

.........

Courage Campaign is an independent political committee and online organizing network empowering grassroots and netroots activists to build a progressive California. In 2008, the Courage Campaign will catalyze action to increase California's importance in the race for the White House, hold our elected officials accountable, and block Blackwater from building a base on our border.

I think BO or HC would energize the repug base.  Together they would infuriate it.

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

Beg to disagree.  Obama has a pleasant disposition and unprovocative in his rhetoric, at least ideologically.  He carefully frames his speeches in the abstract.  He doesn't have too many obligations from past eras.

Hillary has too many associations, e.g. "baggage" like her health care plan, that was composed without an open forum.  There was the beef futures inside trade deal, that netted her a cool $100,000.  The land development deals.  The Lewinski scandal would have new life, and the right have had many years to dig up dirt.  

Obama is a fresh face with a short history.  He and JE would be a good 50 state strategy.

Well, I don't want the Super Delegates deciding our nominee:(

If it is a draw, isn't there some evidence that the super delegate are more aligned with DLC, ergo, Hillary?

Anyone?

And then the super delegates decide this thing. That's the math."  

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

time to put the hammer down

time for Nebraska and Louisiana and Washington to start creating separation

There are no loyalty oaths in the Democratic party and every delegate is a super delegate. the named individuals elected are allocated by results and approved by the candidate but are just like Presidential electors and not legally bound. a third of Iowa's are up for grabs right now and that is how it works nationally too, none are "bound" they are "pledged"

make sure you elect the right people national delegate and get involved with that process

More than a single presidency is at stake -- the future of the Democratic party is.

http://alternet.org/election08/76098/

http://blogforamerica.com/view/23814#comment-1166940

CLICKABLE NEW THREAD

jo in vermont......

Sea said "I think". Instead of criticizing her for what she thinks, why don't you tell us what "You think" about why the candidates didn't vote to withold funds or support the impeachment effort? These are legitimate constitutional questions, and should be answered by the candidates. These questions that should be shoved under the rug, because they may be disturbing. The reason they don't talk about them is because they think it would jeopardize their election, and also they are not really leaders. Kucinich never voted for funding and he also presented the Impeachment bill. That takes courage, leadership and someone who doesn't put being elected before everything else.

That's what I think, a lot like what Sea thinks, don't you think?

should be s/b should not be shoved under the rug

sea, audrey - yes, as I said above, I understand why you don't support Obama, but I do feel the way you express your negative opinions, stating intentions of the candidate that you apply to them, having NO WAY of knowing if they're true.  and then when people here protest your wild statements you get defensive and yell facts, facts, facts, which is BS - as you admitted above it is only your opinion.  so I was simply pointing out that yelling foul when you present opinion as fact is simply more BS. 

it's like the time you saw a rally on tv and made all these false claims and tried to start the rumor that Obama and Michele have a bad relationship because he 'dissed' her onstage, when IF you had seen the whole rally you would have known what blatant crap that was.  well - that was the beginning of my understanding that your hate for Obama was going to find any outlet possible, real or imaginary.  if you think back on your slams of Obama AND his support, you might understand the point I was trying to make.  I don't really care what you say here, but it is really sad that you continue stating your opinion as fact all the time.

I agree with you, but the http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-spivak19jan19,0,6353609.story

could put Hillary in and over-ride the popular vote if hte race between Hillary and Barack remains close.  Again, it looks like the Democratic party is positioning itself for a real blow.  If the Democratic party machine puts Hil;lary in over the will of the people then I guarentee many disgruntled Democrats will vote for McCain out of pure disgust with the Democratic Party.  Super delegates are not obliged to vote in any way that reflects the will of the American people and in a race as close as this one, the super delegates can actually take power away form the American voter.  All together, Super Delegates represent 40% of the vote.  Congressman Bob Menendez of NJ has already announced that he will throw his super delegate vote to Hillary.  There is no rule that says super delegates votes must reflect the outcomes of their states primaries.  The ony solution would be to contact Howard Dean and tell him to get rid of the super delegates.  There is still enough time for him to change the rules.

This is a very important moment in America.  WE THE PEOPLE must reclaim our power.  We need to get rid of the super delegates because this race is too close.   Should Hillary win the primary and the election, she will still be a polarizing force and she won't be able to accomplish much.  Her lackluster presidency would then leave the White House front door open for Mitt Romney in 2012.  Don't forget, that's exactly what happened to Jimmy Carter.  The Republicans unfairly blamed him for the stagflation we were suffering through and thwarted every attempt he made to lift us out of the recession.  By comparison, Ronny Reagan looked pretty good and America learned to vote against her better interests.

Today, we find ourselves filled with dread when it comes to the economy.  Our dollar has become so weak that businesses in NYC are http://www.gadling.com/2008/02/07/new-york-businesses-now-accepting-euros/

Hillary says her first concern will  be to fix the economy, but how will she accomplish that in a timely manner if she doesn't have ending the war in Iraq at the top of her to-do list? 

Barack says his first priority is to end the war and bring home the troops.  This would help our economy because we would no longer need to borrow 3 billion dollars a day and require at least 3 billion dollars in foreign investments just to keep our economy from collapsing.  We could take down the "For Sale" sign that Bush 43, with the help of the Republican Conservatives,  PNAC, and The American Taliban,  has nailed to our flag, our Congress, our Senate, our White House, our Military our natural resources , our infrastructure, and the futures of our childrens, chldrens, childrens, childrens....

I believe, if you support Barack Obama, then, getting rid of the super delegates is the top priority for voters in America because this race is too close to call. Every vote will count.  The effect of the super delgate vote is significant and could override the will of the people.  Likewise, if you support Hillary and she wins the primay and the super delegates vote for Obama, Hillary will have been robbed and the will of the people will be overridden.

 Call the DNC: 202-863-8000 and ask to leave a msg for Governor Dean

or goto: 

http://www.democrats.org/page/petition/chairman

Tell Howard Dean what you think about super delagates and why they need to either not be counted or change the rules that govern super delegates whereby their votes must reflect the will of the people within the state they represent.  Super delegates have no business supporting the democratic machine polticians.  It's unethical and immoral.

 The end.

Forgive me the formatting problems.  At the first hyperlink it should read "super delegates".

 At the second hyperlink it should read "accepting euros"