Howard Dean is first.

add a $100 to every tax refund to e-filers with form 1040 E-Z

I use 1040, due to need to use schedule C, etc. and e-file that.

from Southern CA -- San Diego City Beat newspaper:

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/our_endorsements/6577/

...

By CityBeat Staff 01/22/2008

...

President—Democrat

Because we’re a liberal newspaper—and damn proud of it—we understandably feel much better about the Democratic contenders, especially after eight years in presidential hell. With any of them, we’d likely have a pro-union president who’d appoint a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court, favor diplomacy over a rush to war and halt the tax breaks for the country’s wealthiest citizens and focus on the other 90 percent of the citizenry.

All things being equal, we’d be tempted to endorse Dennis Kucinich, as we did four years ago; we agree with just about all of his positions. He’s the only candidate who’s entirely against the death penalty, he’s against the North American Free Trade Agreement, he’s for a single-payer nonprofit healthcare system, he’s against marginalizing immigrants and he’d get out of Iraq immediately. Sadly, though, all things aren’t equal, and Kucinich has no chance of winning. Hell, the gatekeepers won’t even let the man into the debates. That leaves us with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Clinton and Edwards are saying all the right things, in our view, as is the custom in presidential primary season, when Democratic candidates try to outflank each other from the left. We especially appreciated Edwards’ “two Americas” theme from the 2004 race, the gist of which he’s continued in the current campaign. Were he to lead with such a populist approach, we’d have ourselves a first-rate president.

But one thing continues to gnaw at us about both Clinton and Edwards: They voted in favor of giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. While Edwards’ expressed regret for his vote is nice, the fact remains that they knew in 2002 that the case for war was total bullshit. It’s clear to us that their votes were calibrated toward a presidential run; they were unwilling to risk a no vote on what was a foolhardy yet popular invasion. As a result, they’re part of a weak Democratic delegation that is partially responsible for the unnecessary deaths of nearly 4,000 American servicemen and women and the life-changing permanent physical and psychological injuries of tens of thousands more.

Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the Iraq vote came up, but, despite what Bill Clinton’s been saying lately, Obama’s position in 2002 was unambiguous: “I don’t oppose all wars,” he said. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

We admit it: We’re taken with Obama’s eloquence and his ability to inspire hope

...

Please go to Democratic Underground.com
Impeach Cheney News

Sign Wexler's letter etc. this effort is moving. Surprising new names signing on.

Another thing to add to the preznut's legacy, the Wall Street bloodbath.

The stakes have rarely been higher in a presidential election. The question is not if there will be change in American leadership, but what kind.

And the change that is being offered has a focus and intelligence that is kindred to the best American traditions. It is embodied by one candidate in the Democratic Party who is offering a reinvigorated America: Senator Barack Obama.

The New York Observer urges New York Democrats to support Mr. Obama in the state’s presidential primary on Feb. 5.

New Yorkers might ask why they should not pull a lever for our junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton. While Mrs. Clinton is an extraordinary United States senator for New York, we believe that Mr. Obama can be a great president for the United States of America.

http://www.observer.com/2008/february-5-obama

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a-vot_b_82842.html

Posted January 23, 2008 | 10:26 AM (EST)

Yesterday -- January 22, 2008 -- marked the 35th anniversary of the historic Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees a woman's right to choose an abortion. It was on this day that I felt particularly compelled to speak out about my experiences with Senator Barack Obama -- a man who should be honored, not condemned, for his consistent and unwavering support for reproductive freedom, women's health, gender equity and -- more broadly -- social justice.

...

I formerly worked for Planned Parenthood in Illinois. I had the honor of working with Senator Barack Obama during his tenure in the Illinois Senate. He was -- and remains -- adamant about his support for women's health and access to reproductive healthcare services. His present votes on abortion-related bills were part of a broader pro-choice strategy designed to ultimately defeat bad and dangerous legislation that would have compromised the health and safety of Illinois women. As Planned Parenthood's lobbyist in Illinois has said, Senator Obama was asked to facilitate a strategy designed to help provide cover for other Democrats. Specifically, Planned Parenthood turned to Senator Obama because of his strong record on reproductive rights. At the time, Republicans were trying to force Democrats from conservative districts to register politically controversial no votes. Senator Obama initially resisted the strategy, as he wanted to vote against the anti-abortion measures, but decided to work with our strategy to help defeat these anti-choice bills. It is important to note that a present vote on a bad bill is essentially the same as a "no" vote, as the bill needs "yes" votes to pass.

...

Senator Obama is 100% pro-choice and is a champion for women's health and equality. For these reasons -- and many more -- he is getting my vote this year.

Obama is raking in the endorsements. He now has endorsements from 16 "red states."

WASHINGTON (CNN) — South Carolina's largest newspaper endorsed Democrat Barack Obama Tuesday, hailing the Illinois senator's "unifying style of leadership."

In an editorial posted on its Web site Tuesday afternoon, The State's editoria

l board praised Obama for not using his rhetorical skills to demonize his rivals, and said he has the ability to win over independents and Republicans without "neglecting his core values."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/22/obama-gets-big-endorsement-in-south-carolina/

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
January 21, 2008

The global economic situation looks increasingly bad as we face a certain global depression primarily due to the insane monetary policies of the central bankers. The Federal Reserve is now attempting to bail out failing financial institutions by creating more money out of thin air. Some of the big banks are reporting losses greater than the assets they have on the books. Foreigners are also coming in and are buying up this nation’s infrastructure. It is a complete disaster. Amazingly, the Federal Reserve is indicating that they are likely to reduce interest rates again which will cause further value destruction of the U.S. Dollar. This combined with Bush’s so called economic stimulus package are phony solutions that will do nothing to stave off the coming economic calamity. In fact, the Federal Reserve is doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing if they sought a long term solution. A long term solution would involve strengthening the U.S. Dollar with a sound monetary policy. By devaluing the U.S. Dollar they are robbing the average American blind and most don’t even realize it. Much like the Great Depression, the international bankers are now preparing to consolidate more wealth through these irrational policies as an excuse to bring in regional currencies and regional governmental bodies. As a result, we remain bullish on gold, silver and other sound financial instruments in light of this economic tyranny. Expect short term volatility but in the long term expect gold, silver and commodities to rise in U.S. Dollar denominations.

San Diego City Beat endorses Obama.

But one thing continues to gnaw at us about both Clinton and Edwards: They voted in favor of giving Bush the authority to invade Iraq. While Edwards’ expressed regret for his vote is nice, the fact remains that they knew in 2002 that the case for war was total bullshit. It’s clear to us that their votes were calibrated toward a presidential run; they were unwilling to risk a no vote on what was a foolhardy yet popular invasion. As a result, they’re part of a weak Democratic delegation that is partially responsible for the unnecessary deaths of nearly 4,000 American servicemen and women and the life-changing permanent physical and psychological injuries of tens of thousands more.

Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the Iraq vote came up, but, despite what Bill Clinton’s been saying lately, Obama’s position in 2002 was unambiguous: “I don’t oppose all wars,” he said. “What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

We admit it: We’re taken with Obama’s eloquence and his ability to inspire hope—a product, perhaps, of listening to George W. Mumblemouth for the last eight years. Obama’s borrowing of the “better nature of our angels” theme from Abraham Lincoln strikes just the right chord. Lincoln uttered those words amid Civil War-era disharmony; Obama has resurrected them in an era when too many politicians act on behalf of party over country. As a recent essay in the Los Angeles Times noted, Obama’s talk of bridging the partisan chasm is rooted in this nation’s earliest documents and in the hearts of its Founding Fathers, who openly worried about the dangers of party politics. We’re heartened by Obama’s apparent appeal among independent-minded voters, who sense that if anyone can lead us down a path toward common ground—or at least unify lower- and middle-class Americans in a pushback against the wealthy elite—it’s the senator from Illinois.

One thing’s certain: We haven’t felt this good about a presidential candidate in—well, forever. Our enthusiastic endorsement is for Barack Obama.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/our_endorsements/6577/

Jeesh! What will I do with all that rebate money -- maybe fill up the gas tank once and go see an afternoon discounted movie.

Which reminds me, we finally had a chance to view Sicko on PPV. Michael Moore is impressive. If you haven't seen it, I found that buying it on PPV was $3.99. probably much less than the DVD .

Tim Roemer endorses Obama

WASHINGTON, DC -- Former U.S. Congressman and 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer today endorsed Barack Obama for President, citing his foreign policy judgment and his crossover appeal among independents and Republicans.
 
“Barack Obama has shown the right judgment and has the best plans to deal with the national security challenges facing America,” said Congressman Roemer. “He knows that 21st century threats can’t be met with conventional 20th century thinking. He rightly warned that Iraq would distract us from the fight in Afghanistan, and was focused on the threat from al Qaeda in Pakistan before it was in the headlines. His leadership and comprehensive approach to terrorism will carry out the full breadth of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, and restore America’s security and standing in the world.”
 
Congressman Roemer also noted that Obama is the Democrat with the most crossover appeal among independents and Republicans that is needed to win the White House and to build strong majorities in Congress. “Obama is the leader who can bring America together, and build a broad coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans across blue states and red states. That’s how Democrats are going to win both the White House and Congress in November, and that’s how we can finally make progress on the huge challenges we face.”
 
“In a dangerous world, Tim Roemer’s principled and pragmatic leadership has made America safer,” said Senator Obama. “His work in Congress and on the 9/11 Commission has helped us understand the threat of terrorism, and his tenacious advocacy for the Commissions’ recommendations has helped us confront it. Whether he is standing up for a world-class education for our children, or working to combat the threats of the 21st century, Congressman Roemer knows how to bring people together behind common sense solutions. I am grateful for his support, and look forward to his counsel.”
 
Roemer represented the Third District of Indiana in Congress from 1991-2003. He was known for his efforts to make higher education more affordable, to strengthen public education, to enhance America’s intelligence community, and to balance the budget.  Roemer was the key sponsor of legislation to establish the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the “9/11 Commission”), on which he then served. He is currently the President of the Center on National Policy in Washington, D.C

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog

Tim Roemer endorses Obama

...

Roemer represented the Third District of Indiana in Congress from 1991-2003.

...

+++

rae -

Well, we know that there's one high ranking Indiana resident who's supporting Obama.

WOOOOOOT!     

Let's hear it for the Corporations, not the people.

Markets »

Updated: 1:00 pm ET, January 23

-256.87

(-2.15%)

Dow 11,714.32

-76.62

(-3.34%)

Nasdaq 2,215.65

-32.48

(-2.48%)

S&P 1,278.02



Quick Vote



Can an economic stimulus package head off a recession?

Yes 26% 7613

No 74% 22061

Total Votes: 29674

 

13. 

Joan 

Jeesh! What will I do with all that rebate money -- maybe fill up the gas tank once and go see an afternoon discounted movie.

Ya think!! 

=chuckle=

Tim Roemer endorses Obama

...

Roemer represented the Third District of Indiana in Congress from 1991-2003.

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

I know Tim Roemer. He was my Congressperson before the current Bluedog. Centrist to the core. Conservative on social issues, was a member of the 9/11 Commission. He is a great guy with a doctorate in poli sci from Notre Dame.

But he is a co-founder of the New Dems in Congress, a DLC Congressional organization. Very much like Evan Bayh. That tells you something. Good for Obama..,.but Clinton is not well-regarded here and Edwards is far too progressive for someone like Roemer to endorse.

I feel better about Indiana and it's residents already.

Progressive reforms never start in the center. The political center is focused on maintaining the status quo and on gaining incremental reforms, building super-majority to back policies that border on mush.

True progressive reform starts on the edges, taking on the powers that be, challenging the status quo, building a majority focused around progressive principles. It is less about appealing to unity (with an opposition that is regressive and reactionary) and more about building out from core principles to create policies that spring from those rather than altering policy in a "kitchen sink" manner.

Perhaps Obama will bring progressive reform. But Roemer's endorsement and that of others are not good signs.

Not surprising. Your views always tend toward "centrist" rather than progressive. Roemer is a DLC-type so I guess you have exposed your views for all to see.

Indy wrote "Edwards is far too progressive for someone like Roemer to endorse."

From the language of the endorsement, it sounds more as if Edwards' sense of judgment in foreign policy matters is too suspect for Roemer to endorse him. 

"Diamonds Are Forever" ?  --

foreign investment returns (this time, the interntions are, with more controls in place and with more equitable distributions of the proceeds from diamond extraction) :

http://www.nationaljewelernetwork.com/njn/content_display/diamonds/e3ia9be1b78b3cdc76e381371bb9d7cef9e?imw=Y

IDI meets with new Sierra Leone president
 

January 22, 2008

Freetown, Sierra Leone—The Israel Diamond Institute (IDI) continued its global-outreach mission last week, when IDI Managing Director Eli Avidar met with the newly elected president of the now-peaceful Sierra Leone.

The meeting between Avidar and Dr. Ernest Bai Koroma took place in Freetown, the country's capital.

Avidar invited Koroma to be a keynote speaker at the Third International Rough Diamond Conference, scheduled for Feb. 11-12 in Tel Aviv, Israel.

...

The president and Avidar also discussed Sierra Leone's efforts to help its people benefit from diamonds.

Koroma was voted into office during the country's most recent elections in September. According to the IDI, it was a "peaceful transfer of power" that "serves as a model of democracy much appreciated by the international community."

...

Indy wrote "Roemer is a DLC-type so I guess [rdorgan] have exposed your views for all to see."

For a DLC type, Roemer has proven himself to be a faithless follower, since he had to overlook an actual DLC officer and a former enlistee to select a candidate to endorse.

funny that ?  in South Carolina, the progressive Edwards is attractive to:  "Edwards led Obama among Republicans" --

go figure, Edwards backed by republicans  :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080123/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc_1

Obama leads Clinton in South Carolina: poll

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

Wed Jan 23, 1:11 AM ET

...

The economy was listed as the top issue among South Carolina voters, by 49 percent, with the war in Iraq second at 24 percent.

Obama led consistently among almost all sub-groups, including men, women, liberals, conservatives, young voters, low-income voters, high-income voters and union households.

Clinton edged Obama out among the oldest voters, above age 70, usually her greatest strength. Edwards led Obama among Republicans.

...

Tom Bearse
Wed, 01/23/08

Spin it the way you want. Roemer is a DLC supporter and co-founder of their New Dem Congressional counterpart. There is noone closer to their principles and belief in moving the Dem party further right (in his view, closer to the "center") than Tim. I like Roemer but I'm not under any illusions.

He and good friend, Evan Bayh are core DLC supporters. You cannot refute that. People here can put that into context.

BTW, I am NOT saying Obama is DLC. But if his core supporters and endorsers start to be DLC, the "conversion" is underway. Will Obama succumb in pursuit of victory?

at least Indiana's Roemer does not cop out when faced with racism

Indy wrote "Roemer is a DLC supporter and co-founder of their New Dem Congressional counterpart."

Then what is obvious to most people is that whether the person he endorsed had any sympathies towards the DLC agenda played no part in his endorsement, because he overlooked the two candidates who would have been more suitable under that criterion.

The DLC and New Dems represent an alternative view about how to "restore" Dem majorities.  That is fine. They even call themselves "progressive" and their "research institiute" is called the progressive policy institute.

 But it is directly opposed to what DFA and the netroots progressive movement is all about. The DLC is all about cozying up to corporate powers and keeping the "game" going, They are about moving the Dem party to the right, especially on foreign policy. THey are invariably hawks on defense and foreign policy.

So just put in perspective what it might mean for someone like Roemer (who is a great guy personally) means. The center-right is making its move.

current polling in South Carolina has:

Edwards led Obama among Republicans.

zounds, that sure don't fit

The key thing to watch for is IF Obama wins the next few and gains on Clinton, will the DLC start making favorable "noises" toward his candidacy. They will move to influence and coopt his message. He is much closer to their view than Edwards and, in some ways, than CLinton.

Watch for it.

I always enjoy the novel theory that a public figure who issues an endorsement expressly does so because he or she sees in the candidate whatever any of us see in the person endorsing.  Correspondingly, as the theory goes, the person endorsed will now bend his or her behavior in some way to gratify the endorser. 

That's why Edwards doesn't suffer any reputation by association and appears not to be influenced to people who favor this theory:  No one will endorse him.

Indy wrote "The DLC is all about cozying up to corporate powers and keeping the 'game' going, They are about moving the Dem party to the right, especially on foreign policy."

How fascinating.  Have they endorsed anyone?

32.

Roger, over and out !

* rdorgan
Wed, 01/23/08

Link? Edwards' message on economics and trade is much more appealing to working class Republicans in the south than we understand. I don't see this as odd at all.

That and perhaps the racism which I was only pointing out as a hidden factor we need to discuss and deal with in this election. Go ahead, hide your head in the sand and go down to defeat if you like.

36.

Indy Steve -

Reading is fundamental -- I already gave you the link and didn't feel I had to repeat myself with the link in comment # 31, but here again it is:

21.  

funny that ?  in South Carolina, the progressive Edwards is attractive to:  "Edwards led Obama among Republicans" --

go figure, Edwards backed by republicans  :

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080123/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc_1

Obama leads Clinton in South Carolina: poll

By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent

Wed Jan 23, 1:11 AM ET

...

The economy was listed as the top issue among South Carolina voters, by 49 percent, with the war in Iraq second at 24 percent.

Obama led consistently among almost all sub-groups, including men, women, liberals, conservatives, young voters, low-income voters, high-income voters and union households.

Clinton edged Obama out among the oldest voters, above age 70, usually her greatest strength. Edwards led Obama among Republicans.

...

Interesting catch of the day. From the DLC. From March, 2003 when Obama was still a State Senator. How prescient they were!!

Background: Law professor; civil rights attorney; former director of Project VOTE.

Why I got into public service: Throughout college, I was inspired by the work of civil rights organizers in the 1950s and 1960s. My first job out of college was as a community organizer in low-income neighborhoods in Chicago, where I learned that ordinary people can do extraordinary things when they work together. My law practice, and my political career, is an expression of that continued conviction.

Top Issue: A fiscally sound and efficient program to deliver universal health care to all Americans and a high quality education, from pre-school to college, for all of America's children.

#1 Rule of Politics: You can compromise on strategy and tactics, but not on principles.

First Job: Server at Baskin-Robbins.

Indy wrote "That and perhaps the racism which I was only pointing out as a hidden factor we need to discuss and deal with in this election."

If your theory about Roemer holds water, we are to conclude that a racist who endorses Edwards as the white male candidate in the field, does so because the endorser is attracted to Edwards' racist tendencies and will rely on him to help advance a racist agenda.

The DLC is all about winning elections...period.
So they get money, form think tanks and go for the center. It worked for Bubba, who couldn't govern worth a damn or build a lasting Democratic presense. Dems lose becaue Repubs are better then Dems at this game. If Dems want to win and have a lasting victory, they need to invent a new game and kick out the influence pedlers.
There are two parties but only one Establishment; they all feed at the same trough.

36.

Indy Steve
Wed, 01/23/08

...

Go ahead, hide your head in the sand and go down to defeat if you like.

+++

You in essence calling me an ostrich ?  an ostrich ?

Jeez, I'd much rather be a eagle (I'd have my image on the backs of all those shiny quarters).

* rdorgan
Wed, 01/23/08

Politics is nonlinear. That is why a progressive views can appeal across the spectrum without having to "move right" to attract more voters. It is what DFA and other orgs are based on and why the "centrist" view is unappealing.

The idea that Dems can define its progressive values and principles which can appeal to people across the linear spectrum rather than "move right" or "capture the center" is a paradigm-breaking approach. Read more about what Lakoff calls bi-conceptualism.

Which side are you on, Rdorgan, which side are you on?

Tom Bearse
Wed, 01/23/08

You aren't even making sense in your attempt to spin this to outrageous conclusions.

The "racist" who wouldn't vote for Obama votes for Edwards because he is white, and because his/her racist views overwhelm everything else. Edwards is white, I'll vote for him.

It has nothing to do with Edwards' beliefs or even that Edwards repeatedley says "don't vote for me just because I'm white". Edwards has done all he could to discourage that vote.

But, yet, racists exist and they even vote on the basis of racism. We should deal with it rather than deny it.

flora and fauna --

-- ah, life sciences (brings back all those high school biology, chemistry classes)

memories

dog soldier
Wed, 01/23/08

Agree, dog. But we are about winning too. Just not willing to pay the cost by sacrificing everything to do it. We need to find a third way or we'll just continue to run for symbolic purposes.

Indy wrote "Interesting catch of the day. From the DLC. From March, 2003 when Obama was still a State Senator. How prescient they were!!"

You are like the fattest pigeon in the square.  This action by the DLC was exposed as a complete fraud, both here and in a myriad of other sources, when it came to light after Obama's election.  I'll help supplement your research by quoting from Ari Berman's article in the Nation:

"'Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago,' Obama wrote. 'I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform.' After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC."

39.

Tom Bearse
Wed, 01/23/08

You aren't even making sense in your attempt to spin this to outrageous conclusions.

The "racist" who wouldn't vote for Obama votes for Edwards because he is white, and because his/her racist views overwhelm everything else. Edwards is white, I'll vote for him.

...

+++

Golly jeez, I'm a white male.  Am I'm supposed to vote for the white guy ?

(being a republican voter this year is so much easier -- gosh their's only one white guy left standing on the dem side, what's a white dem voter guy to do ?)

Indy wrote "It has nothing to do with Edwards' beliefs or even that Edwards repeatedley says 'don't vote for me just because I'm white'."

So you're saying that Roemer's endorsement may be in spite of the fact that Obama doesn't belong to the DLC, isn't endorsed by the DLC, and doesn't subscribe to the agenda of the DLC, right? 

Indy,
I like Obama's method of an overarching theme with particulars that mesh with what he wants to do. We all want pretty much think same thing but there has to be a method to the madness. I like Obama's method; not necessarily all of his policies and actions. But we can say that about all of them.

* rdorgan
Wed, 01/23/08

You're not racist. Unlike you and Tom, I don't throw that term around inaccurately or loosely. It loses it's very potent meaning if you do that.

But if you talk to someone who is prejudiced, you understand how it influences them. If there is anything to do about it, we should discuss it. But you would rather just joke around and hurl insults.

For all lurkers, this represents Day 2 of Indy Steve's fainting praise for Obama of basically (I'm ad-libbing here Steve's logic) :

Obama ?

Nice guy and all but his race makes him totally unelectable (unless Obama of course steps out of the prez race, assumes a vice-presidential candidate role under Edwards, and then when the duo reach the White House in 1/21/09, the inexperienced Obama dutifully learns under the tutelage of Edwards, how to be presidential -- just in time for Obama to run for president in 2016)

Indy wrote "Unlike you and Tom, I don't throw that term around inaccurately or loosely."

How is it exactly that you think I threw around the term?