TJ at Loaded Orygun has been doing some great work gettig to the bottom of the 2002 Klamath River fish kill, an incident that recently gained more prominence when a recent Washington Post article detailed the influence of Vice President Fourthbranch in the decisionmaking process.
TJ has been filing Freedom of Information Act requests to determine what the level of involvement was for political officials in the region. Most of his findings concern Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) and his inserting himself into the scientific debate over whether to hold water for river salmon and attempting to influence it on the behalf of self-interested farmers who wanted that water for irrigation.
But a California congressman also figured into this issue: Rep. Wally Herger of CA-02. The “pages” in the blockquoted text that proceeds refer to TJ’s FOIA page request.
(over)
The last item on page one is a two-fer with Greg Walden to a “Science Advisor” in 2002, recommending “immediate review of study known as Hardy Study re Klamath River.” The Hardy Phase II report was a set of flow measurement models that formed the basis of the federal biologists’ opinion protecting the fish. Here you have two Members of Congress attempting to impugn the best available science, because they don’t like what it says […]
On page two we see the precursor to the last item on page one–a complaint from Smith, Walden and Wally Herger (R-CA2) sharing their “concern” about the Hardy study, amazingly all the way back to February 7, 2001. The summary isn’t shy about the topic of the conversation. The authors
“question its science, credibility and the fact that our constituents (ie water users) have been excluded. Ask for an immediate suspension of the Hardy Study pending a complete review, audit by the IG, and scientific peer review.”
This is an ongoing investigation on the citizen journalism model. I’m anxious to see just how involved Herger has been in this environmental, ecological and economic disaster.
The California netroots has been gung-ho on Brown as of last year, though McNerney’s ultimately victorious effort against the odious Richard Pombo in CA-11 grabbed the lion’s share of attention.
I’d say this underestimates the support in the CA blogosphere as of this year.
Markos (who is a member of the CA netroots) is giving Brown front page love and the Blue Majority actblue page already has hundreds of donors. Lots of love too at the Blue America page (run by two Californians: Howie Klein and John Amato, along with retired Californian Jane Hamsher).
The California netroots have already put together real world fundraisers this year for Brown in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. In fact, Brown has over 1,000 donors across actblue.
Brown was a huge hit with the netroots at the CA Democratic Party convention in April, with Kossacks at the June YearlyKos fundraiser, and an equally huge hit with the Californians at Yearly Kos. At all events, it was remarkable to see how many activists are on a first-name basis with the candidate. This breadth and depth of support helped Brown win DFA’s first Grassroots Allstar endorsement.
In short, I’d say we’ve been pretty gung-ho this year (and are only looking to escalate).
Price gouging in a time of crisis is depressingly normal, and it’s no different in California.
By the time a state budget is passed, Janet Rios will be at least $4,000 poorer. That’s the 19% in interest Rios says she must pay on loans to keep her two nursing homes afloat until lawmakers can agree on a spending plan.
Rios would seem to be a welcome client for any bank. The state pays her to take care of the elderly, and once the budget impasse is broken she’ll get a bundle of money that has been delayed. She just needed emergency funds in the meantime to pay the Stockton homes’ bills.
The state offered to guarantee the money in a letter she could take to her bank, Wells Fargo. But “they said that is not an acceptable thing to base a loan on,” she said, and classified her as a high risk, with an interest rate to match on two $100,000 lines of credit.
The state won’t reimburse her for the interest.
That sounds like ready-made legislation that would make a difference and a point, IMO. Good people who run nursing homes or childcare centers or health clinics are being taken to the cleaners by a bunch of opportunists, at a time when the credibility of the lending industry is at a low ebb. Indeed, the credit crunch that has roiled global financial markets is all the more reason not to penalize those forced into finding financing through no reasons of their own. And the Republicans in the Senate are enabling this theft.
by Randy Bayne The Bayne of Blog
Thanks to my friend Judy for suggesting this x-post.
Congressman Dan Lungren (CA-3) held a town hall meeting in Jackson on Saturday. He came to talk to Amador Co. residents about four issues, immigration, Iraq, spending and earmarks. Most of the two hours was spent on immigration, with few local issues being addressed. As a matter of fact, Lungren seemed disturbed that these constituents would bother him with anything local. He certainly didn’t want the audience driving the conversation off his pre-determined course.
He entered the auditorium at Jackson City Hall barely noticed, shook a couple hands, and headed straight for the donuts.
After an introduction by Amador Co. Sheriff Martin Ryan in which he received so much praise it simply had to be phony, Lungren took center stage and started into an explanation of the role of the California Attorney General, an office he used to hold. It felt like he was trying to waste time so he wouldn’t have to face too many questions.
Before questions from constituents, Lungren talked about four issues that he says generate the most mail to his office – immigration, Iraq, federal spending and earmarks.
“Congress and the President got it wrong,” says Lungren, when they debated immigration legislation earlier this year. In one the few criticisms of President Bush that I’ve heard come from the Congressman, Lungren said he, “lead with his heart rather than his head.” Something I had to laugh at for two obvious reasons; heart and head.
He went on to say that what we need is to finish building a wall around the U.S. to keep people out, using contracted labor, rather than federal employees, of course. We also need to allow people in from Mexico to do our dirty work through a guest worker program, and keep people from claiming citizenship just because they were born here.
Iraq
Lungren continues to insist on calling the occupation in Iraq a “war,” and insisting that we cannot leave until the country is stabilized. When will the occupation supporter realize that we are the reason the country is unstable? Probably never, since he also said the military in Iraq is “being successful.”
Of course, he couldn’t resist playing the “we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here” fear card.
“I’m going to be guided tremendously by what he says,” said Lungren referring to General David Petraeus.
Lungren brushed by this subject rather quickly after blaming Katrina and the bridge collapse in Minneapolis on local governments not spending enough. He indicated that the federal government is not responsible for local infrastructure.
He also mentioned SCHIP, the federal program to provide health insurance to children. Claiming it “goes to far” he opposes reauthorization. The problem he has with it, he says, is that it covers too many people. According to Lungren only the very old and the very young are deserving of health care.
Apparently, in Lungren’s world, the only responsibility of the federal government is to build walls and occupy sovereign nations.
Earmarks
People of the 3rd Congressional District shouldn’t expect any help from their congressman when it comes to bringing needed programs and money to our district. He clearly is against helping his home district if it brings no benefit to people in other parts of the country. Just who is he representing?
When asked about federal help for a Community College in Amador Co., Lungren told the questioner that Amador Co. hasn’t shown a need for a Community College. That was rather insulting if you ask me.
He said his “earmarks have to do with transportation and show a federal nexus.”
One of the most interesting parts of the morning was a question from a woman about the amount of money being spent in Iraq and what we could accomplish at home if we weren’t spending it on a failing foreign policy. Lungren avoided an answer by returning to his previous statement about stabilization, and once again playing the fear card.
I came away from the town hall with the realization of just how badly we need further change in Congress. Democrats have been sorely disappointed by their representatives who have capitulated and followed the Republican lead on some issues, but we cannot abandon the success we have achieved, and we cannot allow Republicans to regain a foot hold on power. As disappointed as I am in many of our legislators at the federal level, I have to look beyond what they have done in the short term and look toward the long term.
Defeating Republicans like Richard Pombo and, in this next election John Doolittle, is relatively easy. They are certifiably corrupt and have plenty of dirt to use against them, making it easier to attack them on the issues. Besides, no one likes them.
Defeating the Lungrens of the world is much more difficult. Without the corruption, the battle is solely formed around ideology and issues, and is much more difficult to win. Lungren is immensely popular in his district, and that is difficult for a challenger to overcome even if he wrong on the issues. Unfortunately, too much of American politics is about popularity rather than substance.
We need to keep strong Democrats in Congress, and it is imperative that we rid ourselves of Congress persons that espouse policies similar to Lungren’s. Challengers to Lungren have not surfaced yet. There has been some talk, some names mentioned, but so far no one has stepped forward. That could change as early as tomorrow. I will keep you posted.
As the budget crisis continues, over what is likely tangential issues (non-budgetary environmental laws are thought to be the culprit), many people have suggested we dump the 2/3 requirement. Notably John Diaz of the SF Chronicle, Asm. Mark Leno , and Speaker Fabian Nunez have both come out in favor of eliminating the 2/3 requirement in the budget process. But, those are people that you’d expect to say that kind of thing. You’d expect them to prefer a majority rule process.
But in George Skelton’s latest column, the Governator suggests that he might be interested in supporting a majority rule system.
“Yes, we have had this mess, as you know, for decades,” Schwarzenegger replied. “I think that everyone now has come to the conclusion — all the leaders — that we must work, as soon as the budget is over, on a system that allows us to have a budget on time.
“If that means we should go and shoot for, as some suggested, a simple majority to pass the budget rather than a two-thirds vote, maybe that’s the solution.” (LA Times 8/20/2007)
Flip it…
Of course, if he actually supported such an amendment, one would expect all out-war between Schwarzenegger and the rank-and-file GOP. As it stands, the budget process is all that keeps the GOP from complete irrelevance in this state. They would fight such a proposal tooth and nail. And, oh yeah, they have a great tag line, “Democrats will raise your taxes.” It may or may not be true, but veracity was never a make-or-break thing with the Republicans. It’s harder to air the rebuttal, that if we continue this F’d up process everybody loses. That’s harder to get through to typical voter, who, by the way, is 72% white in this majority minority state.
So, perhaps we needed the budget debacle, and perhaps the extended delay will help. But, if that is to be the case, maybe we should be pushing to get this on the ballot as soon as possible to keep the obstruction from the “Gang of 14” fresh in the voters’ minds.
Skelton also lays out the reason why we need to eliminate the 2/3 rule all-together, not just in the budget, but also in taxation:
That typical thinking assumes the two-thirds vote requirement for a tax hike also would be scrubbed. It should be. Lawmakers illogically are allowed to cut taxes with a majority vote but need two-thirds to raise them. The state can go bankrupt just as fast lowering taxes as it can increasing spending, and proved that during the Davis days. (LA Times 8/20/2007)
It’s certainly time to repeal the anti-democracy provisions of the 2/3 requirements, but we all know that. But how to get from here to there is a tough question. But perhaps this Governator could be useful for something after all.
August 27-28, 2007 – Cancer Forum, Cedar Rapids, IA (MSNBC & Live Streaming)
September 9, 2007 – Univision Forum (Spanish)
September 26, 2007 – Hanover, New Hampshire
October 30, 2007 – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
November 15, 2007 – Las Vegas, Nevada
December 10, 2007 – Los Angeles, California
January 6, 2008 – Johnson County, Iowa
January 15, 2008 – Las Vegas, Nevada
January 31, 2008 – California
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly….
he’s only human, guys….let’s go….
missed the debate, Sunday, August 19th in Iowa? replay on C-Span, 6:30 & 9:30 PM ET/PT
thanks, lovingj
Obama Appearances
August 22, 2007 – KICKOFF, Brooklyn, NY
August 23, 2007 – Conway, SC
August 24, 2007 – KICKOFF, Tallahassee, FL
August 26, 2007 – KICKOFF, Lexington, KY
Democrats Questioning Clinton’s Electablity, Is She a Drag?
Are we surprised? No. But now what was being discussed “privately” is now being discussed “openly”. That is, does she have “coattails”? Many think she does not and will be a drag on the other congressional, senate races. Especially in tough districts and swing states. This has many insider, state officials and activists, democrats, uneasy. Simply, many do not like her negatives, which they feel is a huge problem. Even Karl Rove jumped in on this one. I never cared for his type of divisive politics, but you can not side step the man as an analyst, genious even, when it comes to political strategy. Remember, he got Bush in there not once, but twice. He made a statement, whether you like the man or not, that is true: “She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll,” he said. “It just says people have made an opinion about her. It’s hard to change opinions once you’ve been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years.”
Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party’s standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
“I’m not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag” on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
“The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she’s so damn unpopular,” said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. “I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn’t.”
“Republicans are upset with their candidates,” Arnold added, “but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls.”
Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take Years
I don’t like this, one iota. Here we have, what, three candidates that voted for this war running for president and we are suppose to think this is alright? In fact, they are part of the reason we are in the “quagmire” or “messed up situation”, that we are in now. But they want us to trust their judgement. No, this makes me even MORE SKEPTICAL, of them all.
Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.
These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict – however much it appeals to primary voters – oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.
Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!” more
First, Politician on the cover ofGQ Magazine, in 15 Years
Camp Obama in Missouri
One unique thing about the Barack Obama Campaign is their training for GOTV in this campaign. His Camp Obama, has been staffed and full since the conception in Chicago, and now he is going nationwide. But the thing about this is that these supporters are committed. Many a first campaign. For me. The more the merrier, because we need the young to move the party. This is just the beginning.
It’s been about 100 degrees here this weekend in muggy St. Louis, so perhaps it’s fortunate that the Camp Obama campground was actually a nicely air-conditioned function room in the basement of the Missouri Historical Museum. For the past two days, more than 60 ardent supporters of Barack Obama have huddled here to learn how they can put their passion to use.
It’s been more boot camp than summer camp: Yesterday’s session was a 12-hour marathon. Participants learned how to canvass. They learned how to raise money by throwing house parties in their neighborhoods. They learned how the Iowa caucus works. They learned how to use the press. They learned how to talk on people’s doorsteps about Obama’s policy positions.
“You are our base,” Patrick Green, a local official who is supporting Obama, told the group. “You are our foot soldiers.”
Indeed, a lot is expected from these groups of volunteers, who are being carefully groomed around the country by Obama’s campaign. The strength of Obama’s grass-roots network has mostly been measured by his many campaign contributors — nearly 260,000 people through June. But Camp Obama shows that his base of volunteers is big and growing, a force that his campaign hopes will make the difference by the time the primaries begin next year. more
Interesting, I was looking at the list of primary dates for 2008. I am not going to get into IA, NH, NV, SC, that is just all over the place. But the other states on February 5th. Which coincides with what I wrote above about the Obama Campaign and the national training that the Obama Camp is doing. Here are the following states for February 5th:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas. Utah
Obama Campaign has huge grassroot support and going onto the campuses to get many trained for states with caucuses. I have worked on campaigns, and many you have to drag folk to participate in the process, this campaign, is not that kind at all.
Michelle Obama says stop with the is he “Black Enough”, and total ditto from me. Why is the question even out there? Is anyone asking Clinton is she “Woman Enough”, or Richardson is he “Mexican Enough”, and if they are getting the same questions, again WHY? All the African Americans, I know, and I know a plenty, are not even asking about this. Why? Because we can see he is Black and that is enough, NEXT. The questions we are asking is on the issues, where does he stand with the war, healthcare, education (huge issue in the African American communities), crime (another big one). So, if the media is wondering if he is black enough, that is one YOU. We can see, hopefully, you can, too.
…So it was left to our imagination here the other night inside the Ironwood Country Club, with Mr. Buffett standing at the front of the room, when the first question rang out from the crowd of Democrats who were gathering for a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama.
“Why you and not Mrs. Clinton?” a man standing near the side of the room asked.
“Boy,” Mr. Obama replied with a grin, “you really get to the point.”
Mr. Buffett, the wise sage of money and finance, had a far broader smile on his face. He, of course, doesn’t have to answer the question. He has contributed to both candidates, held fund-raisers for both candidates and offered advice to both candidates.
And in the Clinton-Obama contest, he has no intention of taking sides until the race is over. While the billionaire investor knows a growth stock when he sees one, he is also prone to invest in the traditional product. Even more, he knows better than to get entangled in a political brawl. NY Times
From an Obama Supporter, Keep it Nice Well, can you? You just can not sit by and let your opponents, state whatever they wish, nor smear you. I totally, understand this supporter’s sentiment, but Obama is correct, because basically, “this ain’t gonna be won on tea & crumpets”, u dig?
Maggie North of Claremont told Obama he risks becoming part of the usual political scene if he keeps being drawn into well-publicized disputes with rivals. He and chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have jabbed at each other over foreign policy, the war on terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons.
“You can be it,” North said at a small gathering at a Hanover restaurant Monday morning that drew eight people. “But you’ve got to stop excuse me for being blunt you’ve got to stop getting involved in the way people are fighting each other, chewing you up a little more.”
“That’s what you do when you run for president,” Obama responded, getting a laugh.
At the conference of the National Association of Black Journalists in Las Vegas last week, Obama continued to defend his earlier call for unilateral American action in Pakistan but said he opposed using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. “I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,” he told the Associated Press.
Clinton responded: “Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.”
It didn’t take long for the AP to catch Clinton in a reversal, reporting that she had disavowed the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in April 2006. “I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” she told Bloomberg Television, referring to reports that the Bush administration might be contemplating such a strike. “This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of a nuclear age,” she said. “I think that’s a terrible mistake.”
Clinton’s spokesmen lamely defended her April 2006 statements, insisting that they are not inconsistent because they are not hypotheticals about foreign policy and deterrence but specific responses to a policy option. The campaign was quick to cast Obama as too inexperienced to be commander in chief.
Well, I’ll take that inexperience, if that’s what you want to call it. more
Obama on Karl Rove:
Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory. But to build a new kind of politics, it will take more than the departure of a man or even an Administration that constructed the old -it will take a movement of everyday Americans committed to changing Washington and reclaiming their government. Link
Check out the new tool from the Obama Web Site. It is the My.Barack Obama Action Center. It is giving you tools as to what to do in organization, every two weeks until the primaries. The first event is a nationwide barbeque, August 25, 2007. All the information is here. The Obama Campaign has been extremely successful in not only having a large donor base, but foot soliders to boot. I will definately be at one of these events. Find one near you, links above. Let’s do this!!!!
So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?
Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.
In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.
We know the Republican are not going to do anything about Healthcare. Healthcare Accounts, Anyone?
There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.
Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.
We must commend John Edwards for being the first and forcing other candidates to put a UHC on the table.
Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Edwards or Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.
For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Clinton said about health care in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”
I did not know that Clinton did not have a total plan, so why is she talking in a vacumn? But, why wait until term two before even addressing the healthcare crisis in this country?
On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: “Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president.” But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.
And even if you believe Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits? more
This answers everything for me. Clinton made it crystal clear that she is not going to stop taking monies from lobbyists. And it is clear the lobbyists are backing the “horse” who will have the “least affect” in “business as usual”. We need change.
How many children does Barack Obama have? In what foreign country did he live as a boy and why did the senator from Illinois decide to run for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president?
The trivia quiz is designed to introduce the first term senator and White House hopeful to American voters in places like Grinnell, tucked away in central Iowa, the state that holds the first contest of the 2008 presidential election.
Some questions were answered easily by Democratic activists crammed into a coffee shop on Friday morning. They yelled out that Obama and his wife Michelle have two daughters and that he lived in Indonesia when he was growing up.
But even some diehard supporters appear stumped by a few questions, like why Obama decided to run for president. more
As we predicted this morning, this Obama statement yesterday regarding Afghanistan — “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there” — drew a response from the Republicans. “It is hard to imagine that anyone who aspires to be commander-in-chief would say such a thing about our brave men and women in uniform,” RNC chairman Mike Duncan said today in a statement. “Obama owes our armed forces an apology — today.”
Yes, the Republicans were up in arms of over Obama’s statement. Boy, isn’t this just “fascinating”, the Republican must really love them some “Obama”, becuase they just can’t quite, keep from not talking about him!! Anyway, proved that the statement/comment was on point and factual from Obama:
THE SPIN:
The suggestion whispered by Obama’s opponents was that he was maligning the efforts of troops fighting in Afghanistan by stating they are “just” out there killing civilians.
THE FACT CHECK:
A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.
The U.S. and NATO say they don’t have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify.
As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can’t be attributed to one party.
Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. ‘More Effectively’ Than Clinton
This is coming down to two decisively different themes, “throwback times” and “moving, change times”. Throwback to the Clinton Dynasty. Which, I will be the first to claim was a good time for me. The technology times were booming, can we say “venture capitalist monies”? But it was hard times, too. We lost the house after holding it since 1954. Bill Clinton governed from the center leaning right, after loosing congress. Welfare Reform came upon us, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (can we get rid of that), NAFTA to name a few. And the infamous impeachment theatrics from the Republicans. Bringing and heightening personal behaviour from behind the curtains, to full view on stage, to the American pubic. Totally, distasteful and exhausting, I am confident to write, we all were glad Mr. Clinton was not impeached, and glad that the Clintons were leaving the White House.
Now after the Bush Beating that this country has had, really from September 1, 2001, until now “change” is the word that many want. But how much change? The feeling for many is that we must move forward, many feel that Americans must become more involved in the government, which means that this presidential campaign will be scrutinized by many.
Currently, the national polls show Clinton in the front, which at this state I do believe it is more name recognition. Why? If anyone goes to a state and campaign continously as Clinton, Edwards and Obama is doing in Iowa, of course, the polling numbers are close. And they are. But if you are not out there with ads up, not campaigning, and a pollster call you, the only name you will be familiar with or know, is the one with name recognition. I state this because much of the country are not engaged as us, “political junkies”. Yes, they may hear a poll number here or there, but go to your local “bar”, bowling lane, family picnic, people are not engaged, yet. Which is why you see the early state polling, drastically different from the national polling, and I am not surprised.
Obama wraps it up, about what the distinct differences are for me: “All the people who were on that stage in Chicago talking about their experience and criticizing me for the lack of it were the same people who went along and displayed incredibly poor judgment in going along with a war that I think has been a disaster.”
Judgment vs. Experience, or the “throwback years” vs. “real change”. That will be up to us come January.
Obama and Ads
The Obama campaign has produced a second ad targeted to a minority audience stressing his Christianity, on Tuesday releasing a Spanish language radio spot to run in Nevada, one of the early presidential vote states. Why the emphasis on Obama’s Christianity? Is there a worry that in some precincts there is confusion about his faith because of the Islamic heritage of his father and stepfather?
The Nevada Spanish language spot: A narrator says, “Let us tell you Barack Obama is a Christian man committed to our community, his wife and his daughters,” according to the English translation provided by the Obama campaign.
A July ad aimed at African Americans in South Carolina, another early primary state: A narrator says, “It’s Barack Obama time. A Christian family man, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, courageous legislator, and U.S. senator who’s told the truth as a soldier for justice.” more
America can overcome petty politics that are bogging down the nation’s world standing, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said here this morning.
“Part of what ordinary Americans talk to me about every single day is their hope and their desire to overcome the polarization and the pettiness and the trivialization,” Obama told a crowd of about 75 people at Saints Rest Coffee House. He said it’s “still possible for us to come together around a sense of common purpose, higher purpose.”
It was the second time Elizabeth Yang, a recent Grinnell University graduate, had attended an Obama event. She’s still considering other Democratic candidates.
“I’m not really sure if I’m going to vote for him but I’m definitely in support of a lot of his policies” such as his stand against the Iraq war and goal to create universal health care, Yang said. Des Moines Register
Below is a video and is a must watch, because this is what we have KNOWN but pundits are just catching up to. Obama is getting better in these debates and the public is/has caught onto Hillary Clinton and her non-answers. Another “key” that came out of this is that the democrats do not like these candidates “ganging up” on Obama, they stated SO. And many were disappointed in Clinton, too cold, scripted, and they have, again, caught onto her “not answering questions”.
icebergslim’s last word: Obama and Debates or Forums or Whatever
On the blogs was an ongoing tether about the Obama Campaign taking a stand and limiting any forums and debates, henceforth. Noted from David Plouffe, that Obama has participated in seven debates and nineteen forums.
I was not shocked, nor surprised. It is not like these debates are #1 in the Nielsen Ratings, nor that the public is paying attention and watching. Case and point, this debate at Drake University, at 8am-ish today, who made sure they were up watching this one? I was not. If I had not TIVO’d it, I would be watching it on C-Span, later today. My point is this, “are we learning anything new, different?” Not much. Yes, some candidates are better at some debates than other. Yes, all these debates, forums get candidates more honed in on answering questions in this format. But as far as information, there is none. Not when you have eight candidates on the stage, with limited time, at that.
So, I cruised the news on the net and found a write up from Time Magazine:
Like all the leading campaigns, Obama’s team has felt some frustration at having their schedules tied up by the debates and forums already held. They have had to share the stage in those events with six or seven other candidates, allowing the candidates only a limited period to make an impression. The campaign of Obama’s chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, has also been frustrated by the time-consuming, low-impact debates, but declined to comment publicly on the announcement. Democratic sources say that there have been long-running informal talks about the course of the debates between the Clinton and Obama camps, sometimes also including representatives of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the other leading contender for the nomination. But these sources say that no unified position on the invitations emerged, and Obama’s campaign decided to move unilaterally.
So, reading this why are the posters on these blogs up in arms? Clinton, we all know, wanted to stick with the mandated DNC Debate schedule from the start, but has been “hoodwinked” per se, to participate in all these other “last minute” forums because her counterparts were. Look for Clinton to follow suit, as well. Why? Look at the calendar. The first caucus is in January, the frontloading on February 5th, these candidates need to campaign in early states, fundraise, and get their ground game and infrastructure ready to compete in these states. To participate in every forum, which 99% won’t be televised for the general public, is just too time consuming. Yes, many special interests will be angered, but this is the 7th inning stretch here, and you need to decide how you are going to swing the bat. So, this is not, nor should be a shocker to anyone.
Lastly, a poster posted on Daily Kos about the viciousness of an “unnamed blog/website” whose posters attack towards Senator Obama was very close to race baiting. And for her, to be an African-American this was an issue. I don’t blame her. As, I, too am African-American, her concern is warranted. It is understandable to get hyper, enthusiastic, euphoric for your candidate (yeah, euphoric), but to attack Senator Obama, close to race baiting, is another. All blogs are not constructed as such, and will not tolerate it one iota, but after reading some of those comments on that “unnamed blog”, the Daily Kos poster issue is warranted. And my suggestion to the poster is to not frequent that site, any longer. If that site owner want to let his/her site be run rampant by such posters, that is that site’s issue. The blogosphere does not have many minority voices and although we are under the wonderful “Big Tent” of the Democratic Party, does not mean that bigots are not running rampant among us as well. And as my husband has always told me, “you can’t win the war, but you can pick you battles, and win those”, and that means leave that site alone, as others will eventually if it continues in that manner.
supporters for sunday, this week debate, @ the “wee hours” of the morning
alright, a very busy week for Obama in Iowa, and a great debate performance from Obama this morning….keep your powder dry, and remember to focus on Obama and not the drama….
