A new Field Poll was released today showing most Californians are in favor of an initiative to divide the electoral vote along congressional district lines. Currently, along with 47 other states, California awards all of its 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner.
Under a proposal, which could be on the June 2008 ballot, California’s electoral votes would be awarded by congressional district. Had this been in place in ’04, George W. Bush would have received 22 of California’s electoral votes to John Kerry’s 33. Bush could have lost Ohio and other state and still have won the election.
While this plan might make sense if all 50 states adopted it, it makes no sense to dilute California’s vote by joining Maine and Nebraska, the only states that award electoral votes in this manner. Between the two of them, Maine and Nebraska account for only nine electoral votes – hardly enough to sway most presidential elections.
The results show that voters initially support the idea of allocating California’s EVs on a district level by a 47% to 35% margin.
The results change slightly when voters are begin to understand what the effect would be.
After voters are told of the political implications of the change, opinions become somewhat more divided, with those backing a changeover to a district-by-district allocation method outnumbering those favoring winner-take-all by a 49% to 42% margin. Opinions are highly partisan, with 70% of Republicans endorsing the changeover to a district-by-district allocation method. Democrats and non-partisans, by contrast, favor keeping the current winner-take-all approach but by narrower five-to-four margins.
There are two ways to view this poll.
“It shows that without much (campaigning) … there’s a gut-level notion that this is the fair way of doing things,” said Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, a committee recently set up to push the measure. [SFGate.com]
And, as I said earlier, it might be a “fair way of doing things” if everyone, all 50 states did it the same way.
On the other side, Democrats, myself included, see it as a grab for at least some of California’s coveted electoral votes. And we are well aware of the Republican party’s penchant for stealing elections.
“Republicans are in disarray nationally right now. And in California, they aren’t even treading water. They’ll do everything they can to steal the White House in 2008. Our job is to make sure that we take it seriously and do everything we can to kill it,” said Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party. [SFGate.com]
August 19, 2007 – Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa (ABC) 8PM
August 27-28, 2007 – Cancer Forum, Cedar Rapids, IA (MSNBC & Live Streaming)
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….
Obama Appearances
August 12, 2007 – Michelle Obama, Chicago, IL
August 13, 2007 – Keene, NH
August 13, 2007 – Nashua, NH
August 15, 2007 – Cedar Falls, IA
August 16, 2007 – Council Bluffs, IA
August 16, 2007 – Atlantic, IA
August 17, 2007 – Clear Lake, IA
August 18, 2007 – Waverly, IA
August 22, 2007 – KICKOFF, Brooklyn, NY
August 24, 2007 – KICKOFF, Tallahassee, FL
August 26, 2007 – KICKOFF, Lexington, KY
Well, I am back with the weekly roundup. I took the week off, due to being at the Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago. I thought I “might” be able to provide last week’s roundup, but was tired, drained, and reflective of the events when I got home. So, I posted a diary about my reflections of the convention, instead. All I have to say is, GO NEXT YEAR, start saving your pennies, NOW. Next year is critical, it is the year of the presidential election, but more importantly we must work hard to get more democrats in the congress, in our state houses and state races. Yes, we were fired up this year, but next year the flame is ON!!
August 5, 2007
Thanks, lovingj!!!!
Senator Obama was in Park City, Utah for a fundraiser, but held an impromptu rally of over 500 and expected just a small number, at Utah Olympic Park. Kudos to the Obama Campaign for getting this together on the “fly”, and just look at the people grateful to see him.
Obama was next in Elko, Nevada, the senator’s first trip to rural Nevada. Attending a townhall type meeting of 900, Obama again, backed up his statements about Pakistan. And the crowd loved it:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday stood by foreign policy comments that sparked an anti-U.S. protest in Pakistan and attacks from his opponents this week.
Obama told a group in Elko, Nevada that he didn’t think he’d made a mistake in suggesting that he would use military force in Pakistan if necessary to root out terrorists.
Pakistan has been considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.
Obama also sought to clarify his assertion, prompted by a reporter’s question, that nuclear weapons would be “off the table” in such an attack.
Senator Hillary Clinton criticized him by saying leaders should not discuss hypotheticals involving nuclear weapons. Obama portrayed the question and Clinton’s critique as absurd. more, My Silver State
The ongoing “flux” with Senator Clinton’s answer about lobbyists, their monies, “our friends”, “don’t influence”, me answers from Yearly Kos. And the stepping up of ousting Clinton by Obama and Edwards.
…”A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” the New York senator said. “They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people…I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don’t think anybody seriously believes I’m going to be influenced by a lobbyist.”
A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: “Yes, I am taking lobbyists’ donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that’s why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system.”
But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren’s speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed “that awful bill.” Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. “The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it’s powerful on Capitol Hill,” Warren later explained. “It’s a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that…they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that.”
So please, Hillary, let’s not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers — or single mothers — and that their contributions don’t affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians–even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary’s often is — into paid corporate spokespeople. more
Obama is criticizing Clinton over her “lobbyist snafu” and the criticism is warranted. Americans need to have their eyes wide open about these candidates. We must select the right candidate who is supporting us, not the corporations who are the largest recipients of corporate welfare in the history of this government. Those are the real welfare “kings and queens”, and not the people.
…In an interview with The Associated Press and later at a town hall-style event, Obama said the matter would be a critical issue in his campaign for the party nomination.
Obama pointed to Saturday’s bloggers forum in Chicago where he touted his promise not to take money from lobbyists. Clinton argued at the event that taking money from lobbyists was acceptable because they represented real people and real interests.
Obama declined to use Clinton’s name, though he told the AP, “I profoundly disagree with her statements.”
“If lobbyists for well-heeled interests in Washington are setting the agenda on the farm bill, in the energy bill, on health care legislation and if we can’t overcome the power of those lobbyists then we’re not going to get serious reform in any of those areas,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they don’t have a seat at the table. We just don’t want them buying every chair.” more, KC Star, Ari Melber, Newsday, Politico
Barack Obama has been in the hotseat for his position on Pakistan, but many are coming around and agreeing on his position, Atlanta Constitution Journal, Washington Post, to name a few. Now the pundits are talking and discussing the “same policy” as Obama. Relevant it was on ABC, for the Republican Debate in Iowa on Sunday Morning, when Giulilani was pressed and “quoted verbatim” of agreeing with Obama’s stance on Pakistan, Giuliani, squirmed the question away.
So, while Obama may have gotten folks upset, as they grilled him in Iowa, the fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden is still running amuck. He is being harbored in PAKISTAN, the United States know it, Musharraf knows it, and the man should be caught or killed, period. You can not play two sides of the fence on this. And for those afraid of Pakistan retailiating, they won’t. We have harbored and aided Musharref for too long. He can “publicly” denounce the United States, but he will play politically and hand this man over. Why? He is in a hot seat, as well. While re-emphasizing, strongly, that Pakistan is not harboring or aiding al-Qaida.
The Republicans are on their last gasp of breath coming into 2008, they know it, but more importantly, we know it. For any kind of public ratification of this party, they must get Osama bin Laden, in hope of regaining public trust and retaining the White House. Clear and simple. So clear, that this should have been done in the beginning, or we would not be in Iraq. But of course, Iraq is all about lining corporate purses, period. Isn’t it?
Obama’s Camp is reassuring its base that the national numbers are not important. And realistically, these nubmers are not. Not this far out. This all comes about from the Clinton Camp releasing another “inevitablity poll number memo”. David Plouffe has reminded the base that it is the “early states” in which polling is important. And this statement is true. Because if you look at the individual state polling the numbers are solidifying and he is doing well. And from the Obama Camp, it does not look like the money train has “stopped”.
“As the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of this candidacy,” Plouffe wrote.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week showed Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in a virtual tie in Iowa.
A recent poll by the American Research Group in New Hampshire put Clinton and Obama at 31 percent apiece, and a poll by the same group in South Carolina gave Obama a 4 percent lead over Clinton in that state.
“Remember, each contest affects the next,” said Plouffe. “Our strategy has always been to focus like a laser on the early states to create the momentum crucial to later contests.”
Plouffe also pointed to Obama’s prowess at raising money from 258,000 individual donors as a sign of his strength. Obama raised about $5 million more than Clinton during the second quarter. more
‘You blew it,’ student tells Obama, yes a student told Obama over the controversy of meeting with leaders of hostile countries from the YouTube Debate. And you know what, Obama is not going to have everyone agree with him. That is a fact. When I was in Edwards’ breakout at Yearly Kos, there was a person who did not agree with one of his points, and he stated, I don’t expect you too. And I don’t expect folk to agree with Obama on everything. But if you want change, YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO.
Strategist Says Blacks Are Obama’s‘Base’ ObamaVows to Stand Up Against Corporate Mega-Farm Lobbyists
Why are the GOP candidates, ganging up on Barack Obama? What does that tell you? Obviously, he has hit a nerve with somebody, somewhere? And why aren’t the GOP candidates worried about “their” nomination and trekkin’ over to spit in our pool? Yes, these are the questions, one must ask and try to answer. I have been saying alot about poll numbers and to start looking at them in the fall, and I still mean it. But their poll numbers must be awful to come sniffin’ around Obama. Especially, Mitt Romney. Matthews, from Hardball on Today Show, stated something that caught my attention, quick. He stated that Brownback has been coming after Romney “hard” about his “flip/flop” on the right to life and questioning his “religion”. Matthews stated that Romney’s anger was real in his response and that his gut feeling is that Romney’s “poll numbers” must be slipping in Iowa.
Well, Matthews was RIGHT. The current polling numbers for Republicans by the University of Iowa, Obama comes in THIRD, as the candiate Republicans will caucus for. Unbelievable? NO. We know that Clinton is the candidate the Republicans want to run against, Obama is the one they do not want to run against. If Obama gets the nomination, he will win. He will siphon off enough Republicans, get the independents and the Democrats will be behind him. No wonder Romney spewed all those “cheap shots” against Obama on Sunday, he knew what the polling numbers, would be. Oh, and who won on Sunday?
Barack Obama: Obama was all over this debate and was even the basis of one of the questions. That’s great news for the Illinois Senator. It shows he has become a major center of gravity in this race although he has not yet reached the villain status enjoyed (and we do mean enjoyed) by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) It also allowed him to put out a statement of his own that drew a bright line between him and the GOP candidates on the war. “The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn’t agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy,” Obama said. more
Pure Horserace
Obama Rising? Agree with him or not, Barack Obama has become the hot candidate over the past week, gaining the attention of presidential candidates from the other party as well as his own. Obama and Hillary Clinton have sparred recently over what conditions they would or would not set for a presidential-level meeting with some of the world’s most shady characters. And at yesterday’s Republican debate in Iowa, the Illinois senator’s insistence that, as president, he would attack terrorists in part of Pakistan – with or without that nation’s cooperation – triggered discussion. more
Will Clinton Sever Ties With Penn?
No. My take on all of this with the Penn/Clinton association is that he has been effective for her, period. He is associated with a firm that prides itself with parrying union pressure. When I look back on growing up, I grew up in a union home. A home that allowed my parents to become middle class, to afford the dream home, to purchase a new car every 3-4 years, a home that produced four children who graduated from college. We need more than a tax break and lip service. We need “living wages” for workers in America, along with “living wage jobs”. We need a president who is not a sell-out to corporate America. We need a leader who will stand with us and beat back the influx of China in this country. We surely do not need anymore Penn’s, and I am confident many will agree with me on this one.
AFL-CIO Debate, Soldiers Field, Chicago, IL
I watched the debate and came to this conclusion. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden want a “cabinet position” with the “hopeful president to be”, that is Clinton. The way they went after Obama was comical, at best, with tints of desperation, to be nice. But this gave Obama a chance to speak and clarify (video here) his position on Pakistan. As Ben Smith from Politico wrote:
…”Well, look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism,” Obama said to applause for the crowd. more
One shameless moment came from Senator Biden. This was during the union members Q&A, when the widow, Deborah Hamner, whose husband died at the Sago Mines, addressed Senator Biden about federal safety regulations for mine workers. Instead of him answering the question, he was still in tag team form of answering a question about Pakistan!!! He was booed soundly and loudly. The most stupid question of the night went to Senator Obama from Keith Olbermann. Will you invite Barry Bonds to the White House? Umm, can I categorically let you know that we don’t give a damn. The most passionate and one that left impressions was Dennis Kucinich. Even my husband, had to sit up and take notice. Kucinich was the only one who would ban NAFTA for good. And wouldn’t any union household cheer that?
During the analysis on MSNBC former Mayor Willie Brown stated something that stuck with me, and I have been writing about it on the boards. He stated that Senator Clinton need to address and put to bed, the “lobbyist” snafu. She had an opportunity to address this tonight and her answer was everthing but the “right answer”. The former mayor also stated that this issue could run like a “virus”. I have posted my comments on this and agree. Everyone must understand this. We follow these candidates, polls, campaign stops, etc. The average public does not. So, when hearing about this “lobbyist snafu”, they only have one reminder, the Jack Abramhoff lobbyist scandal. To publicly, admit, that it is “okay” to take monies from lobbyists, puts you in the bed of “business as usual”. This is something her campaign need to address and expect ads out “very soon”, on this issue.
Overall, Clinton is unscathed. Obama held his own and scored some points on foreign policy. Biden and Dodd are riding out to “Desperado”. Edwards was just OK for me. With the exception of calling Clinton out for being on the cover of “Fortune” or is it “Money” magazine? Richardson better, but forgettable. And the winner is Dennis Kucinich. The only candidate that will send NAFTA out to pasture, and kick WTO to the curb. AP, Washington Post, Newsday, Chris Cillizza, Full Debate Transcript And the moment of the debate, was here, Steve Skvara, retired LTV Steel Worker:
…Despite becoming this presidential race’s phenomenon, with the power to draw huge crowds and raise millions of dollars, Mr. Obama remains relatively unknown among the country’s fastest-growing electorate: Nearly half of Latino voters have never heard of him, according to a June Gallup poll.
Even as he gains awareness among Hispanics, he may find wooing them to his campaign a challenge. Across the U.S., tensions simmer between Hispanics and blacks who regard each other as rivals for jobs, educational resources, housing and political power. In Los Angeles, Hispanics have become the majority in traditionally black enclaves and clashes have erupted between the groups in schools and on the streets.
For Mr. Obama, this has created a tricky situation. The fiery debate over immigration in Congress alienated many Hispanics, pushing conservatives among them into the Democratic camp and encouraging others to register to vote. But to tap into that, Mr. Obama must navigate past Democratic primary opponents who are better positioned to capitalize on those voters.
“If Obama were the Democratic presidential nominee, he would do well in the Hispanic community,” says Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. But “he will have to fight for their support in the primaries.” more
Well, the Yearly Kos Presidential Forum has unleashed the “real”. From new polling data 48% believe Senator Clinton will be “influenced” by lobbyist monies. Since this blunder, or we can say the “keepin’ it real Hillary moment”, this put the pause in folk to say, “hold up, lobbyist represent average americans”? Yes, folk are questioning this. See, when you are in the “beltway”, you do get “disconnected” with how people feel. That is why I do give kudos to Clinton for consistantly polling to keep up with the “pulse” of people. But to come out and say that “lobbyist” gaffe is just another question to throw onto the “who is Hillary” pile. Lastly, former Mayor Willie Brown from San Francisco summed it up. That Hillary Rodham Clinton need to address the lobbyist issue, if she does not it will be come a virus. And this may just be the start.
Hillary Clinton has surged to a big lead in national polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination but her chief rivals say the polls are overblown and the race is far from over.
According to a realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls, the New York senator and former first lady is enjoying a gap of 18 percentage points over her closest challenger, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 41 percent to 22 percent, while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 11.5 percent.
Democratic strategist Jenny Backus, who is neutral in the 2008 nomination race, said the national polls are important but that Obama and Edwards are making the race a more difficult one for Clinton than her camp had anticipated.
“I think Hillary is the front-runner but not the front-runner she thought she was going to be when this race started. She was supposed to be this colossus striding over a field of pygmies. But instead she’s in a hand-to-hand battle with one very ferocious competitor and a couple others breathing on her heels,” said Backus. more
“President Musharraf has a very difficult job, and it is important that we are a constructive ally with them in dealing with al-Qaida,” the Illinois senator said.
Obama did not repeat the most incendiary line from his foreign policy speech last Wednesday, when he promised: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” more
With a television crew and photographers in tow, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spent Wednesday morning mopping floors, cleaning cobwebs and preparing breakfast for an 86-year-old wheelchair-bound amputee, as he accompanied a home health care worker on her daily duties.
A day on the job has become a new ritual of the Democratic presidential campaign this year, after the powerful 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union demanded that candidates “Walk a Day in My Shoes” with a union member in order to be considered for endorsement.
On Wednesday, it was the Illinois senator’s turn. Obama joined 61-year-old Pauline Beck, an African-American woman with gray hair and an easy manner, as she cared for John Thornton, a retired cement mason and widower who lives in a modest clapboard home in a low-income neighborhood of Oakland.
“I’m not going to lie to you. It’s been a while,” Obama said, after mopping the kitchen and bathrooms.
“I probably haven’t mopped a floor since I started my Senate race,” Obama continued, though he quickly added, “Before that, that wasn’t something I was averse to doing.”
Obama gamely assembled Thornton’s customary breakfast of coffee, frosted flakes and watermelon cubes, washed and folded laundry and gingerly approached the task of making the bed.
The conventional thinking – especially in Washington – is that Barack Obama is flunking foreign policy. But this is one case where conventional thinking may be too closely tied to convention and not all that well thought out.
Yes, we’ve had a glimpse of the world according to Obama. And it doesn’t look half bad.
Not the world itself, which is as dangerous and unpredictable as ever – full of petty tyrants, enemies posing as friends, and rogue states in search of nuclear weapons.
I’m talking about the worldview of the junior senator from Illinois. What seemed like a rookie mistake – i.e., suggesting that, as president, he’d meet with dictators from countries such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea – may actually wind up serving Obama well.
First, it let him draw a distinction between himself and the front-runner. Hillary Clinton helped the cause when she blasted Obama’s comments as “irresponsible and frankly naive.”
That’s baby boomer code for “young and immature.” The 46-year-old Obama stresses the fact that he’s of a different generation than his opponents. This was Clinton pushing back. She might as well have sent the whippersnapper to his room without dessert. After all, Clinton lectured, the president of the United States must be careful not to be used “for propaganda purposes.” more
..Over the past few weeks, Obama has been working to create a commander-in-chief moment, and it has resulted in a rough patch for his campaign. But if he wants to win the nomination, he can’t give up working for this moment.
Obama made the right decision in not backing off his comments about pursuing terrorists in Pakistan. At the AFL-CIO debate earlier this week, Chris Dodd urged Obama to admit that his statement about Pakistan was a mistake — but Obama forcefully defended himself.
Obama is correct to stand by his statement because what he originally said makes perfect sense:
“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
Since when did going after al-Qaida become a controversial platform? Bush, Cheney and Giuliani have based their entire political identities on the vague assertion that they will hunt down the terrorists and kill them, but Obama suggests we might actually want to do this and he is hit for being naïve.
The truth is that Bush and Company gave up on catching bin Laden four years ago to focus on what they thought would be an easier time in Iraq. Intent on solidifying her hawkish credentials, Hillary went along for the ride. more
As ABC says: “She said vs. She said?”
Hillary Rodham Clinton need to hire a staff just for canvassing “youtube, “audio, “print”, files before she opens her mouth, for criticism. In fact, I would hope “all these campaigns” are doing just that, if not, “heads up”, you should. Back to Clinton, who publicly “berated” Obama stating that he would not resort to using “nukes” to rule out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The bait and switch is that Clinton said almost the exact same thing.
“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006, responding to a question about how the Bush administration would try to prevent Iran from building up its nuclear program.
Last week, Mr. Obama said it would be a “profound mistake” for the United States to use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Asked to reply, Mrs. Clinton said: “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”
For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have tangled over their foreign policy views, judgment and experience in their quest to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Mrs. Clinton has challenged Mr. Obama – at one point, calling his foreign policy stands “irresponsible and frankly naïve” – while he has sought to portray his positioning as an example of how he would change Washington.
But during the television interview more than a year ago, the comments of which were reported by The Associated Press, Mrs. Clinton also discussed the role of nuclear weapons.
“I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clintons said. “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. I think that’s a terrible mistake.” more, ABC, Bloomberg
Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday he wanted to tap into the “core decency” of Americans to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians, and argued that civil unions for same-sex couples wouldn’t be a “lesser thing” than marriage.
At a televised forum focusing on gay rights, the Illinois senator was asked to explain how civil unions for same-sex couples could be the equivalent of marriage. He said, “As I’ve proposed it, it wouldn’t be a lesser thing, from my perspective.
“Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I’m interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to people,” he said.
“If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that’s enormous progress,” the Illinois Democrat said. more, post conference
Over onmydd bloggers for their “candidate” will be given featured author status. This event starts Monday, and on Wednesday check out psericks and Max Fletcher, blogging for Barack Obama. Don’t miss it.
Obama was compared to a rock star at the LGBT forum and received a strong welcome from the crowd. He acknowledged his experience as an African American, and how it helps him relate to the LGBT community. “When you are a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it’s like to be on the outside.” He also said, “It is important not to look at the black candidate and wonder whether or not he’s going to be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic to these issues. I’m going to be more sympathetic not because I’m black, but because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life making sure that everybody is treated fairly and we have an expansive view of America, where everybody is invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America we want for the next generation.” Link
Obama at National Association of Black Journalists
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton was wrong when she said politicians shouldn’t discuss hypothetical decisions on foreign policy.
Speaking at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, the Illinois senator defended his recent call for military action to hunt down terrorists if Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf doesn’t act. Obama also said it would be “a profound mistake” to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said presidents shouldn’t make “blanket statements” with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.
“She said, I don’t I think we should talk about it. Well, I think we should talk about it. I think the American people ought to have a debate about our foreign policy because it’s so messed up and if we don’t talk about it we’re going to end up repeating the same mistakes,” Obama told an audience at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists.
“Being experienced is not enough. The question is, what lessons do you learn from your experience?” he said. “Nobody had a better track record in experience than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but they had bad judgment … The people who have been criticizing me over the past two weeks are the people who engineered what is the biggest foreign policy fiasco in a generation.”
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Saturday served as grand marshal of the annual Bud Billiken Parade, an event founded in 1929 by the Chicago Defender newspaper to celebrate area children.
Before the parade began, Obama said he was glad to be on the South Side.
“Everybody here has looked after me for years,” Obama said.
Asked if participating in the parade was part of a strategy to court black voters, Obama said, “This is my crew. I don’t worry about them. We’re doing fine.” more, ABC7 Chicago, Video
Barack Obama appears to be winning the faculty lounge straw poll — his presidential campaign is cultivating academics and pacing the field in collecting cash from them.
Obama, whose website features an “Academics for Obama” page, raised nearly $1.5 million in the first half of the year from people who work for colleges and universities, according to an analysis of campaign finance data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. And that’s 55 percent more than the $939,000 brought in by the next biggest professor’s pet, fellow Democratic senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. more
A Series of Fortunate Events
This piece is slated for August 12, 2007, Washington Post. I decided to include this piece with this week’s roundup because it is a facisnating read about Obama’s rise in politics.
In the summer of 2002, a little-known Illinois state legislator named Barack Obama thought he saw the political opening he’d been looking for. It was a long shot, a flier — a race for the U.S. Senate against a sitting Republican. Obama believed he could beat the incumbent, Peter Fitzgerald. The immediate and, in some ways, harder challenge would be getting the Democratic nomination.
Obama was about to turn 41. An attorney and law lecturer at the University of Chicago, he had been elected to the state Senate in 1996, but had been chafing for some time at the limitations of legislating in Springfield. In 2000, he’d overreached by challenging former Black Panther Bobby Rush for the seat Rush held in the U.S. House of Representatives. It had been a disastrous bid, but understandable given that in Illinois, as around the country, paths to higher office for black politicians are few.
But this new opportunity looked, to him, feasible. In 1992, another Chicago politician, Carol Moseley Braun, had demonstrated that it was possible for an African American to win a statewide U.S. Senate primary, as long as there were at least two white Democrats to split the white vote. And several were already lining up to take on Fitzgerald.
There was just one problem, and it was a big one: Moseley Braun was talking about running herself. Only the second African American U.S. senator since Reconstruction, she had lost to Fitzgerald in 1998, in part as a result of allegations, never proved, that she had misused campaign funds. After the loss, she had been appointed U.S. ambassador to New Zealand. But now she was back in Hyde Park, the neighborhood that surrounds the University of Chicago, where Obama also lived. If she did run, there would be two credible black Democrats in the primary — one far better known than the other. more
Leave it to Barack Obama
Leave it to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to stir up an international incident by acknowledging something everyone already knew.
Obama’s bombshell: If the Obama administration knows Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf doesn’t act to take him out, President Obama will. Obama’s rivals in the race for the White House pounced, calling his stance naive and a sign of his lack of foreign policy experience. They didn’t disagree with the policy. They didn’t like the way he said it.
The gloves are coming off. We’re seeing a new debate emerging in the dog days of summer that’s centering on how much Obama has to learn about foreign policy. The former first lady and second-term senator, who has been widening her lead over Obama in polls, certainly has the edge on experience. But Obama has a big comeback of his own: If experience got us into the foreign policy mess we face today, that kind of experience is overrated.
Yet, Clinton and other leading Democratic rivals, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, saw an opportunity to criticize Obama and they took it. So did former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Republican roster.
Yet, Obama’s critics acknowledged that his policy is already the Bush administration’s policy. Furthermore, none of the leading candidates disagreed with it.
So what was the problem? The issue quickly became a question of international etiquette. more
If you want “business as usual”, and believe “lobbyists represent the average american”, well you know who your candidate is. If you want change, real change, you know WHAT TO DO.
Missed YKos Presidential Forum? Right Here
yearly kos presidential forum part I and part II;
Missed AFL-CIO Debate? Right Here
afl-cio debate part I, part II, part III, part IV; part V; part VI; part VII; part VIII; part IX
icebergslim’s final word: This week’s final word is about a “supposed to be” Democrat by the name of Harold Ford, Jr.
I don’t really know where to begin. One thing I do know for sure, we can have knockdown, drag out fights, arguments, amongst each other. Even when our candidate does not win the primary, we begrudgingly rally behind the Democrat. Now this is something I have not witnessed in a while, a “Democrat” assaulting a Democratic Progressive Website, Daily Kos.
I don’t know what Mr. Ford is trying to accomplish by “bashing us”, but let me remind him a tad bit of what this community is about. During his campaign he got a “hell of a lot of money” from the community of that site and all through the progressive community. Many did not believe he could win, but many of us, did. He may not be on the same “page” as many of us, but he is a Democrat and thus so, we supported him.
Now, since Mr. Ford did not win, he is working as a correspondent with the Fox News Channel, Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor for Merrill Lynch, and is Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Conference.
He started with an op-ed piece, tag-teaming with Governor O’Malley of Maryland titled, “Our Chance to Capture the Center”, and his opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. I am not going to comment about these articles, it speaks for itself. But, what I found rather “odd” is that this is not how most Democrats think. It is not. Nor are we trying to get back to “center”, look what that has done for us? Nothing. So, is he out of touch? Is he ranting because the presidential candidates decided to support and address, the Yearly Kos Convention, instead of the DLC, which they did a “no-show”? If so, what kind of “cheese” do you wish with your “whine”?
Moving on, Mr. Ford presumes that we think next year will be a “cakewalk”, I hardly think so. Every vote will be fought for, we totally get that. We, Democrats, have been fighting this battle for as long as I can remember, which includes for me, my mother, dragging me and my brothers and sister, through the neighborhood knocking on doors, for DEMOCRATS.
What I am getting from Mr. Ford’s article is a “throwback” to the “Clinton Years”, the “90’s”. That reads well on paper, but this is 2007, driving into 2008. People are different, times are different, and issues are different, period. And to think “that time” will fit into “this time” is wishful thinking, at best.
Mr. Ford can continue to go on Bill O’Reilly’s show, continue to write op-ed pieces, rant and rave, all he want Oh, by the way, Mr. Ford, did you read Markos’ op-ed, by chance? Anyway, he has assaulted us, the many of us who commune at Daily Kos because many do not agree with him, and many of us are Democrats. And he has taken it public. On this note, for me, he is just like Joe Lieberman, ’nuff said on that one. Mr. Ford has lost any support or admiration he got from me, and if it was up to my husband this would not be “readable”. So, in closing, Mr. Ford definately will not get another check for his endeavors from, icebergslim, again.
Obama @ YKos breakout, thanks casperr for the pix!!
email me for any questions, read ya next week, remember to focus on Obama, not the drama….
donate to next year’s netroots nation conference/convention, (a.k.a. Yearly Kos)here
Hey, those of us who follow state government closely are really, really big dorks. It seems we are in a really small minority in terms of knowing what the state government is up to. Um, I think many of us knew that (and that at least I am a dork), but I guess it's good to have some numbers behind that. The numbers behind my dorkiness have always been there for the world to see. From the Public Policy Institute of California:
Some findings of the current survey:
Sixty-four percent of likely voters support Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to issue $43.3 billion in bonds to increase funding for education facilities, prisons, water storage, and other infrastructure projects.
Fifty-two percent of voters admit that they know very little (43%) or nothing (9%) about how bonds are paid for in California. Six percent say they know a lot.
The share of residents who describe the state budget as a big problem has fallen 29 points, from 73 percent to 44 percent, since May 2004.
There are some serious ramificiations of this information. Flippy-dippy, ramalama, ding-dong, changity change, oooh- oooh oooh FLIP…
See, if that didn't prove my dorkiness, I don't know what will. But as for the ramificiations of the PPIC poll, well, they are really, really big. I mean think about this, at least half of California voters don't know how the bonds work, yet we just approved a massive bond package. And now he wants more, and he's asking for it through the will of uninformed voters.
See, that's one of the problems of direct democracy. The incredible system of representative democracy that the framers built in the Constitution relies on voters to pick people they trust and let them be the ones that make decisions, but the initiative system requires voters themselves be well-educated on the issues. And when they aren't well, we get srewed-up ballot-box budgeting.
But, hey, maybe we can get around the road-block to High speed rail, Arnold Schwarzenegger, via the ballot. It looks like people will approve some more bonds. Where's that picture…Ah, yes, here it is:
Why is there a big gap in 2008 California Presidential Democratic Primary in the two most recent poll results?
Hillary Rodham Clinton leads the Democratic presidential candidates in California, with four in 10 likely primary voters saying they will support her, according to a Field Poll released Tuesday.
That is a higher level of support than she has registered in national polling or in a recent statewide poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, which found her leading with 35 percent.
Bowers examines whether Clinton performs worse as poll samples are tightened. Since Field Poll only interviewed Registered Voters, here is the situation at that level.
Right now, this is still just a theory. However, it is an important theory to test, because accurate reports on who is currently ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination, and how much that person is ahead by, are crucial to developing an informed Democratic primary and caucus electorate. Whether or not we like it, and whether or not we think it should, information of this sort has an impact on the nomination campaign. As such, it would be a disservice to the Democratic primary and caucus electorate if we did not work to make certain they had accurate information on who is winning, and by how much that person is winning. I imagine there are quite a few Republicans out there who feel the same way about their party.
Among the general election voters who claimed they would vote in the Dem primary, Clinton scored eight points higher than among the past primary voters.
– The People Like Arnold a Little Less And Dislike the Leg a Little Less
56% of likely voters approve of Arnold’s performance as Governator. That’s down five points from January, but still OK for him. However, the Legislature is still becoming… Well, less unpopular. While only 39% of likely voters approve of the Legislature’s performance, that’s a big jump from only 23% approval (AND 65% DISAPPROVAL!!) a year ago.
– Sorry, Don Perata… Voters Like Term Limits As They Are…
68% of likely voters think terms limits have been good for California, and 64% “oppose a term limits reform initiative that proponents hope to put on the February 2008 primary ballot.”
The opposition is also widespread: 70% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and 68% of independents say they oppose the initiative.
– … But They Do Want to Redo Redistricting
Now, we all know that the real strategy to get term limits changed is to tie it to redistricting reform. Well, I guess they’re kinda “halfway there”. Voters want to change the way that districts are drawn…:
– 66% of likely voters think the current redistricting system needs at least minor changes.
– 39% of likely voters think it needs major changes
– 66% of likely voters favor putting an independent citizen commission in change of drawing districts.
For more on what’s on Californians’ minds, and what this might mean for public policy this year, follow me after the flip for more…
Now 54% of likely voters view immigrants as a benefit to the state because of their hard work and job skills, meanwhile only 39% see immigrants as a burden because they use public services. It looks like most Californians don’t have a problem with immigrants… Except that 53% don’t want undocumented immigrants to have health care benefits.
– Health Care: What Do Californians Want?
Although health care is not a top priority, 71% of Californians are saying that health care is in need of major change. 82% of Democrats, 74% of Independents, and 58% of Republicans all feel that we need major changes in our health care system. 83& of likely voters are concerned about providing health care for all Californians. So what exactly are Californians supporting? What do they want to see done with health care?
65% of likely voters favor a plan “requiring all Californians to have health insurance, with costs shared by employers, health care providers, and individuals”. 69% of likely voters say it is a good idea to require all Californians to have health insurance, with programs available for the poor. 67% of likely voters feel that employers should be required to provide health insurance for their employers or pay a fee to the state to help cover the costs fo health insurance. Now with all these proposals, there’s pretty solid support among Democrats and Independents, but not so much among Republicans.
I believe this is the single most important poll of this, the silliest of seasons, Election Season. It’s worth a few minutes of your busy day to stop and read this in its entirety. It states very clearly, that large segments of voters are willing to change the status quo this November under defined conditions.
I was invited to participate in a conference call held by USAction.org Thursday, June 29th. For those of you unfamiliar with USAction, they are a non-profit organization that campaigns to strengthen social, economic and health security for all Americans. Recently USAction’s Education Fund was selected by Working Assets as one of 50 nonprofits eligible for funding in 2007. They are a legitimate group with a strong commitment to progressive change in this country.
I have no idea why they chose me to participate in the conference call. The other attendees included not only bloggers but progressive columnists. The reason for the conference call was to discuss a poll USAction.org commissioned regarding the issues that are important to swing voters in the key swing states, districts and cities in this election season. Swing voters were the turning point in electing George Bush for a second term.
A swing voter is defined as someone who doesn’t always vote along their party lines or is independent of party affiliation with either the Democrats or Republicans. I am one of the latter since I am registered as “decline to state”. The swing states, are defined as those states that “Lean Takeover, Toss-up, or Narrow Advantage Incumbent Party” by The Rothenberg Political Report as of early April, 2006. These states include Pennsylvania, Montana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, and Minnesota, as well as Tennessee.”
The poll was conducted by Greenberg,Quinlan, and Rosner Research. Prior to Thursday’s conference call with GQRR and USAction, they provided us with the poll results, how they arrived at the results and obtained the data. It was a lot of information to digest. Thankfully, the folks from GQRR explained the data and answered our questions. The reason for this poll was to frame the issues that are important to the swing voters and to identify what angers them with regard to the current state of our Union. Keep in mind that these voters, for the most part, elected George Bush in 2004.This fact can not be stressed enough.
I have the permission of USAction to use any and all the data regarding this poll and to distribute it widely. I want to share with you what I consider to be some very important findings. You can view the same information that I was given by going to their website. The link for this project in its entirety is here: http://usaction.org/swingnation I have covered only a small portion of the questions asked the voters.
A whopping 73 percent describe the country as off on the wrong track, 66 percent disapprove of the performance of George Bush and nearly half (49 percent) strongly disapprove. The reasons for this anger range from the War in Iraq to the various scandals that have engulfed our elected officials and various departments of our government. Their anger also includes, and I quote from the Swing Nation memo here: “But much of the anger reflects persistent economic anxieties four years into the Bush economic “recovery.” By nearly a 2:1 margin, voters describe the economy in negative terms; nearly one third struggle to make ends meet.”
Another fact from the poll that I found enlightening, with regard to how these voters think about our current elected officials is this: “Fully 73 percent agree, “It seems like the federal government always puts the needs of corporate special interests ahead of the needs of average families.” Another 74 percent agree, “Government should do more so that working class and middle income people do not get left behind in today’s economy.” This matches up with what most, if not all, progressive’s believe doesn’t it? Their frustration is our frustration.
This poll was not only about what people hate or distrust regarding our current government. It offered solutions to the problems we face as a nation. The voters were asked to respond to a specific “plan” that would alleviate the waste in our federal budget, provide quality public education, clean energy and affordable health insurance for all Americans, just to name a few of the points. A direct question asked was:
Let me tell you about something called the [plan]. Under this plan, government will invest more money to expand access to quality child development and preschool programs that help kids start school ready to succeed, will strengthen public schools, expand college aid and will provide access to high quality, affordable health care for all. This plan will also provide all Americans access to free high speed Internet and promote safe, clean energy to help end our dependence on oil. In order to pay for the plan, it would eliminate recently passed tax cuts for corporations and those earning over $200,000 per year [and include new measures to hold government accountable and reduce corruption and waste.] Having heard this, do you favor or oppose [plan]?
Their responses fell into these categories:
69 percent favor
24 percent oppose
7 percent don’t know/refused
The rightwingers will tell us this election season that the issues are the occupation of Iraq, flag burning, gay marriage and their favorite, the war on terror. I feel that this poll points out that people are not as willing to follow George Bush and his minions or the Senate and House of Representatives down the path they have chosen for us as a country. This poll shows us that the people, who made the difference in the voting booth during the 2004 election, will not be led down the same path by the same people again if they are given a good alternative. They are tired of our government protecting big corporations and their bottom line. This poll shows us that the average American does not care about the trumped up war on terror more than they care about the economic issues facing us today. They are sick and tired of financial insolvency within our federal government and at the same time, giving tax breaks to the top 1% of workers and huge corporations like the “Big Oil” companies. The swing voter cares about the environment, public education from K through college, oil dependency and a host of other social and economic issues. The swing voters don’t want rhetoric, they want a plan. Our candidates need to give them a plan that will bring us, as a country, back to financial stability and educating our children so they will be able to handle what life throws at them in the next century. The right will tell us that the economy is fine, and this poll shows us that swing voters aren’t buying the bullshit. Swing voters care about the working poor and the slowly disappearing middle class. Their concerns are OUR concerns. When you take away the labels, we, as a nation are really worried about the same things. These are moral issues not political ones, they cross party lines, according to the GQRR poll.
Remember, these voters were not labeled as anything other than Democrats, Republicans or Independents. They were not asked whether they held liberal or conservative views. They were only identified by the factors I named at the head of this post. These issues are the ones that need to be addressed if the Democrats want to take back our government. We, as citizens and bloggers need to get this message out to those who we wish to see elected. I did not cover every angle, issue and point made by the poll. I did not want to overload you, the reader, with facts and figures. Please feel free to read all the documentation on USAction’s website, which I linked at the beginning of this post. It’s very lengthy, and broken into three parts but in my opinion, worth your time. You can now, do one of two things;
You can move on to the next blog.
Or you can take action by spreading the word and/or blogging about this poll and its results.
I firmly believe we can take back our government if we make our candidates aware of these results. I believe we can affect change if we write about these points and ask others to do the same. I will post this on every forum I belong to, every blog that I write. I will be attending the Democracy for America convention being held in San Diego, July 13th through the 16th. I will be raising awareness of this poll there. I am quite the loud mouth when I am worked up about something. I enjoy hearing my own voice when there is something important to be said. I ask that you, my dear reader, do the same in your own way. We need to flood the blogosphere with this information; we need to make the candidates aware of this poll and its findings. We only have four months left to do it.
A new poll has been released by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State. The poll has him leading by a margin of 44-37. However, keep in mind that any incumbent who is not able to garner 50% is considered to be in jeopardy. Right now, Angelides is just coming off a bruising primary. A little time to heal the image and go on the offensive should serve Angelides well.
The Calitics Poll HQ has been updated and completely redesigned. I think the new layout is a little more simple to understand.
Just wanted to let everybody know that I updated the Poll HQ. I left out a couple of S-USA polls, one for CA-50, and another on the primary. They are now included. Also, I’ve included a Datamar poll that came out today.
The Datamar poll is well, kinda wild. It has the typical narrow Angelides lead (42.9-41.7), but what shocked me were the numbers for 81 and 82. It had them both losing. By A LOT. It had 81 losing 57-36.5 and 82 losing 63.1-32.9. 82 fell below the proverbial Mendoza line. But 63.1% No seems awfully, awfully high to me. In the Field Poll, the No’s are leading 46-41. 63.1 seems way out of whack. And given the Field Poll’s long and distinguished history, I’d lean towards their numbers. Also, their numbers for the hypothetical matchups seem a bit out of line with other recent numbers. (Schwarzenegger 53.5 – 34.3 Angelides) and (Schwarzenegger 50.7 – 38.0 Westly). I’m made even more suspicous by the answer to question 18, most trustworthy party. By a margin of 44.9 to 41.5, the California electorate thinks the GOP is more trustworthy than the Dems? Really? Something doesn’t smell right to me. So, take it how you will.
I’ve updated Calitics Poll HQ to include a few more polls including the just released May Rasmussen poll on the governor’s race. It has Angelides and Schwarzenegger at a 45-45 tie and Westly beating the Governator at 46-44. Also, there’s a poll coming out tomorrow. We’ll post some info on that as soon as it is released.
On another note, check out SpeakOutCalifornia’s just-released Primary Voting Guide. It’s a great recap of major endorsements for the California constitutional offices and a few key legislative races.
I’ve been adding some polls to the Calitics Poll Headquarters (it’s on the left sidebar too). I’ve added Rasmussen and S-USA polls on the governor and the governor’s race. Also, I put polls on CA-50 special election. I’ll also be adding a lot more today and tomorrow.
