I watched the debate this evening following my reading of news articles that John Edwards should drop out of this election because his continuing presence is divisive to the Democratic Party. The debate demonstrated that Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are clearly capable of being divisive on their own, while John maintained the dignity of the forum and was by far the most Presidential of the three. In fact, it is John Edwards who has led the way ensuring that the Democratic Party ideals of equality and fairness for all, giving the economically disadvantaged a fair chance at the American Dream, and restoring the moral integrity and leadership of the United States are the issues being discussed in the campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Many “political experts” have said that John Edwards has shaped the issues of the Democratic Primary and Caucus campaign. In accordance, we, as Americans and Californians, need John Edwards to stay in this race to the end (and I hope into the White House).
I have spoken at many Democratic Club meetings over the past few months on behalf of John Edwards, as well as tabled at shopping centers and street fairs. I am very concerned about the focus of the media and what I have been hearing in the debates in the context of what I have heard when speaking and/or tabling in the Coachella Valley about the reasons people are voting for a particular candidate. Everyone knows that it is politically incorrect to advocate voting for Senator Clinton merely because she is a woman or Senator Obama merely because he is an African-American, and thus such comments are not expressly made in this context. However, the subtle message I continue to hear is real change will come from a woman in the White House or real change will come from an African-American in the White House. These under the radar views are ignorant and damaging to We The People of the United States of America because real change will come only from Progressive Democratic ideas put forth by someone who is willing to fight to implement and follow through with the Progressive Democratic ideas. Obviously, I am a John Edwards supporter, and thus feel that JRE is the best Democratic candidate to accomplish this real change because of (a) His life experiences growing up; (b) His professional life experiences as a trial attorney taking on the “Big People” and always battling for the “Little Person” in the courtroom, at the UNC Poverty Center, and on the streets of America; (c) His leadership of ideas coming out first with a Universal Health Care Plan, an Economic Stimulus Package, a Global Warming Plan, and the list goes on and on; and (d) His unwillingness to take money from PAC’s and lobbyists because he knows the fight that lies ahead is a fight for middle class Americans and below and not about compromising their interests. I appreciate and respect that you may disagree with me that John Edwards is the best Democratic candidate to accomplish such real change provided that you are basing your decision on the position of your candidate of choice on the issues and ability to implement and follow through in this regard, rather than because your candidate is a female or an African-American or because the corporate mainstream media told you who to vote for, either expressly or implicitly by limiting the coverage of a candidate relative to the two (2) celebrity and glitz candidates.
I will close my remarks with a story that I think is so essential because what I hear from people who I am out talking to about John Edwards is that they want “bullet-point” literature on the issues because the 80 page “The Plan To Build One America – Bold Solutions For Real Change” by John Edwards is too much reading. I ask these people if you were going to have surgery, or buy a home, or make an investment, then would you want “bullet-point” information or all of the information and details available. This next election is more important than surgery or buying a home and you are making the biggest investment of your life, and the lives of your children and grandchildren, because of the issues at stake resulting from the past decades of Presidential Policy. My son, a junior in high school, is a typical teenager and like most teenagers is aware of but not very interested in the upcoming Presidential Election. However, on New Year’s Day I was watching a CSPAN recording of John Edwards speaking before the Iowa Caucus and my son was in the same room, laying on a couch reading a book (“Eragon”). I caught my son, out of the corner of my eye, put down the book and proceed to watch John Edwards. I kept waiting for my son to stop watching JRE and return to reading his book. Instead, my son watched the entire speech (approximately 45-60 minutes) and when John Edwards had finished his speech my son, spontaneously and without any solicitation or comment from me, says “How could you not vote for the guy?” The following week I am tabling at the Palm Springs Street Fair where all of the Democratic Presidential Candidates who have a representative are present. Near the end of the four (4) hour evening, a Hispanic family consisting of a mother, father, and middle-school aged boy approach the Senator Obama representative next to me. The mother and father ask about buttons, bumper stickers, etc., which they are provided with. The Senator Obama representative asks the middle-school aged boy if he wants a button and the boy politely responds “No”. The Senator Obama representative asks “Why not” and the boy responds he “likes John Edwards”, which perked up my ears. I asked the boy “Why do you like John Edwards?” and he responded “I saw him on C-Span and I liked what he had to say.”
If a middle-schooler and a high school junior have the attention span to watch C-Span, then the least that we adults can all do is take the time to visit the web sites of each of the candidates and see what they have to say, as well as hear each of the candidates out when they speak, rather than follow the mainstream media like a bunch of sheep or vote for someone because they are the first woman or first African-American with a legitimate chance to be the President of the United States of America. Do not cheat yourself by doing anything less and you owe it to your children and grandchildren to give them a better country then was given to you.
Versions of this invitation cross-posted (and will be cross-posted) at a few other blogs. Please do take a look at the below invitation-we’ll stick around and see if there are any comments, questions, or suggestions! Thanks.
One of the most frustrating things about the current political and media environment is of course the way that reasoned, logical, evidence-based debate (about anything) seems to have been completed replaced by spin and blind repetition of talking points. People of all political leanings feel that others don’t confront arguments or employ reason (and of course in some cases it’s true).
– What if there were a platform where ignoring arguments against one’s perspective wasn’t possible, where people could make their case but also be forced to directly answer the opposing side?
– What if there were a place where nonsense and nonsense peddlers could be exposed as such to the whole world, and strong ideas defended against all comers?
– What if there were a way communities could explore issues in a highly systematic, yet fun and reader-friendly, way?
—>
Now there’s a platform that can do all this and more: Cruxlux. We wanted to accomplish something great for the blogosphere and we’d like to cordially invite you all to try out the tool (either at cruxlux.com or in your own blogs—more on that at the bottom). It’s for you.
Cruxlux is a powerful platform for online debates. Its intuitive format shows supports and counterarguments to any assertion (and supports/counterarguments to those, etc.), neatly decomposing an issue and exposing the facts or values on which differing camps diverge. The credibility and scoring systems move top arguments up and prevent one side from sabotaging another. The ultimate result is a comprehensive but concise resource that captures all sides of the issue and is there for all to see.
Cruxlux allows one to invite allies to explore an issue, or to issue challenges to other members, groups, or outside bloggers/organizations. (If someone’s not willing to back up their views on truly neutral turf—or at least have any supporters willing to do so—that says something in itself.) It is perhaps naïve to think that the most close-minded can be convinced, but at the least it will expose exactly where the differences arise, and lay out the issue for the rest of the world, which hopefully can be convinced. This was some of the promise of the blogosphere, but blogs have become segregated (few people care to visit very different blogs—see Calitics and FlashReport) and also cannot automatically put arguments head to head. As neutral turf and with its powerful format/scoring, Cruxlux can allow blogs to overcome those limitations. We think there really will be impact from having an entire debate, with participation from everyone, in a concise form.
How can you use Cruxlux? Well, either you can use it directly at Cruxlux.com or you can embed Cruxlux within your own blog (for free), enabling you to have intra- or inter-blog debates from within your own site. If you’re interested in this, contact us.
We have debates regarding prominent proposed federal legislation and would love to systematically do the same for state bills (we’re California based ourselves).
What are situations where you might want to use Cruxlux? Perhaps you’re discussing with someone in the comments here about a particular piece of legislation or water plan—you could use Cruxlux to explore the pro/con. Or you want to challenge a conservative group (or just a conservative acquaintance) to debate something—go ahead and issue the challenge through Cruxlux and use us as neutral turf. Or just cross post a diary at Cruxlux.com and see various perspectives. We’re also putting together a few organized initiatives right now, including one around the Presidential campaigns (any of you who are actively supporting someone, and are interested in learning more about this, get in touch).
Hope you find Cruxlux a useful tool. And we’re still improving it too (exciting new features coming soon!). Do let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. As mentioned above, we’re happy to help blogs embed, or just come use Cruxlux.com directly. Thanks!
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
I’m blogging live here from Sonoma County, Rohnert Park to be exact. Sen Carole Migden was, as always, very excited about making her presentation. She spoke for quite awhile about her various accomplishments. The speech was a bit rambling and disjointed, but was well received over-all. Asm. Leno spoke in a practiced, well-rehearsed tone. He spoke of his efforts on foster care. Again, it was well-received by this very well behaved crowd of all ages.
Flip it for some questions.
First, a question was asked about Sen. Gil Cedillo’s driver’s license bill. Sen Migden says she supported the bill, and encourages immigrants to learn English to get the best jobs. Asm. Leno spoke of his co-authoring of the bill, and how we need to approach the issue of immigration.
The next question was about paper ballots. Asm. Leno says that SoS Bowen has done a terrific job. Sen Migden seconded the support of Ms. Bowen.
The next question was about affordable housing. Sen Migden says she wants people to live near where they work, and should be able to live near where they grew up. Asm. Leno praised Habitat for Humanity, and pointed out Asm. Noreen Evans in the crowd for her support. He further discussed the 3-legged stool of housing, beginning with developers. We also need to invest in public support of housing, through bonds. Supply must meet demand. Finally, the federal government has ignored the community.
LBPost.com, Charter Communications, and the Long Beach Democratic Club are co-sponsoring a debate among ALL THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES running to fill the vacated seat in the 37th Congressional District. If you live anywhere from Carson to Long Beach, then you’ll definitely want to come to this. Come, and see for yourself what the candidates have to say about the issues that you care about most.
Follow me after the flip for all the details on next week’s debate…
This event is free and open to the public! All they ask is that you show up by 6:30 PM. There, isn’t that easy? And isn’t that worth making an informed decision for such an important election? : )
The Republican candidates for president are in Simi Valley, CA at the Reagan library today for the first Republican debate of the 2008 presidential season. And while the location has more to do with the conservative icon whose library is playing host than the fact that it's in California, we at ATMWatch will be watching for references to California's primary and the issues Californians care about.
The debate will start at 5pm PDT (webcast available HERE) and is co-sponsored by MSNBC and politico.com, which asked people to submit questions online to be asked of the candidates during the debate, much as we are asking regular voters for questions to ask the candidates HERE. We're getting your questions to the campaigns and we'll have our first candidate response video next week.
Now, while we're used to asking candidates questions, we're not so used to candidates asking other candidates questions but that's exactly what John Edwards has done in advance of tonight's debate. His question for the Republican candidates:
"Has the Bush doctrine of a Global War on Terror backfired? Does the president's focus suggest a fixed enemy that can be defeated through a permanent military campaign or do you think we need a broader approach as many military leaders believe?"
1/3 of tonight's debate will be devoted to answering questions submitted online and will be voted on by readers. Hopefully we'll be able to rate Edwards's question up so it gets asked. Would love to hear them defend Bush's war strategy or even claim with a straight face that there is one. Consider this an open thread.
While waiting for Monday’s debate between Congressman Dana Rohrabacher and challenger Jim Brandt, I met a young Marine outside. His blue eyes told me he’d served in Iraq, so we talked about other things. He’s on leave from out-of state and asked me who the candidates were. Then he told me about roadside bombs on the road to Fallujah. This article isn’t about him.
It’s a strange thing to go to a debate in Orange County, and discover the Democratic candidate has the home field advantage…
Jim Brandt entered the Golden West College to champion’s applause and calls of “Semper fi!!” This was not lost on the ignored Congressman. Rohrabacher‘s sad, sheepish smile suggested he knew what to expect. After his experience at CSU Long Beach earlier in the day (YouTube pending), his staff called and changed the rules for the evening’s debate.
The Congressman cooked each response in illegal immigration, seasoned with lower taxes, Red China, Imperial Japan and Hitler. As if called to the blackboard without doing his homework, the incumbent avoided facts. When asked how the $1.6 billion SAFE Port Act could be used effectively to protect the Port of Long Beach, Rohrabacher acknowledged that mistakes had been made, that the money could probably be used more efficiently but reassured the crowd that his office was working hard to get it right. He gave similar answers on the economy, illegal immigration, the deficit, healthcare and the war in Iraq. Rohrabacher’s four minute answer on gay marriage was indecipherable but seemed to have something to do with the genealogy of arcane laws. He claimed State Senator Alan Lowenthal‘s successes with extending port hours and container fees for himself. While he tried to maintain measured tones, midway through the debate Dana Rohrabacher attacked the crowd with pointed finger before regaining his composure and directing the rest of his responses to either his lectern or his opponent.
Jim Brandt gave a firebrand lecture on public policy. His delivery of detailed and substantive proposals was an impassioned indictment of Beltway Republican policies. Jim Brandt noted SAFE Port will allocate millions (not billions) to POLA/LB for port security. He proposed single-payer catastrophic health insurance, economic incentives for employers to comply with immigration laws, religious freedom as the answer to gay marriage concerns, the application of private sector accounting rules to government, and taking the advice of generals in the case of Iraq. Brandt didn’t hammer on Rohrabacher, he took him to school.
After the debate, Brandt met with audience members as mutually agreed while Rohrabacher vanished through a side door. It seems that in California’s 46th Congressional District the incumbent, like Republicans across the country this fall, fell victim to GOP frames: he talked about Staying the Course on every issue and then Cut and Ran in his own district. “Where’s Dana?” evolved from a surprised question between neighbors into the chant of an angry mob.
Before left I saw my new friend again. “What’s going on?” he asked. “Brandt’s over there but Rohrabacher left,” I replied. Veteran’s eyes surveyed the crowd, looking for Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. “He’s afraid of the Marines,” he replied. “Too bad. I wanted to talk to him.”
You can view the debate live HERE starting at 2pm. And please join the conversation in the comments.
[UPDATE]Bowen clearly won. She was passionate, knowledgeable, attractive and managed to put the sitting Secretary of State on the defensive. Do you get the sense that McPherson hasn’t had to fight for re-election much in his career, because he did a crappy job of it today. Winner by knock-out: Bowen.
Spread the word!
Also, h/t to Juls for reminding us to vote for Debra over at Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot PAC.
Technically, this debate is a live SF Chronicle editorial board meeting. Looks like they'll endorse based on this meeting. There's a controversy over this debate…they only invited the two major party candidates, not the additional 4 candidates that will be on the ballot. Good call, Chron.
The SOS and incumbent: Bruce McPherson
Democratic challenger: Democrat Debra Bowen.
Cue the opening remarks.
McPherson:
He is boasting about cleaning up the office of Secretary of State up. He implemented the toughest voting system in the country. He visited all the counties and met with the registrars personally. And he reached out to voters. He established a fax ballot for overseas military. He restored the nonpartisanship of the office. Right.
He's talking about his endorsements now, including the Long Beach Telegram.
"My opponent is running for SOS for 2 reasons: Florida and Ohio." You sure you want to remind people of that, Bruce?
Bowen:
Opening up processes is very much what I'm about. I am running because of the crisis of confidence in our voting systems. Decided to run 2 years ago when problems in the office became clear to her. When McPherson was appointed, "I put partisanship aside and my own ambitions aside, so I voted to confirm Bruce McPherson."
I think California voters have not been well-served by Bruce McPherson." She's now talking about the state-wide voter registration database that he agreed to with the Bush administration. 43% of LA County voters would not have been allowed on the voting rolls. Also certified Diebold TSX voting machines despite security flaws.
Open up the process, far too many secrets regarding the voting systems and counting the votes.
She's talking about the secrecy of the systems. And the disingenuousness of Bruce McPherson when he says that he has the toughest standards in the nation.
Oh yeah, props, "any of these keys can open a Diebold voting machine."
The only way to reassure people is to open up this whole process.
We out to go to open source code, open this all up. This problem would have been discovered long ago if there had been a public review."
McPherson is rebutting and is repeating his claim that he has instituted the strictest standards.
Ahh, he's addressing the Princeton report. He says the model that was tested in that report is the TS system and he certified the TSX.
"We also have a paper trail requirement…in large part because of me…to have CA be the first state to have a paper trail requirement."
McPherson: "I've overseen two successful elections and nobody's been disenfranchised in any election."
Bowen: "the security measures are always as good as the least effective person who implements them."
Damn, nice.
She's now talking about the sleepovers in San Diego County. "They could have been left unattended in cars, in a garage, anyware." And she pulled out the key again. Brilliant.
After the sleepovers, "the Secretary of State did absolutely nothing."
The minutiae of the voting machine issues are hard to follow but Bowen is coming across as the authority and McPherson seems like her apprentice.
She was asked if there is any electronic system that would be acceptable. She mentioned on that allows the voter to vote and prints a paper ballot which becomes the ballot of record.
"This is California, I have no doubt we can do even better than that…with open source software and that allows disabled voters to vote independently. We can do this, we just have to decide to do this."
McPherson used the "c" word, said Bowen is throwing out "conspiracies." Thing is she doesn't come off as a conspiracy theorist, she's totally credible.
He just said "I think she doesn't trust the county registrars, I do." OK, Bruce.
—–
OK, got a little heated there. Bruce is on the defensive. Bowen is on the offensive.
—-
Q: How do we deal with the increasing number of absentee ballots?
Absentee ballots are a big part of the election protection concerns on the right. They think CA absentee rules are too liberal.
He thinks the added check of the signature itself will add to the security of absentee ballots.
Bowen: "I introduced a measure in 1993 for people to become permanent absentee voters. It became law in 2000-2001. We can make that process better too."
"This year, one barrier, there is more than a 39 cent postage in many counties. Leaving the SOS scrambling after the fact with the post office to ensure people's votes will be delivered. I'm still concerned about that."
Re the signature match, some counties are experimenting with automating the signature match, even using Diebold machines.
McPherson jumped in: "I don't make deals with the post master general or anyone else."
Defenisve much?
——–
Q: If absentee ballots work so well, why don't we get rid of e-voting all together and go to paper like in Oregon.
Bowen: problem – in urban areas, people move a great deal. I have favored a system that allows people to register as permanent absentee but still allow them to go to the polls. I love to go to the polls. You feel like you're more a part of democracy.
McPherson: "I want 100% participation. As interesting as all mail ballot seems, the fact is that the larger population still goes to the polls and they should be able to do that. "
He's saying that we should offer people all options for voting.
——-
Q: Secretary, you say you support the ID law yet there's little evidence of fraud.
McPherson: "Not necessarily a photo ID but standards in assn w/HAVA — people could provide a variety of number of types of ID. I don't think it's too much to ask for the integrity of elections to present ID at the polls."
Q: Is there evidence that there has been evidence of fraud.
McPherson: "We have seen some, you hear about it every election. One person put his dog on the voting roll."
Bowen: "We actually do have a requirement that when people register they do have to present ID. I'm opposed to photo ID requirement at the polls. Have had to chase a birth certificate with her foster daughter — it took us a year and a half to get it, it's a good thing we didn't need it for her to vote."
"Every court that's looked at voter ID laws have found them unconstitutional."
—–
Bowen: "Only 15 cases of voter fraud throughout the entire country were charged. If every citizen has a valid photo ID, I'd support it, but that's not the case."
Q: What can the SOS office do to promote participation?
McPherson: 6 million eligible voters who are not registered to vote. He's been all over the state to encourage people to register including a student voter program. "In particular, young people are a concern to me."
"Fundamental core of democracy is on election day when we get to choose our representatives."
He's talking about problems that have occured and litigation involved. "I will prosecute those cases to the fullest extent."
Bowen: 1. SOS makes a deal of voter reg projects in ethnic communities but fact is that 43% of voters who registered in LA County during a few months of this year were predominantly women or ethnic voters w/Asian-American or Latino surnames.
2. "I go back to this key" (yeah prop!) "and the Diebold machines. People are tech savvy and they are skeptical. We have to fix this problem of confidence. Young people approach me about open source software."
3. "How we fund campaigns. The amount of money going into the legislature and constitutional officers keeps people home. In states with clean money participation has gone way up."
Nice plug for Prop 89!
—–
McPherson: "This thing about the 26,000 voters who couldn't vote have been mentioned twice and that's two too many." Was that supposed to be some catchy sound byte, Bruce?
He's defending the LA County disenfranchisement plan.
Bowen: "Plenty of ways to prevent duplicate registrations that doesn't disenfranchise anyone." There were 26,000 did not get a sample ballot so they weren't told where their polling place was. I can see why it is that only 263 of those 26,000 voters cast provisional votes.
——-
Bowen to McPherson: Do you personally believe that there are any serious problems with counting and auditing of any of the electronic systems you certified?
McPherson: "The proof is in the elections that I have overseen. We can trust the systems I put in place."
"Votes have been counted accurately and systems have performed well."
No matter how many ways you say it doesn't make it anymore true, Bruce.
He is now talking about disabled voters: they can only vote with electronic machines.
Bowen: There is a system called Vote Pad that your office did not certify does allow disabled voters to cast a ballot without an electronic voting machine."
And then "I DID NOT HEAR AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION." Aww yeah. "I don't know whether you believe the Princeton study and other tests are things are not serious."
—–
McPherson to Bowen: You'd decertify electronic voting machines that allow disabled and blind to vote independently.
Bowen: "You are scaring people in a way that is really shameful. For you to assert that if I were to win…when I do win…that I would disenfranchise voters is really shameful. Bruce, you and I have been friends for a long time, this is not your finest hour."
Wow.
——
Closing statements.
McPherson: My opponent has said she is running for the nation. I am running for California. He is now quoting the alarmist SacBee editorial that called her aggressive. He's just reading stuff now. Calling her an armchair quarterback. He said she's never offered a playbook of her own. Is he kidding?
He's literally just reading off editorials of other papers.
Bowen: Yes the editorial said "Support Debra Bowen, she'll secure your vote."
"What we see now is hastily certified unsecure systems, record low voter turnout (only 33% cast votes in primary.)..I've been an innovator, I'll work to expand the safe at home program (protects battered women, he opposed it), I have the technical expertise and know how to restore confidence and openness to our voting systems and I respectfully request your endorsement."
(blogswarm is live bloggin’ it – promoted by SFBrianCL)
Fourth District Congressional Candidate Charlie Brown will square off in his first debate with incumbent Rep. John Doolittle Wednesday night, at Starstream Communications studios in Rocklin (4120 Citrus Ave, Rocklin CA 95677).
The event will be moderated by Gerry Lyons, and will be aired live from 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. for Starstream’s cable subscribers in Placer County—which includes residents of Rocklin, Granite Bay, Penryn, Newcastle, Loomis, Lincoln, Auburn, Colfax, Pinebrook, and Lakeside.
For those who do not have Starstream Cable, News10.net will stream the debate live starting at 7:30 pm (pst).
David Whitney of McClatchy Newspapers, General Manager Deric Rothe of Gold Country Media, and Mike Raffety, Editor of the Mountain Democrat, will each serve as panelists.
The format for the debate will include candidates directly responding to questions from panelists followed by a moderated discussion, as well as a segment where candidates will respond to call-in questions from viewers watching at home.
I’m blogging live here from Sonoma County, Rohnert Park to be exact. Sen Carole Migden was, as always, very excited about making her presentation. She spoke for quite awhile about her various accomplishments. The speech was a bit rambling and disjointed, but was well received over-all. Asm. Leno spoke in a practiced, well-rehearsed tone. He spoke of his efforts on foster care. Again, it was well-received by this very well behaved crowd of all ages.