Iowa State for Barack Obama

Corporate governance

Walt — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:23:56 EST

Shareholders own the corporation and those owning common stock can vote on items presented to them by the board of directors. Shareholders vote on board members and it is the board of directors that sets policy, hires the corporate officers and sets their compensation. That is how it is supposed to work, but does NOT in practice in many cases.

Ownership of stock is divorced now from exercising the rights of ownership because so much stock is now held by mutual funds. Mutual fund managers are interested mostly in making as much money as possible. If management delivers, then the mutual fund managers don't exercise their rights as stock owners. They frequently buy and sell stock quickly, holding it only for a short time. They support current management most of the time. That allows management to pack the corporate boards with friends who go along to get along. Congress enacted the law creating mutual funds, and now it needs to revise the law so that the rights of shareholders receive greater protection.

Enhanced interrogation

Walt — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 10:56:54 EST

George W. has said, "We do not torture" so often that I think that he actually believes that lie. At some point, not yet, the American people are going to demand the truth. By then Dick Cheney will probably be too old or ill to be prosecuted and Barack will probably pardon George W. Those who facilitated torture and the many who carried it out will face prosecution.

It's the economy

Walt — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:51:05 EST

It's the economy, stupid
Polls from the Right and
Polls from the Left
Polls and more polls everywhere
The only polls that matter
November 2008 and 2010
The media must poll and poll
Or else what is there to discuss?
Forget healthcare reform
Forget Iraq and Afghanistan
It's the economy, stupid
Forget the polls, Mr. President
They do not matter
Barack and we all know
All the nation's problems
Are linked and intertwined
You can't solve one
Without solving another.
It's not just the economy, stupid.

Nobel peace prize part 2

Walt — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:54:22 EDT

The Nobel committee gave Barack the prize in part to show that the world has a different perspective on his efforts than many of his critics here in the US do. Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa received his Nobel peace prize in 1984, ten years before the dismantling of apartheid and the election of Nelson Mandela. Archbishop Tutu had not completed his work in 1984 and some think that he received the prize to ensure his safety from the white South African government. Giving Barack the prize now may be the international community's way of answering Barack's critics here in the US. They approve of what he is trying to do and want him to succeed. That is not true of many Republicans at this time.

Chicago violence

Walt — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:46:33 EDT

Young people are killing young people in Chicago. Would second amendment supporters suggest arming everyone for self defense? When the smoke cleared, the streets would be littered with the dead. As an alternative, should the police shoot to kill? That might reduce the violence temporarily, but is not the solution.

I grew up in Chicago but it is many years since I have been back. When I lived there, Chicago was one of the most segregated cities in the country. I doubt that much has changed. I am now in Utah and Chicago is still many miles away in Illinois, but from here I think I know what the problems are. I cannot offer specific solutions but I do know that a piecemeal approach will not work. The problems that face our youth must be approached simultaneously if there is to be any hope of success.

The problems are: drugs, gangs, broken families, poor schools, guns in the wrong hands, unemployment and lack of opportunity. Why spend the effort to educate yourself if you are denied a chance to advance? Good , rewarding lives as productive members of society require good, well-paying jobs. Political and social leaders must set moral examples. Jails are overcrowded and the courts are too. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Patrick Henry Caucus

Walt — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:48:02 EDT

The Patrick Henry Caucus was started here in Utah by state representative Carl Wimmer in May. The organization is going to have a rally here in Saint George on Saturday October 17 at Worthen Park, 400 East and 300 South, 4-6pm. I intend to attend to see what they have to say. Apparently they are strict constructionists of the US Constitution and emphasize the 10th amendment which leaves all powers to the states not expressly granted to the federal government. I thought that the strict constructionist argument went out of fashion with the Civil War. Ah, what some people won't do to oppose change they don't like. I will report on the rally after it occurs. I want to see how many attend and what they have say. There will be question and answer session. The local newspaper is providing publicity.

Liberal/conservative

Walt — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 11:12:43 EDT

Some start life as conservatives and remain so.

Some start life as liberals and remain so.

Some start life as conservatives and change opinions as they grow older.

Some start life as liberals and change opinions as they grow older.

I am not going to insert my opinion here as who is right and who is not. All I am going to say is that education and self examination are signs of growth. Someone who will not consider other viewpoints is someone who is not able to grow and is calcified in this life. 2400 years ago, Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living.

Racism

Walt — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:28:11 EDT

I have just re-read James Baldwin's book, Go tell it on the Mountain, first published in 1953 while he was living an expatriate life in France, It is his version of what life in the US was like for blacks in the middle of the 20th century. Things have changed but some things have not. Read the book and try to put yourself in the place of a black man in the US. Empathy can be improved with practice. James Baldwin was one of our most influential black writers and he died in 1987.

Writing

Walt — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:04:05 EDT

When I was a student, writing was hard. What do I say? Now as a senior citizen, I have something to say and writing down my thoughts and opinions is easier. The more practice I get, the easier it becomes. If you want to make your thoughts known and possibly have an influence on national or local issues, write to your Congressman/woman, US Senators and local newspaper. You can find their email addresses by using Google. Use your own words, just don't forward someone else's work. Once is not enough. To have an effect, you must write repeatedly and redouble your efforts when an election looms. Write to those you agree with and those you don't. Here are the email addresses of a liberal and a conservative to get you started. rachel@msnbc.com and georgewill@washpost.com

Medicare versus insurance

Walt — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:52:28 EDT

About one month ago I had my first bout of vertigo and I didn't know what was happening. I had difficulty walking a straight line and I felt like I might fall on my face. I have osteoporosis and a fear of falling. After resisting it for 4 days, on the fifth day while at work in a hospital ER taking xrays, I asked an ER doctor what I should do. He wanted to run some tests sooner rather later. I punched out on the time clock and checked into the ER.

Two and a half hours later, I had a diagnosis and a prescription for some medication. I was told to go home and rest and that I could work the following day. I felt much better knowing that my condition was not serious. That is I felt better until I received the bill about one week later, $2600.00.

$2600.00 oh my! $2600.00 oh MY! $2600,00 OH MY!

Something new to worry about. I have both Medicare, the public option, and a Medicare supplement insurance, the private option. Medicare costs about $100 per month and the Medicare supplement which is private insurance about $50 per month. How much would they pay and how much must I pay? About 3 weeks later, I learned from the hospital that Medicare was paying about $2200.00, leaving $450 on the table still owing. We have yet to hear from the Medicare supplement insurer. Based on past performance, I estimate they will pay $10 to $100. That will leave me owing $350 plus.

If you watch TV at all, you have seen the glowing ads for Medicare supplement insurance. Sign me up they say and claim you MAY save thousands of dollars on the 20% of charges not covered by Medicare. The operative word is MAY. I MAY be struck by lighting while in a bathtub, but is it likely? NO to both. I expect to hear from the Medicare supplement insurer in the next 30 days. I am not holding my breath.

Death panels

Walt — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:01:54 EDT

Thank you, Sarah Palin, for bringing the existence of death panels to the attention of the American public. Society wanted those decisions made by someone and no one volunteered for the job, so health insurers got the job by default, which they preformed in back rooms out of sight of the public. Now that the public is aware of the insurance company death panels, I am confident that they will be abolished and no one will be willing to suggest that the government use health care reform as an excuse to set up public ones.

Thumbs

Walt — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:43:41 EDT

What good are thumbs? They are good for at least three things. They allow you to grip things using the other four fingers on a hand. They are good for writing on, short reminders to yourself, the rules of thumb. If you are a butcher or sell things by weight, they are good for pressing on the scale at the point of sale.

Beck/Buchanan

Walt — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:47:06 EDT

Just finished a book by Pat Buchanan, Where the Right Went wrong. I find that reading or listening to Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan that I actually agree with them some of the time, maybe 10% with a disagreement rate of about 90%. I wish there were some Republicans with the courage to say that they actually agree with Barack some of the time. I respect honesty and courage even if I disagree with the opinions expressed. After Barack was on TV pitching healthcare reform, one network interviewed Senator Charles Grassley, Republican from Iowa. He actually said that he agreed with everything that Barack had said; he just disagreed on the means of achieving common goals. I think that I just saw a glimmer of hope.

2010

Walt — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:03:30 EDT

The November 2010 election will be a challenge and an opportunity. It will be a challenge since the party out of power usually gains seats in Congress. It will be an opportunity to increase Democratic majorities and make Barack's change agenda easier to achieve. If the Republicans manage to hold their own, they will increase their obstruction and Barack will be able to do little in 2011 and 2012 as both parties jockey for position. The 2010 election is critical since we cannot afford to wait two more years for reforms.

My goal is to reduce the Republicans in Congress by 25%. I don't know the exact numbers in the House, but in the Senate that would be a reduction in the Republican ranks from 40 seats to 30. It will be difficult to achieve, but well worth the doing.

Consider the 2010 election as one of the 12 labors of Hercules: the cleaning of the Augean stables in one day. Hercules diverted a river to wash the stables clean. We must channel the desire for change on election day to further cleanse Congress of corruption and indifference to the well being of the majority. We began this process in 2006 and continued it in 2008. Many in Congress have still not gotten the message.

The Blinds of Justice are Lifting

Tom Awtry — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:27:18 EDT

A couple of months ago (February 2nd to be precise), I authored a posting entitled, “John Yoo A Tough Decision to Defend for the President” regarding the redemption of America’s justice system in wake of all the miscarriages of justice which occurred during the Bush Administration and in particular those pertaining to John Yoo. Yoo was Bush’s lead legal adviser authoring legal memos concerning the treatment, incarceration and trial (hearings) proceedings of Iraqi and Afghan detainees.

Following up on my past posting I’ve learned others share equally in my interest of Mr. Yoo’s all encompassing ability of embarrassing our country in the eyes of the international community. In an article posted within Hoffington Post, Mr. Martin Garbus, a Trial lawyer, authored an article entitled: “The Times May Be Changing” where he states some of the following excerpts:

Now six years after Iraq started, nearly one hundred days into the new presidency, more and more information is coming out about the involvement of the Bush people in Iraq-related criminal acts. The legal memos and the statements of tortured detainees are only the beginning of what will soon be a flood of information.

The legal machinery is starting to build, case by case, a rejection of Bush’s legal theories.
Today’s decision from Federal Judge John Bates of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that those detained in Afghanistan will have access to American courts builds on the recent cases that allow Guantanamo detainees access to the federal court. Judge Bates rejected both the Bush administration’s view and the recently articulated view of President Barack Obama that habeas corpus is not available to imprisoned non-Afghans who are arrested beyond Afghanistan.

We are seeing a pattern in the Washington federal courts. The judges are not shying away from tacking tough issues. The concept that a man sitting in Baghram has a right he can enforce in an American court seemed impossible a few years ago. The constant rat-a-tat of the media, with pictures of the tortured prisoners clearly influences judges along with the rest of the population. Judges respond also when the president too set a higher standard.

Attorney General Eric Holder is the one who must start the criminal process against Cheney, Gonzales, Yoo and the others. He does not shy away from difficult choices, given backing that lets him know he is not alone. He can, and has, taken positions that are ahead of Obama.

Attorney General Holder’s decision today is easier than it was yesterday, and as more and more stories of brutalized prisoners come out, it will get even easier, especially with our President’s recent executive order of allowing wider windows to be opened to the public through the “Freedom of Information Act.

Judge Bates, and the judges before him, including the Supreme Court, have rejected the rationale of Bush’s Attorney General and supporting lawyers that gave the President “unitary powers.”

The public should let Eric Holder and the president know they support criminal prosecution of the Bush people. This may be accomplished by contacting the Department of Justice here.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

Embarrassment for Whom - Notre Dame, The President or America

Tom Awtry — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:37:07 EDT

I’m not a Catholic, although I studied the religion, and believe I would have become a Catholic if I didn’t have stronger feelings towards the Christen religion I did choose.

However, I strongly disagree with Notre Dame’s decision to invite the President to speak at their commencement exercise and then follow the invitation up with highly publicized disagreements in the media, regarding the president’s pending appearance – could this be a cruel and very unbecoming way to deliver a political message?

Is it because President Obama is not a Catholic? No, since Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush all spoke at Notre Dame graduation ceremonies and the school has an established tradition of having the current president speak at its commencement, extending the invitation to Obama, who is pro-choice and recently overturned the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, has caused a fierce backlash among some Catholic groups.

I strongly believe our president is not going to use this occasion to campaign for his decision and beliefs on pro-choice and stem cell research to those gathered at the commencement.

Furthermore, I believe the Catholic parishioners are both smart enough and loyal to their beliefs to understand the issues of controversy over the aforementioned to listen and absorb opposing view points.

The following is a video I produced and released on YouTube during the Primaries last year, where John F. Kennedy is speaking about his Catholic religion and his personal feelings regarding his roll as President. Please give it a listen and see what this former Catholic had to say.

Senator Obama – Faith

Over the past several months, on the Internet, there had been numerous videos and e-Mails circulated, regarding Senator Obama’s religion, which is currently an unpopular religion in some countries and perhaps here in America. This uncalled for “smear” campaign is totally nonproductive to the issues concerning our country at this time, furthermore, an individual’s beliefs should not affect our important selection for the highest office in our country.

The video reflects that of another time in our history where religion was also considered an issue in choosing a President, although the audio quality is poor and portions of the audio reluctantly had to be edited, to conform with YouTube’s requirements for uploading, the message given is absolutely “clear” as to its meaning.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

The GOP Plan to Recovery

Tom Awtry — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:37 EDT

Lets see how long as it been since last September when Americans first learned of our worst economic crisis in almost eighty years?

It’s intuitively obviously to the most casual observer – not long enough for the GOP boys and girls to come up with a fail-safe plan to rescue us from the Democrats Economic Stimulus Package that’s creating a variety of green jobs, improving just about all facets of our digital and concrete infrastructure, resurrect the doomed “middle class”, render lower income tax payers a break in taxes and restore confidence in our country’s future as a world leader.

Now lets consider the benefits of the GOP’s concept of an economic stimulus package (as presented on the first of April (April Fools Day)):

Freeze discretionary spending for five years
Regressive tax cut for the super rich

That’s about it, no more, but the ramifications are great! Please carefully read an article publishing on Huffington Post, authored by Bob Cesca and entitled “Insane Republicans Reveal An Insane Budget Plan”

It only makes sense that a party currently being wagged by fringe crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann would release its alternative budget on April Fools’ Day.
Not only does the Republican plan freeze discretionary spending for five years in the midst of a recession which, by most accounts and proved by history, will countermand any sort of economic recovery, but it also cuts taxes by 10 percent for the same Wall Street executives whose actions largely got us into this economic mess in the first place. In other words: Congratulations, Republicans, you just released a budget that rewards wealthy corporate executives while blocking any attempt to dig us out of the economic catastrophe they created.
Smart!
The only bit of Republican legislation that’d be more ridiculous would be if Michele Bachmann were to introduce a constitutional amendment thwarting a fake plot to eliminate the dollar as the form of currency in the United States.
Oh wait. She’s already done that. And 30 Republican congressmembers so far have co-sponsored the amendment. 30 Republicans have irrevocably tethered their wagons to the Bachmann crazy train. Excellent. Next on the agenda: a bill creating the Office of Robot Insurance, protecting us from robot attackers who use old people’s medicine for fuel. Speaking of which, the Republican plan also phases out Medicare.
The marquee item, however, in the Republican plan is their inexplicably regressive tax cut for the super rich. Wealthy Americans in the top three tax brackets would see their tax burden cut to a flat 25 percent from previous rates of 35, 33 and 28. According to the Center for American Progress, CEOs from any of the top 800 corporations would receive a tax break of around $1.5 million a year. Meanwhile, if you earn $15,000 a year, your tax break will be around $0 a year.
But get this. Under the Republican plan, Americans are given the option of paying the old tax rates instead of the new, expensive and regressive Republican rates. So, for example, if your household income is $100,000, you could pay the same tax rate as someone earning $15,000. Or you could be a swell egg and go back to your old rate. Aside from the utter lack of fairness in the notion of a $100,000 household paying the same rate as a $15,000 household, who in their right mind would voluntarily pay higher taxes?
Now you might be asking, given that the Republicans are all about fiscal responsibility, how much does this Republican tax cut for the wealthiest three brackets actually cost? Some estimates, according to Steve Benen, project upwards of a $4 trillion price tag. At the very least, according to their own projections, the Republican plan would run up a $500 billion annual budget deficit through at least 2080. Again, the Republican grasp of fiscal responsibility is about as firm as their grasp of reality and sanity. The subtext here being: The trillion dollar Bush tax cuts weren’t irresponsible enough. Let’s go crazy! WOOO!
And by the way, those are annual deficits that factor into the mix a completely insane five year freeze on discretionary spending — a freeze that would surely plunge the American economy into a deep depression. To that point, the Republican plan doesn’t account for such an economic catastrophe, and therefore doesn’t factor such an inevitable consequence into their revenue and deficit projects.
All told, imagine if you will the Monopoly man running up and shoving you into a deep precipice. The Republican plan not only gives that Monopoly man a $1.5 million check for his trouble, but it also cuts the rope you were using to climb out of the hole — provided you actually survived the fall in the first place.
Speaking of holes, did you see the graph Paul Ryan clearly yanked out of his?
Check out that steep blue line illustrating the alleged Democratic budget deficits extending to upwards of 50 percent of GDP by 2060. Put another way, suggesting a deficit that’s 50 percent of GDP is like presupposing a living human being that’s 50 percent marshmallow man. It’s insane. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections only extend out to 2019. Yet the Republican chart somehow extends out to 2080. The steep upwards slope of the Democratic budget begins at around 2030 — 11 years after the furthest CBO projections stop.
What does this mean? For starters the claim on the chart: “Out-years based on CBO’s Long-Term Alternative Fiscal Scenario” is a lie. And the text: “Source: House Budget Committee Republican Staff” might as well say: “Source: Paul Ryan’s Ass.” In other words, that steep upwards slope is entirely made up.
The graph might as well look like this:
Yes, the Democratic budgets will be so out of control they’ll eventually make little curly-cues and travel backwards in time — adding to past deficits — while also looping around the word “government” — you know, because the Democrats love government.
At this point, the laughable street vendor pamphlet that John Boehner rolled out was probably less ridiculous than this actual budget plan and its accompanying Wall Street Journal graph. But it stands to reason that given their track record the Republicans would churn out a budget proposal that’s fully in line with their backwards, zero cred reputation.

I’ve always said I’m not an economist, but when it’s presented this simply, as Mr. Cesca as accomplished to do; only a fool would understand this is more of a curse than it really is a plan.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

An Inside Man at AIG - Maybe

Tom Awtry — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:06:28 EDT

I guess I’m not giving up on AIG until someone is behind bars or there’s some dare good answers to questions of “Who took our money and what was it used for?”

Right now I should be authoring postings on the G20 and how our President is fairing with the European leaders who feel we should report to them on all matters American; but I still hung-up on AIG and how any corporation felt it was above the law and dictated its terms and conditions to us the taxpayers.

Today the Wall Street Jounrnal published this online article, informing its readers there was an auditor that was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.

For me the issue is “Why didn’t this come to light earlier”, this could have solved many a questions, time and especially money. So, is there some darkness unknown to the Obama administration, because I’m sure had this administration learned of this auditor’s existence sooner, appropriate action would have been rendered, by bring this auditor into the shinning daylight of our gloomy economic burdens we’re facing.

Below is the article from the Wall Street Journal, authored by Ryan Grim and entitled: “Congress Wants AIG Mole’s Documents”.

Members of Congress are pushing for access to confidential reports filed over the past several years by a government-appointed auditor who has been sitting in on AIG deliberations.
The auditor, whose presence was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was installed as the result of a settlement that deferred prosecution of AIG for allegedly helping financial institutions fudge their books. Deferring prosecution was the Bush administration’s preference when it came to enforcing financial regulations.
“Whatever rationale there may have been for confidentiality doesn’t appear to apply anymore,” Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) told the Huffington Post. “If the idea was that having a government appointed lawyer sitting in the board room would make sure that AIG went forth and sinned no more, it obviously didn’t work out that way.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has requested documents.
Other Democrats in Congress are also requesting the documents, aides say, including Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
“That would be some real interesting reading, if we got everything from that mole,” said Cummings, who’s been chasing AIG since the initial government seizure. “We get so much incomplete information from AIG and maybe this is a way to connect all the dots.”
The government should be able to abrogate whatever settlement it entered into, members of Congress argue, because it now represents both sides of the agreement. “We now own AIG. We are by far the majority stock holder. If there is a reason still for not making public what he saw and heard, I’d like to hear it,” said Miller.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) agreed. “While there might be legal constraints that typically prevent at least some information from being disclosed outside the government, these extraordinary circumstances call for greater transparency. After all, AIG is now more than 80 percent owned by American taxpayers,” she said.
“It was a deal between the corporation and the government,” Miller said. “It was obviously intended to protect the corporation. We can waive that now since we own it. If you’re 79.9 percent stockholders and you say you want to waive confidentiality, you waive confidentiality.”

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

The Intent of the Law or Misuse of it

Tom Awtry — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:52:02 EDT

I guess I could be wrong! I’ve always voted for candidates based on bills they have either authored or supported by their vote, and this, with me, has been true at the local state and federal levels of our government.

Now I see there are other things I should have considered besides the “Intent” of the bill introduced by the person I want in office or that person’s beliefs.

As I understand it, Lawmakers in at least eight U.S. states want recipients of food assistance, unemployment benefits or welfare to submit to random drug testing. For me this is a travesty of government, which could lead to serious repercussions. This effort comes as more Americans turn to these safety nets to ride out the recession. Poverty and civil liberties advocates fear the strategy could backfire, discouraging some people from seeking financial aid and making already desperate situations worse. Please consider reviewing this online news release by CBS News entitled: “States Consider Drug Tests For Needy”. Subtitled: “Recipients Of Food Stamps, Unemployment Benefits And Welfare Targeted By Plans In 8 States”.

We enact laws to “aid” and “protect” us for specifically defined reasons, when these laws are not used for this purpose, in my opinion we are violating the “Rule of Law”, which our country is based upon.

Suppose in my extreme example: a person is transporting a registered firearm “illegally” (in actuality basically a law bidding citizen with no criminal record) in there vehicle; and while transporting the firearm this person comes to the aid of rescuing another individual from a pending life or death situation, hence saving the person’s life! Should this “Good Samaritan” be charged with the crime of transporting a firearm illegally?

For me, to long, I have witnessed the miscarriage of justice within our country in regards to applying laws authored to service one purposed and used in another to establish the “Law of Rule” as opposed to the “Rule of Law”. Our former Bush administration is an additional example, with to many examples to site within one posting.

So, lets not deny those who need financial assistance at this troubling time in our economy when they need it the most. Especially when you consider we could be hurting innocent family members within a family more so than the person under question. Denying an individual these needed benefits could also lead this person to a more serious crime and with one in every one-hundred Americans serving prison time; our penal system is already heavily over crowded.

The following video is a prime example of the importance the Rule of Law as it applies to our American society and basically what separates our nation from developing and undeveloped nations.

Public Service, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law

Sen. Ted Kennedy delivers the keynote address at the 2006 Conference on Public Service & the Law at the University of Virginia Law School. Founded by law students seven years ago, the conference brings together students, citizens, and attorneys to discuss current public interest legal issues. A graduate UVA’s law school, Mr. Kennedy discusses ‘Public Service, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law’.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

What is it Money or Power

Tom Awtry — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:25:14 EDT

Do you find yourself asking this question: How is it that so many ostensibly smart people in the financial world made such terrible choices for so long?

I find myself supporting of our President’s administration when it comes to our country’s economy; however, we must find the answer to this question “Is it “Money or Power”, which drives our banking industry, stock exchanges and multinational businesses, before an absolute cure can be prescribed to the nation’s economic burdens.

I feel we, as a country, we have admitted to our own mistakes to the international community and should they accept our dilemma or not; we must insure both to ourselves and the world this will occur again, if we want to reestablish the country as an economic leader.

An author, Tony Schwartz, writing for the Hoffington Post, offered his views on how we, as a society, must change from a “Me” group of people, to a “Us” society. In other words, for the last thirty years we have been strictly subscribed to the principles of a “Me only” generation of individuals. Mr. Schwartz’s article is entitled: “How Self-Interest Destroyed The Economy” and bares some reading and careful though on our behalf.

Here is an except from his article:

As for Wall Street more broadly, the bubble that finally burst had many enablers: regulatory agencies that failed to play the oversight role they were assigned; politicians from both parties who oversaw the deregulation of the financial markets; ratings agencies who colluded with the banks that paid them by giving unduly high credit ratings to their toxically risky bonds; and the rest of us, millions of investors and borrowers who poured money into markets as if they could only rise, and took out mortgages in order to buy homes we knew we couldn’t afford.

We wanted what we wanted, and we didn’t think much beyond that. Bankers and their agents were happy to give us what we wanted in order to get what they wanted, and they didn’t think much beyond that.

Far too many of us conspired to get as much as we could while the getting was good, never stopping to consider that if everyone keeps trying to get more - leveraging their bets and running up debt to do so — there will eventually be a day of reckoning.

Again another video, which to me, sways us to believe “every things going to be OK, if Wall Street Manages it own self.” The sad part this is our national media; not presenting the News, instead opinionating what we watch and perhaps for some of us trust in.

CNBC Needs to Change

CNBC should publicly declare a drastic change of direction, committing to responsible journalism in an effort to hold Wall Street accountable in the future. As a first step, it should bring new economic voices on the air with a focus on those who were right about this crisis in the first place.

The stakes are too high for CNBC to continue acting as the unofficial mouthpiece of Wall Street. This is not a game. Together we can bring about the much-needed change we seek. That is why it is so important that you sign this petition today and then encourage your friends, family and co-workers to do the same.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

One Vote – One Campaign Contribution

Tom Awtry — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:07:54 EDT

There was plenty of outrage on Capitol Hill last week over the executive bonuses paid out by AIG after getting federal bailout money. But another money trail could make us voters just as angry: the campaign dollars to members of Congress from banks and firms that have received billions via the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

That’s right!

While a few big firms, such as Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, have curtailed their campaign giving, others are quietly doling out cash to select members of Congress, particularly those who serve on committees that oversee TARP. In recent filings with the Federal Election Commission, the political action committee for Bank of America (which got $15 billion in bailout money) sent out $24,500 in the first two months of 2009, including $1,500 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and another $15,000 to members of the House and Senate banking panels. Citigroup ($25 billion) dished out $29,620, including $2,500 to House GOPWhip Eric Cantor, who also got $10,000 from UBS which, while not a TARP recipient, got $5 billion in bailout funds as an AIG “counterparty.” “This certainly appears to be a case of TARP funds being recycled into campaign contributions,” says Brett Kappell, a D.C. lawyer who tracks donations. (A spokesman for Cantor did not respond to requests for comment. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said it’s his “policy to accept legal contributions.”)

Think about this for a moment (that’s all you should need) here elected officials receiving campaign contributions from the same guys in essence they’re investigating. I haven’t looked up the word “kick backs” in the dictionary, but this sure sound’s like a synonym for the word.

The article from Michael Isikoff and Dina Fine Maron appeared in Newsweek and is entitled: “Follow the Bailout Cash”, which is very aptly titled.

Below a video of Fox News, interviewing Eric Cantor, House GOP Whip, videoed on January 15, 09, so could the real questions that need to be asked is when did congressman Cantor receive his campaign contribution, how did he vote on Troubled Asset Relief Program and how much of a fight did he put up before his vote?

TARP Trouble - Eric Cantor on Fox News

House, Senate to vote on release of $350 billion in bailout bucks.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

Europe is Invading Our Stimulus Package

Tom Awtry — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:05:11 EDT

In a post last week I sited excerpts from an article regarding how China is shopping for American businesses at bargain prices within a time piece entitled “Things go Better with Coke”. Well it seems I was a bit far sighted, since I see in the Washington Post today the European countries are coming to the States too.

Not necessarily for business “buy outs”, but instead to start lobbying activities for our $787 billion dollar Economic Stimulus Recovery package. Foreign nations and companies are stepping up their lobbying efforts in Washington and in state capitals, hoping to gain vital business in hard times. Hundreds of foreign-owned companies, many of them with significant operations in the United States, are selling their expertise in clean energy, high-speed transit and other technologies that undergird key aspects of President Obama’s stimulus efforts.

The following is an excerpt from the Post article, entitled: “Foreign Firms May Cash In on Stimulus Act With Expertise U.S. Companies Lack”, authored by Dan Eggen.

Telecoms such as Alcatel-Lucent of France, for example, and its New Jersey-based research arm, Bell Labs, are eligible to seek part of $7.2 billion in stimulus money set aside for upgrading broadband networks. Most global companies specializing in the transit and high-speed rail projects envisioned under the stimulus act are based in other countries — Canada’s Bombardier and France’s Alstom, for example. Transurban Group of Australia, which is helping develop high-speed toll lanes along the Capital Beltway, is a world leader in developing toll roads.

Sanyo North America, an arm of the Japanese technology giant, has already broken ground on a new solar-panel plant in Oregon and is readying strategies to tap into stimulus-related business, according to company officials. The firm recently registered as a lobbying organization in Washington for the first time since 2001, Senate records show.

I’m not for our government to establish policies of “protectionism”, but as we all know when there’s money to be had and lobbyists are involved, congressional votes are many times purchased at the tax payer’s expense, in this case “jobs”.

Earnestly it’s our civil duty to become politically involved, perhaps more so than we ever have before, to insure our politicians subscribe to a stick code of ethics and we vote our choice by moral character instead of political party in the election two years from now.

Here could be the type of jobs other countries are perhaps attempting to take from us:

Made In America

Hear the story of Troy Galloway, an American whose job and neighborhood have been revitalized by wind turbine manufacturing.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

We The People - Not Wall Street

Tom Awtry — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:07:01 EDT

An article published in Hoffington Post by Jeffery Sachs details our country’s problem in dynamic proportion and with crystal clear clarity regarding the plain, unchecked greed that has encompassed those few and selected individuals on Wall Street and residing in Washington.

At one time the word “Capitalism” was understood by all, but this aforementioned greed group of personalities decided among themselves to refine the meaning. It sickens me when I hear the word “Socialism” when used with our current economical affairs; why, because as the article states, we Americans perceive the older traditional meaning, whereas Wall Street and their allies are leading us to believe we are wrong and the President’s Economic Team is leading the country’s banking system into Socialism.

An excerpt from the article:

During the last 20 years Wall Street has had its way with us. On a bipartisan basis it provided the Treasury Secretaries, filled the regulatory agencies, paid itself unconscionable bonuses, and stuffed the campaign coffers. The greed knew no bounds. The distortions of public policy — right up to Greenspan’s infamous decision to leave financial regulation up to the firms themselves — have wrecked the world economy.

Truer words could never have been authored, our President was correct when he clearly spoke the words during his campaign “Change Must Come” and in this case to Wall Street and those who have backed and reinforced that fabled street for the past thirty years.

Another excerpt from this article:

The great scholars of capitalism, from Adam Smith to John Maynard Keynes, understood full well that a functioning economic system depends not on greed, but on moral sentiments and an acceptable social contract between the rich and the rest of society. The rich can make money, of course, but they must not flaunt it or consume it frivolously. Instead, they must invest their wealth for social benefit, whether in business or in philanthropy, or in both as in the case of history’s most celebrated capitalist-philanthropists, from Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. It is only the dangerously arrogant rich or the servants of the rich who believe that morals don’t matter in the great matters of finance.

Today as never before, if we as a nation are ever to hold our heads up high again, we must challenge our leaders and demand from them “That we the people control government, not those on Wall Street.

The article I’m quoting from is Capitalism and Moral Sentiments.

Lets us not forget these famous words spoken:

Gordon Gekko “Greed is Good”

Gordon Gekko “Greed is Good” http://www.forexsetups.com Trade like a professional.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.

Additional postings regarding this topic and others may be found here:

YES WE DID... AND WE STILL CAN...

Rose Marie Hall — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:32:43 EST

Well, we got him elected and he was not only ready on "Day One," but, in action unprecedented, by beginning to set up his cabinet, etc. almost immediately. Awesome. He has kept us informed as he said he would, got a economic package up and passed in record time and doing his best to be bi-partisan. All of this and more while mourning for the loss of his beloved grandmother.

I hope everyone will be fair and give him a decent amount of time to prove himself. Remember, he is doing his best, within the laws of the consitution, to clean up the mess that was left behind. He still needs our help to organize and to put together action events throughout Iowa to help him and our communities nationwide.

The National Admin of the grassroots Community Action Network is a way we can keep supporting him and helping ourselves in the process.

If you live in Iowa please go to this site:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/IowaCAN

For further information click on 'Read More...'

Congratulations President Obama and may the Lord bless you with wisdom and justice and help you remain true to your course even when you have opposition.

A Proud Nation

Walt — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:56:26 EST

Once upon a time
There was a proud nation
Conceived in liberty
Now deceived by its leaders
Everything is for sale
Everyone has a price
Everything 70-90% off
Going out of business
Unless we say NO!
USA under new management
Business not as usual
Business as conceived
By the founding fathers
A proud nation once again.

Winning

Walt — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:59:52 EST

On November 4, 2008, we elected Barack Obama to take charge and solve the myriad problems facing the country. Now some are questioning his choices for the cabinet and other top level positions. Let him make his choices and wait to judge the whole by results. I think that the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts.

Most of America was surprised by the strength and efficiency of the Obama campaign organization. I was not because I had read an account of how he had won in Illinois and I knew that that campaign organization was intact and functioning in 2008. The only hint most in the media and the public had of the campaign organization's strength was in the fund raising numbers. Those funds allowed the campaign to grow stronger and raise more funds which allowed it to grower stronger still. I believe that the organizational skills of the campaign will be transferred to governing in Washington, DC.

2020

Walt — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:34:15 EST

During the recent campaign, the McCain campaign used a number of signs saying Country First. However, the Republican party puts themselves first, special interests including big business second, and country third or fourth or fifth. They have just lost two elections, 2006 and 2008. I think that it will take two more losses in 2010 and 2012 before the Republicans begin to reassess their positions. Then they will be so far behind in voter's estimation that it will be 2020 before they can mount an effective challenge to Barack's successor's efforts at reelection.

Obama Ties McCain to Republican Philosophy

ODEH ODEH — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:58:53 EDT

Obama may as well go down in history as one of the presidential candidate that is most consistent, stable, objective, passionate and at the same time cool and calm in the face of denigration, distortions, deceptions and the kind of campaign of calumny and acrimony that is being run by the McCain camp.

On the other hand, McCain is the total opposite of Obama with due respect to his service for the nation. He is an epitome of erratic manifestation, inconsistency, high level of excitability, aggressively angry and bitter about the prospect of his rival and above all has displayed the kind of unstable hand that clearly demostrated that in times of crisis he can easily let loose his angry passion and ruin the day for American.

It is not therefore surprising that after trying to bash the president, he made a U-turn either by omission or commision and now stated that he share the same fundamental philosophy with President George Bush! So what are we to believe? Yesterday McCain lashes on Bush and today he is praising him.

Posterity shall manifest that McCain may have ran the most inconsistent, dogmatic, divisive, detrimental and inimical campaign that by implications have challenged the necessity of unity in diversity and the essentiality of the idealism of America and Americans.

I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FOR OBAMA AND HIS GENERATIONAL IDEALISM OF A TRULY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THAT SHALL TRANSFORM TO THE REAL AND PRAGMATIC ABODE OF HAVEN FOR HUMANITY.

Yes we can!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/us/politics/26cnd-campaign.html?hp

God bless USA

God bless Obama & Biden

Nuts

Walt — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:13:25 EDT

During WW2 at Bastogne, American troops were surrounded by the Germans and asked to surrender. The American commander's response was, "Nuts."

Now the Republicans are surrounded by the Democrats superior troops and resources and are using ACORN to make a false case that the Democrats are committing vote fraud. ACORN marked many of the suspicious signatures when it submitted the registration forms that the GOP is making so much of. The Republicans are all for democracy when they approve of the result, but not when they do not. A high rate of citizen participation is good for democracy but not good for the GOP. The more people vote, the more likely the Republicans will lose.

I Voted

Walt — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:12:49 EDT

I voted yesterday. It was quick and easy, took about 10 minutes start to finish. Only one person in line in front of me and only four voting machines. However, when I was finished there were about twenty people in line to vote.

Socialism

Walt — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 12:34:13 EDT

Capitalism failed in 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932. It was rescued in the 1930s by FDR's socialistic experiments; some worked and some didn't. The conservatives of the Republican party want to abolish all of FDR's successful efforts including Social Security. They have already repealed many union protections and the Glass-Steagall act which prevented many of the abuses which led to the continuing Wall Street meltdown.

Now the McCain campaign has called Barack a socialist and I am hearing muttering in the workplace about creeping socialism. Capitalism decries socialism when government affects profits but seeks government help whenever it gets into trouble. Capitalism is alive and well today only because of government regulation and the occasional bailout.

The Tenet of an Obama Presidency

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:18:55 EDT

The reality of the prevailing economic maladies and its severe socio-economic and political consequences are better imagine than describe and as a matter of fact we may be at this point unable to fathom the exactness of the abysses of what we are witnessing in the country. In other words from a pragmatic perspectives we are not honestly aware as to the exact degree of the economic situations and predicaments in the country.

Nevertheless, given the prevailing very bleak environment in the country it is indeed gratifying to at least see in concrete terms the fundamental understandings lay down by the campaign of hope and change as enunciated by Sen. Obama and supported by the majority of economic technocrats who share in his vision of the United States of America becoming authentically independent while at the same time relating in a humane and conducive fashion with other nations in pursuit of the necessity of globalism that has the potential to usher in the realism of positivism and humanity.

In the period where we are looking at a critical time in the history of the country, it will amount to nonentity and inconsequentiality for the presidential candidates to engage in the campaign of denigration, calumny and acrimony as epitomized by the McCain’s campaign. Consequently the issues must be those things that matters to the people of this country and not the personalities of either Obama or McCain.

Retrospective Pragmatism of Obama Realism

ODEH ODEH — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 19:15:59 EDT

Without an iota of doubt many of us will agree that the capacity, capability and ability of Sen. Obama to become the Democratic Party presidential nominee is more of a fairy tale than reality and nevertheless it is indeed outstanding and exceedingly astonishing to watch how this young first term senator of the United States of America has turned the page on the current political dispensation and landscape in the fashion that has yet to be seen.

This ingenuity on the part of Obama could not have been possible without the help of people like you, out there marching and working hard and as relentlessly as possible to prove that while the so much talk about experience is a legitimate argument, the same experience has failed this country in the most colossal and detrimental way that given the prevailing economic maladies and anemia it is pragmatically about time that we face the truth about our conditions and make the necessary adjustment and accommodation to usher in hopefully the candidacy and presidency of Obama and Biden in the next dispensation.

Our situation absolutely, totally and completely demand the fierce urgency of changing our mentality and inclination to the dogmatism and archaism of a would be president of the country must be so experienced that as a matter of fact and within the horizon of realism have all the passion, aspiration and inspiration to lead the country trashed out of his or her faculty by the status quo and the special interests that are principally in existence in Washington to milk the honey out of our lives and satisfy their insatiable egocentrism.

McCain Defining Moment of Retrogression

ODEH ODEH — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 01:08:09 EDT

Without an iota of doubt, the McCain articulations that its campaign must do all within its power to dehumanize, denigrate, distort and perpetuate the campaign of melancholy and acrimony coupled with character assassinations and defamation may as well be the final straw that breaks the camel back!

Given the contemporary realism of the present political dispensation, we have all witness how the McCain’s campaign and its surrogates have relentlessly and aggressively sort to, but unfortunately in a very myopic fashion attempt to paint Obama as different from “us.” This unfortunate, unpatriotic and mischievous connotation has no place in the America society of the 21st century and McCain did not yet get it.

Mr. Maverick has manifested to the majority of American people and the world at large as to how mentally and physically unstable he can be under pressure especially in the context of lagging behind in the recently published polls. It is regrettable that rather than fashion the polls, the later has had a tremendous effect on his countenance to the extend that he is willing to return to the status quo of the kind of campaign tactics that he rejected and vehemently criticized President George Bush of running against him during the year 2000 Republican Party primary.

Perfect Storm

Walt — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:42:15 EDT

It is so sad
Bush is so bad
I am so angry.
You see
The harm to our nation
From lax regulation
And Wall Street manipulation
Enough
Bush must go
Cheney too
No McCain/Palin
Republicans are through.
Next
We need a leader
A person of courage
One who inspires
And tells the truth
Who do we need?
Barack
Barack Obama
Barack H. Obama II

Change is a Conscious Choice

Gabriel — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:09:57 EDT

To All:

How many of us have been moved by the prospect of CHANGE in AMERICA? How many of us have listened to Barack Obama's message for change with eager hearts and open minds? How many of us have heeded the call to stand up for justice, solidarity, and CHANGE by involving ourselves in this campaign? Sisters and Brothers, we have all worked hard for CHANGE at Barack's side - but now John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican party are trying to steal our message.

They are trying to steal our voices.

Run Through the Tape!

Matt Robb — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:31:22 EDT

I have been on this campaign for a long time. I started in May of last year, working for 8 months in the great State of Iowa, and now I am on my 3rd month working in Northern Michigan. The capacity of this campaign to deliver on its original message of transformative change has been breathtaking. We have taken a previously relative unknown freshman Senator named Barack Hussein Obama and made him the Democratic Nominee, one big contest away from the Presidency.

The spirit and idealism of this campaign are what makes it so special--and we can not lose that--but now is the time to put the pedal to the metal and guide this campaign in its final stretch. It will be hard and the days will be long, but we have come to far to sit back and see what happens. We are not spectators. We are Americans. We are the people who were born to rise to great challenges and overcome impossible odds.

We will see political attacks from the other side in full force over the next 58 days. They will try to make us afraid of Barack Obama. They will try to make us afraid of each other. They will try to distract us from our work--distract us from the big issues. But no political soap opera will keep us from our goal. No distraction will stop us from talking about the middle class and health care and education.

We have come to far to continue to be divided. We have endured too much to see it slip away once again. I ask all of you who read this to run through the tape. Our time is now, and after 58 days it will be four more years. What will those four years look like if we can't win these 58 days?

Hurricane Gustav and Katrina retrospectively

ODEH ODEH — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 22:31:27 EDT

It was indeed with relief that Gustav arrival in the Gulf coast region as category 2 rather than the initially anticipated classification of category 4 or even the dreaded 5 as we have seen three years ago during the Katrina hurricane. Nevertheless the effect and damage it has coursed is still unimaginable though not in the same cadre as Katrina.

The Katrina hurricane evidently is the modern example of how the Republican Party under the leadership of the incumbent have miniaturize the importance and worth of ordinary Americans and remained largely a scenario that will forever hunt those who were in power and yet devoted much time to rhetoric rather than actions and choose to fund a senseless war over providing for the less privileged in the country which is reckon as the greatest and among the richest in the world.

Without an iota of doubt, nature has decided to remind all Americans on the necessity for them to retrospectively consider how President George Bush and the Republican led congress responded to the calamity that confronted the people of this land in the face of Katrina and let them judge for themselves whether to give credit or issue an abomination for the abject neglect of the people of the Gulf coast resulting in the death of thousands and displacement of millions from their homes.

The Race that was never close

ODEH ODEH — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:14:54 EDT

We have seen it over and over again and heard it more than once that the current political dispensation race to the White House is too close to call! How I had wished Tim Russert was to be with us and give us a concrete, pragmatic and authentic evaluation, narration and postulation of the reality on ground.

Nevertheless, it is important to analyze how on earth one may realistically be bought over or rather confuse with the propagation of the dogmatic information that the Democratic Party is not faring better than the Republican Party going by the abysmal, detrimental and absolutely inimical socio-economic maladies that average Americans are going through in addition to the unforgettably disgraceful and pathetic foreign images that the country currently enjoy even from some of its allies.

I will like to challenge those including but not limited to the pundits, experts and even the Republicans to provide legitimate evidences that the candidacy of Obama and Biden will not win over that of McCain and Palin on the basis of the necessity for the country to transition and transform from the status quo to one which will help fulfill the aspirations of contemporary citizens and further repair the already damaged images of the country within and overseas.

Posters, pins

Jeanie Schneider — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 19:04:19 EDT

A number of people have requested I post the Obama poster and pins again. These posters and pins have a little story. With only a few weeks left before the big event in Washington DC, our local bake sale fell short to raise the funds for the permits, tables, stage, and other costs for a big rally and fund raiser in Washington DC. A grassroots event is just that, grassroots and cannot receive support from the campaign or the DNC.

With people making plans to attend and bands volunteering, I sat down and painted a portrait of Obama. Not a portrait artist, but I used to paint wildlife in watercolors. Working as a nurse in the ER, I got home from a shift, started painting, answering emails, and trying to keep ahead of a growing event. The grassroots groups have been great help, and it is coming together. I finished the painting and had a limited edition printed off along with pins from the same artwork. I am pleased to say, the stage is being built thanks to everyone!

The original painting will be in Washington DC framed, and raffled off for the Presidential campaign.

Jeanie

Link to see posters and pins:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=25596901414

for any other information, contact: jeanieschneider@gmail.com

Poll: Obama Leads In Alaska; Campaign Red State Efforts Making Gains

A DREAMER — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:46:42 EDT

Presidential polls have brought few surprises over the past few weeks, with surveys in most battleground states finding surprisingly steady results -- for instance yesterday when Obama was, as usual, narrowly ahead in Colorado, a bit more in Iowa and tied in Virginia. But today’s polling delivery does contain a surprise: The first Alaska poll to find Obama ahead (for that matter, this is probably the first Alaska presidential poll in quite a while to find any Democrat ahead)!

In Alaska (polling history), a poll by the Hays Research group has Obama leading 45% to McCain’s 40%. The survey included Ralph Nader (who got 2%) but not Bob Barr, who is also on the Alaska ballot. The poll’s margin of error is rather high, however, at 4.9%.

Re: McCain's bluff

ODEH ODEH — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:38:15 EDT

How do Sen. McCain hope to justify the obvious fact that he was more absent from voting on national issues than any other senator in the current political dispensation seeking to be the next commander in chief?

The above post from MoveOn. org adequately answer the question that conspicuously demostrated the bias and lip services paid to voting matters in the congress by the same Sen. McCain who is now accusing Obama and Pelosi of incapacitation, as if the life of Americans depended on the immediate action of the congress.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

McCain's bluffWednesday,

August 6, 2008 5:25 PMF

rom: "Noah T. Winer, MoveOn.org Political Action" moveon-help@list.moveon.org

To:Dear MoveOn member,

At the world's largest motorcycle rally, John McCain angrily accused Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi of skipping out on votes to solve the energy crisis. "Tell 'em to get to work!" he shouted.

The Center

Walt — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:09:44 EDT

Of course, Barack Obama is moving to the center; elections in the US
are won or lost in the center. I doubt that he is actually changing his
positions, just the public and media perceptions of his positions are
changing. He wants to win and we want him to win. Just consider the
alternative, John McCain.

We must keep up the good work

ODEH ODEH — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:25:39 EDT

So far, Obama has spent $60,000 in Alaska; $3.5 million in Florida; $1.3 million in Georgia; $1 million in Indiana; $100,000 in Montana; $1 million in North Carolina; and $1.8 million in Virginia, according to a new analysis by TNS/Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's political television advertising consultant. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/obama/

The above excerpt from CNN shows how our donation is being used by Sen. Obama to position our movement for hope and change in the country to take the White House. This is not going to be an easy task, given the fact that we still have some of us who are hell bent on voting based on sentiments rather than issues.

Consequently, while giving ourselves a thumb’s up, we must keep the good work and continue to support the movement. This country cannot afford another era of mediocrity in which we have become exposed to the worst economic fragility in recent times. In fact pundits have unanimously concluded that the banking sector for instance is in the worst shape since the early thirties!

It is sacrosanct on us to save the future of this country and create the enabling environment that can positively impact on the nation and its people, thereby making the country a safe haven for mankind and especially our children’s children. In order words we must keep up the good work and be ever willing to donate our energy, time, money, talent, innovations and hearts so that collectively the much anticipated future we hope and believe in may become a reality.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

Politicization of National Treasure by President Bush and McCain

ODEH ODEH — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:40:43 EDT

The detrimental consequences and inimical outcome of the politicization of national treasure in any given state can better be imagined than described. In many cases the people are subjected to wanton and abject poverty and misconceptions fuel by the propagandists’ arm of the incumbent administrations.

As a matter of fact it is regrettable that the United States of America, the country which we all look up to as an epitome of democracy, justice, empowerment, knowledge and decorum is now joining the gang of states that careless about their national treasure and it is now ready to politicize the issue of offshore drilling, which in the prevailing circumstances is realistically not a necessity at all.

If this great country has its incumbent prescribing such agenda as lifting the ban on offshore drilling as singularly a sequel to the rising cost of gas in international market, how pragmatic does the country hope to influence the worldwide output of the supply of oil? Rather than accept its inability to negotiate with countries that have oil in a diplomatic fashion, this administration is now engaged in the sacrificing of the nations treasure and trading the ideals that sort to protect both the people and the environment into the waste bin for their egocentric and selfish interest.

Selective Executive Execution: the case of the offshore drilling

ODEH ODEH — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:50:37 EDT

I cannot but wonder the alacrity at which President George Bush within the twinkle of an eye is in the process of lifting the ban on offshore drilling, after Sen. McCain upon secretly discussion how he can become relevant to the American people decided to pursue the most defeatist and fatalistic agenda in recent time by advocating for the same point of view that is now attracting the executive arm of government.

How I had wished that the incumbent was ever ready to apply his executive power on issues that bothers the ordinary Americans, rather than perpetuate the inimical pragmatism of vetoing realistically all attempts at making the people happy. It got to a point that to the average man is beginning to imagine that the wall of survival has crashed on them as far as the White House policies and articulations are concerned.

This scenario in my opinion is tantamount to what I may simply refer to as selective executive execution. If such application is use for the wellbeing and welfare of the people, it will be a great tool that could have brought about the much needed hope and change that Sen. Obama is now articulating and inspiring the American people to once more believe that it is indeed achievable.

Sen. Obama's Security fundamentalism and McCain obsession

ODEH ODEH — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:46:40 EDT

"Part of the job of the next president is to look at our overall strategic landscape and make certain that we are using the most precious resources we have — which is the extraordinary young men and women in uniform — in a way that maximizes American security, and that's not something I believe that we've done over the last several years," he said.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxxGSWVx7DMnJbhgfM_QNlKr4OXwD91T88J00

In spite of the campaign of denigration, distortion and deceptions being propagated and orchestrated by Sen. McCain and his surrogates, the reality is very obvious, Sen. Obama is very much informed and aware of the nitty-gritty of the necessity for security at home and oversea for Americans.

The above excerpt from his speech to the National Council of La Raza Convention in San Diego, California evidently manifest his fundamentalism and unequivocal inclinations to providing the best available means of security for our troops and at the same time guarantee that the are supported in the best way possible.

It is therefore retrogressive, inimical and detrimental if for the sake of politics Sen. McCain and his surrogates continue to perpetuate the campaign of unhealthy discriminations and dogmatism against the purely objective stand of Sen. Obama. Furthermore, honorable Sen. McCain being quoted as saying he will rather loose the election than the war in Iraq, clearly manifest to the people of this great country that his thinking are unilateral and militarism inclined.

Sen. McCain many limitations on Iraq

ODEH ODEH — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:58:27 EDT

Asked about such criticism, Obama said: "John McCain has been in Congress 25 years, no doubt about that. If this is a longevity measure, then John McCain wins. On the other hand, before we went into Iraq, I knew the difference between Shia and Sunni."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxxGSWVx7DMnJbhgfM_QNlKr4OXwD91T88J00

Sen. Obama mourned the death of nine US troops in Afghanistan and made it unequivocally clear that longevity is not synonymous to being a capable and informed leader. In the above reference that I pasted for ease of information, he was right in drawing our attention to the fact that in spite of Sen. McCain globetrotting and too numerous visit to the Middle East and especially Iraq, in my opinion it amount to shame that this honorable veteran senator from Arizona does not know the difference between Shia and Sunni.

In other words, how can the McCain’s camp criticize Sen. Obama for his articulations on Iraq when their “boss” could not even differentiate between the people he claimed to want to protect? Simply put, Sen. McCain understands of the Iraq environment and country is so shallow that one could attribute such myopic understanding to a situation whereby in America a candidate running for the state government house does not know the difference between Hispanics and Blacks or Whites and Hispanics and or Blacks.

Obama highlights McCain energy mediocrity!

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:56:41 EDT

These are facts, and should constitute the kind of campaign and politicking that Americans must support. Sen. Obama in helping us to reflect on Sen. McCain's records in terms of how he voted for energy matters in the country should be an eye opener for all as to the mediocrity and hypocrisy of the later in talking about changing the way things are being done when in fact he is part of the problem and not solutions.

Sen. McCain lacks the moral audacity to talk about energy just like any other matters that he has helped destroyed and stagnated by virtue of his vote against such initiatives.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

"He voted against raising our fuel mileage standards that could have made such a difference over the last couple of decade and he joined George Bush in opposing legislation twice in the last year that included tax credits for more efficient cars.

He’s voted against alternative sources of energy.

Against clean biofuels. Against solar power.

Against wind power.

Against an energy bill that represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country," Obama listed,

"So when John McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, understand that John McCain should look in the mirror because he has been a part of that failure."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/obama-mccain-sh.html

Sen. McCain’s energy policy Hypocrisy

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:26:47 EDT

With all due respect we have continued to experience the deterioration in the articulations of Sen. McCain especially in the areas of energy formulations for the country. Too often this twenty six years plus honorable veteran Senator of the United States of America has continued to missteps and misspoke on the issues of energy by confusing the Iraq war and oil in his analogy of the dependence of the country on foreign oil.

I am pleased to join issues and in support of Sen. Obama by reminding the American people that how come it took Sen. McCain over thirty years to all of a sudden realize that the country’s dependence on foreign oil is inimical to its socio-economic and political freedom or independence?

When Obama reference McCain’s recent comments about the above issue, he was quick to remind the people that the later has been part of the Washington that stood and watch for the past thirty years and did nothing in regard to how best the country can tackle the issue of energy and the dependence on foreign oil. For the past over twenty years Sen. McCain has been part of the Washington that never brought succor to the American people and the country's dependence on oil, so why now, because he is running for the president of the country?

Obama: McCain "Should Look in the Mirror" on Energy Reform Record

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:49:52 EDT

A word is enough for the wise, please take time to reflect on what Obama has to say about Sen. McCain's comments on oil and dependency!

Obama’s criticism follows comments made by McCain earlier in the week in which he said, "Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long-term about the future of the country."

Senator Obama shot back today, telling the crowd that McCain was a Senator for 26 of those 30 years in a Washington that has done little to help reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/obama-mccain-sh.html

God bless USA

God bless Obama

Obama Campaign: relieve the squeeze on ordinary Americans

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:17:32 EDT

It is not too difficult to understand the differences that abound between Senator Obama’s economic agenda and those enunciated by Sen. McCain.

Without much ado, Sen. McCain lacks the fiscal acumen to transform the pains the ordinary Americans are felling into an affirmative economic articulation and reality. While on several occasions he has claimed to be different from President George Bush, his actions and antecedents conspicuously narrate a different story. He may actually be more Bush than Bush himself. In order words, check the below excerpt from Jason Furman below:

Obama Campaign: relieve the squeeze on ordinary Americans

Furman explained the clear and direct contrasts between Obama and McCain’s economic policies, saying that McCain has no short run stimulus plan and a long run theory that is “flat out false.” While McCain proposes enormous tax cuts, nearly twice as large as President Bush’s current plan, Obama wants to implement a tax relief for ordinary Americans, cutting up to $1,000 worth of taxes and giving direct tax relief to subsidized interest payments, a program which would not increase the economic deficit.

http://talkradionews.com/2008/06/obama-campaign-relieve-the-squeeze-on-ordinary-americans/

Sen. McCain is “out of touch” with Americans

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:52:57 EDT

The fundamentalisms that help define the “out of touch” realism are not about the perfection of political convictions or ideologies but rather the transformation of such ideas into a concrete and pragmatically progressive reality socially, economically and politically.

Without question it is therefore eminent for those who may be quick at defending Sen. McCain that the issue at stake is not about his understanding and maneuvering of the political landscape, on the other hand, it is a simple question of how his convictions has prioritize the needs ( not wants) of the American people and the country in general.

In this regard, and most unfortunately this veteran senator has failed to inspire and uplift the socio-economic status of Americans and moreover his recent comments about psychological economic relief, followed by one of his economic adviser’s comments about Americans being whiners and the conclusion that the country is not experiencing any kind of realistic economic maladies and hardship further buttress the facts that Sen. McCain is purely and conspicuously out of touch with the American people.

The Women in Obama's Life

ODEH ODEH — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:11:33 EDT

"As the son, grandson and husband of hard-working mothers, I don't accept an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers," Obama said.

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/10/obama.women/?iref=hpmostpop)

Great indeed to reminisce the women that have shaped Sen. Obama’s life and help make him what he is today. With due respect to all mothers out there who are working aggressively and relentlessly at ensuring that their wards and children are taken care of, please do not be discourage, but keep up with the good work.

Sen. Obama is an epitome of how divine intervention and hard work on the parents and children can result into a positive outcome that goes beyond just the family. Retrospectively it is always a pleasure to see that smiling face, the happy moment, the pride of parents who watch with amazement the accomplishment of their children and how eventually they impacted on their community.

In light of the above, it is beyond questioning how and why Sen. Obama has continued to support programs tailored towards making the female folk’s better position to help the family and humanity in general.

Kudos to all mothers, women and ladies out there, including but not limited to my spouse and daughter, then of course my mother who always believe in my capabilities even when am in doubt at times.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

Ted Kennedy

ODEH ODEH — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:29:53 EDT

Our prayers remain steadfast for you and your family.

What a pleasure seeing you in the senate and how much more can one eloquently represent the sacrifices you have continued to make for the country and its people?

Even when the situation looks very bleak, I did not hear you whin, contrary to the postulation by Mr. Gramm ( Sen. McCain top economic adviser) that Americans are whinners for presenting their plight to humanity.

We are anxiously anticipating your full return. Remain bless in the Lord, God. Amen

God bless USA

God bless Obama

Re: the Realism of Jackson’s Remarks

ODEH ODEH — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:32:25 EDT

It baffles me greatly that Fox News has been identified with almost every instances and circumstances that defame or denigrate his character. Fundamentally, am therefore tempted to ask myself this question; what are the prerequisites to getting interview in Fox news? Maybe of all such requirements, the most sorted out is the ability of whosoever is being interviewed to have one kind of negative comments about Sen. Obama, period!

This is regrettable and completely a case of myopic and sentimental favoritism for the continual perpetuation of the status quo and the dogmatism of President George Bush’s surrogates to hold on to power by making sure that as long as it depends on them, all media should go out and propagate the message of denigrations and maliciousness against Sen. Obama.

What has happen cannot be taken back, nevertheless without an iota of doubt the alacrity at which Fox news and cohorts swiftly and aggressively propagate and orchestrate any news that it felt might add up to the negativism concepts about Obama leave a lot of us to wonder whether this same network is just merely a tool of the Republican party or actually a racially inclined network that cannot stand an American who happens to be 100% black and 100% white!

Much Ado about Flip- Flop

ODEH ODEH — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 23:02:00 EDT

In spite of the media propaganda and the campaign of calumny, distortions and deceptions by Sen. McCain and his surrogates including the group that is sponsoring the $3 million adverts against Obama (the veteran …..), the obvious cannot be denied.

The fact of the matter is fundamentally the misconceptions and sentimentalism of Sen. McCain’s representation and ideologies as compared to the reality on the ground. While his flip- flops has further orchestrate the capacity to hurt Americans and annihilate the country further from the committee of nations, in Sen. Obama’s case, he has remained steadfast to the fundamental ideals of the core values of the people’s movement for hope and change in the country.

Sen. Obama has not flipped flopped whenever the issues have to do with the lives of Americans and how they can live better than the prevailing circumstances. In order words his articulations and agendas in the area of healthcare, national security, social security, the economy, foreign affairs, education, veteran affairs and benefits have all remained largely unchanged and even when there are tendencies for modification it is for the betterment and refining of the people’s interest.

Sen. McCain Free Trade Agreement Detrimental Rigidity

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:10:25 EDT

It is very funny that while Sen. Obama is taking a realistic and pragmatic approach to the issue of trade’s agreements with other nations, constantly finding a humane and sound articulations necessary to review some of the laws and other modalities guiding such an agreement, Sen. McCain on the other hand is maintaining a rigid position in order to cast himself as a tougher candidate.

This inimical, myopic, sentimental and detrimental posture does not reflect the essentiality of a candidate that understood the people’s heartbeat or pulse rate. Surprisingly the syndicated and mainstream media are treating his trip to Canada, Mexico and Columbia as the best thing that might be happening to America and its current political dispensation. What an irony and how pathetic, dogmatic and sensational has some of our media had become all in the name of being used as a tool to buttress the GOP candidate at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Nevertheless, the people are wiser than in the year 2000 in which they were cajole and subjected to all kinds of nefarious circumstances culminating in our present socio-economic debacles. While the Democratic Party has since move forward, I am sort of ashamed of the retrogressive and archaic position of the Republican Party in choosing a candidate that have earlier indicated he will be too old to even think about considering to run for the White House again, let alone the display of adamancy and anathema to change by the party.

I have one simple question for Sen. McCain and all the proponents of free trades that do not take into cognizant the interest of Americans on the basis of their socio-economic wellbeing and the political integrity of the nation:

If Sen. McCain is so passionate about how free trade agreements have brought about prosperity and realignment between the country and other nations, why has he not propose the necessity of having free trade agreement with nations such as Venezuela, Iran, and Syria, just to mention but few?

In the absent of a logical and sound argument for the above scenario, it will be wise and within the horizon of realism to conclude without doubts that Sen. McCain Free Trade Agreement mentality is tantamount to fabrication and his inability to realistically accept the urgent necessity of the design to change the approach for something that will benefit all the nations participating in the ventures and thereby protecting American workers too.

God bless USA

God bless Obama

The limitations of Rigidity

ODEH ODEH — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 19:08:44 EDT

As the nation celebrates its Independence Day, it is wise to reflect on the limitation of being rigid and anathema to change.

Sen. McCain as has been severally pointed out by his supporters and the syndicated media especially the surrogate Fox News is a fundamentally very rigid and unbending believer in his convictions. There is nevertheless the downside to such a mentality.

While Sen. Obama is admonishing the American people and the country about the necessity and essentiality of the family and further emphasizing the inevitability of patriotism, faith, the need for national service and veteran cares; Sen. McCain is busy pursuing his personal convictions of supporting free trades by visiting Mexico, Canada and Columbia.

It is unfortunate that the mainstream media will never see any justification in considering the actions of Sen. McCain as tantamount to misrepresentation and misplace of priority especially in light of the detrimental consequences of some of the free trades in the country.

Sen. Obama’s Pragmatism on Trade Agreement!

ODEH ODEH — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:26:55 EDT

I am completely astound by Sen. McCain insistence that America as a country ought to stick to the status quo in terms of Trade Agreements with other countries even at the expense of a thoroughly and comprehensibly articulated position that will protect the American people, and the other countries citizens, while at the same time rejuvenating and affirmatively transforming the socio-economic status of the countries involved.

It is totally wrong and by no means myopic for this veteran Senator McCain to once more lie to the America by attempting to enforced on its citizenry his personal convictions about “free trade” without even retrospectively reviewing and concretely analyzing the detrimental and inimical scenarios that are bound to rear its ugly heads once a trade is negotiated purely on the political basis without taking a holistic approach that must preserve the individual countries integrity and humanity in general.

Retrospectively Sen. McCain has supported practically all free trade agreement since being in the senate. In order words it may be wise to say he is color blind as long as free trade is concerned. The next president of this great country cannot afford to be color blind when the issue of free trade is on the table for various reasons.

Why McCain must Emulate Obama

ODEH ODEH — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 02:30:37 EDT

Through out the current dispensation and as of this very moment, I am always saddened with the personalization of attacks against Sen. Obama by the veteran Sen. McCain and his cohorts including and not limited to the syndicated bought over media. Nevertheless, my joy indeed is limitless sequel to the outstanding, objective, transparent, professional and humane manner and fashion Sen. Obama has not only handled the situation, but have been able to calm some of our nerves.

Campaigning yesterday in Missouri and as has become typical of Sen. Obama’s generosity and goodness, he praised Sen. McCain for his service to the nation including his Vietnam record, should assume. His broadmindedness, tolerance, calmness and capacity to take the “high road” in the face of excessive nepotism, sensationalism, distortions, deceptions and unpatriotic machinations by his rivals and some elements of the media is a beauty to watch and marvel at.

This young, very articulate, vibrant, understanding, loving and honest senator from Illinois has become prematurely a heavyweight political technocrat as a result of some deliberate propaganda and orchestrations targeted at discouraging and smearing his personalities and the very essence of his ideological inclinations. Rather than become discouraged and resign to fate, he monster the strength and courage originating from his faith in God almighty and the good will of the American people thereby turning a could have been adversity to prosperity. As a result of his capacity to deal with situations it is not surprising that one of the outcomes of such sterling outcome was his remarkable culmination as the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party of the United States of America.

Iowa Was Sweet!

Tue, 20 May 2008 11:07:20 EDT

It feels like it was at least a year ago but it was only five months ago.
We remember this moment in the Des Moines Register debate:

Des Moines Register Debate: Advisers
Link

Thank again to all Iowans and to the formidable Obama'08 team there (Laura H., Maryse, IA etc ...). We couldn't have done this without you.

We need change now.
YES WE CAN!

Meet the Press

Walt — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:58:34 EDT

Barack will be the guest on Meet the Press on Sunday morning May 4.

Pennsylvania Primary

Rev Bry — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:24:23 EDT

is just around the corner. How will Obama fare?

An interesting comment...

Rev Bry — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:53:20 EDT

26 Mar 2008 07:27 am

"The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. He has been a vocal critic of the racism, sexism and homophobia which still tarnish the American dream. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize. This is a critical time in America's history as we seek to repent of our racism. No mat ter which candidates prevail, let us use this time to listen again to one another and not to distort one another's truth,"

- Dean J. Snyder, Foundry United Methodist Church, March 19, 2008. Snyder is Hillary Clinton's pastor.

McCarthyism

Jim Dietz — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:45:37 EDT

This past week, one of the advisors to Barack Obama accused Bill Clinton of being McCarthyist. Representatives of the Clinton campaign went overboard to declare the assertion outrageous, mean-spirited, etc. Being members of Clinton's staff--if anyone would know about outrageous and mean-spirited, those people should!

But was the general who made the comments incorrect?

McCarthyist tactics get their name from Senator Joe McCarthy, a man from Wisconsin who served as senator for 10 years until his death in 1957. Indeed, so vile was McCarthy and his tactics that after his presidency, Eisenhower listed his one real regret as not having dealt directly with McCarthy and his bullying ways and his hurtful allegations.

So what is McCarthyism? It is the use of outrageous statements for maximum political gain. In all cases, the statements cannot be substantiated and when pressed to provide concrete evidence, the accuser waffles, says he was misrepresented, or makes new accusations. In the beginning, there were a couple of instances of truth to the allegations and that allowed McCarthy to gain popularity/credence. McCarthyism is a lot like 'The Big Lie' used by Hitler's propaganda machine--if you repeat the same outrageous comments all the time (--the Jews were responsible for losing WW1 for Germany, etc), then sooner or later most people will move their views in your direction--not a ton, but enough to guarantee they won't resist future radical actions.

So--is the general right? Has Bill or the Clinton campaign engaged in McC arthyist tactics?

**Insinuations of race being the deciding factor --starting way back with the South Carolina primary. This has continued lately with Ferraro's comments about blacks having it easier than white women. Hah! (I guess she missed the first couple hundred years of this nation's history)

**Clinton representatives insinuated that Barack Obama was a drug dealer (because he admitted to doing more w/drugs than 'I didn't inhale it') and that he is still (so the insinuation goes) using stuff stronger than nicotine.

**Clinton officials claim that Obama was educated and trained in a madrassa in Indonesia. This was followed up by Hillary denying it saying Obama wasn't Muslim "As far as we know...." (never mind Obama's long history of working with Chicago south-side churches). These same people now criticize Obama for his loyalty to the same church. It astounds me how cynical/hypocritical this is--to lie and say Obama is Muslim and then immediately turn around 60-90 days later and hammer him for his loyalty to a CHRISTIAN church. (Just as sad is how many people don't notice this contradiction and change their mind based on the scaremongering tactics)

**The 3 a.m. phone call advertisement.

Sadly, the list goes on. All of the comments are either provably false or are things impossible to know about ANY non-incumbent candidate. The general is right--the Clintons ARE using McCarthy's tactics.

With that said, Obama deserves respect for maintaining the high ground and not getting into an insinuation fight with the Clintons. Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk because only one of you is going to mind the smell and its not the skunk. I wish the Obama campaign would play up that aspect of the campaign--that given the numerous opportunities to mention the infidelities and questionable ethics of the Clintons, that he has chosen not to.

Heck, I wish Bill Clinton would act like an ex-president should. He can look at Bush I or Carter for that--or even further back to Nixon or Truman (though I haven't forgotten Clinton's veiled insults in his funeral speech for Nixon a long time ago either...)

*****

Finally, I am always stunned by the hate that spews from the radical fundamentalists on both sides of the political aisle. I had never gone to DailyKos before--and won't again. All there was was a bunch of 'witty' insults of John McCain based on his age, etc --there was no attempt at a dialogue, just ways to be insulting. But that paled with the neo-nazi comments of Sean Hannity who said that Obama's speech proved he was anti-American and anti-Semite. What the heck??? I'm not even sure how to comment on something like that. All I know is that in Iowa, we're brought up to behave a bit better than that.

As always, I am a Republican and make no effort to hide that. I believe in limited government, a strong defense (not Iraq), and a balanced budget. (Yes, there ARE real Republicans left out there...we're just a bit difficult to hear over the neo-Nazi yelling....)

The Great Depression / musings on religion and politics

Jim Dietz — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:28:32 EDT

Well, here it is, Monday, and over the weekend, a major bank went in the crapper (I'm defining 'crapper' as selling for 2% of its value 72 hours earlier...).

A long time ago, banks speculated on mortgages and giving money to anyone who came up and asked for it--property values just kept going up and the stock market, well, it just kept going up, too. And then, all of a sudden, it was Black October and the Great Depression had begun. The catch was--it didn't hit everywhere equally at the same time and it didn't end equally either.

Pundits today are rehashing the Clinton shtick: "It's the economy, stupid" but they miss a key couple of things.

#1 - It is always the economy. It always has been and if the US wishes to remain the dominant world power, it always will.

#2 - It's great to have a slogan, but these problems are different than those of 1992. Worse, some are because of problems that took place during Clinton's administration. IMPORTANT NOTE: These problems are NOT caused by Clinton or decisions he made as president. Presidential influence on economic policies is highly overrated (see past musings on 'doing nothing').

The tough part is going to be what should be done--what CAN be done? And we're back to the choices available to Hoover and FDR. Ultimately, we went with FDR's government activism which has led to 70 years of increased government control over various aspects of the economy and social mores. The more effective route would have been to let the economy take its own course. The problem is today--after 70 years of EXPECTING government assistance, would the American public allow the government to let events run their course? If there is indeed a depressions, SHOULD the government not intervene this time? Just because it was wrong 70 years ago--does it make it wrong in 2008?

* * *

The big media issue of the past few days has been Reverend Wright and his snippets (God Damn America) from past sermons. I'm not sure why this is a huge issue.

*Where was the outrage when Falwell/Robertson said the US deserved 9/11/01 because we have homosexuality and divorce in this country?

*What did Wright say in the 15-20 minutes before/after those snippets? What was the Bible verse that was the focus of that Sunday's sermon?

*It is only lay opinion, but I suspect Jesus would have no problem with most of Wright's message--instead of helping the poor, we have built them prisons. Instead of bringing peace, we've spent decades helping one side in a regional conflict--when that side isn't necessarily a clear good guy. I don't think right-wing fundamentalists are comfortable if Jesus is described as liberal. But he was.

*I am discouraged that so many people miss context. This is a black preacher speaking to a black congregation. Why are they 'black'?--because churches in many areas remain segregated, a point made by MLK, Jr. in his speeches. But black Americans have had to survive many problems no one else has--slavery, segregation, oppression, etc. It is not the fault of anyone today--and non-blacks shouldn't feel guilt for past actives (it's not their fault and the past can't change). As a community, they have borne many crosses that rich, white families have not.

*What's wrong with some fire and brimstone in a preacher? Most sermons are about sin, salvation, and damnation anyways. How is this different?

*I don't like Hillary Clinton. Not a bit. But she does deserve credit on this issue. She has made no comments to take advantage of this situation. I'm sure there's an advantage for her in that, but this is not an issue she needs to talk about. That goes ditto for John McCain--he deserves credit here as well. I'm looking forward to Obama addressing these issues tomorrow; unlike Romney's religion/Mormon speech, I am hoping for a speech that sets the tone for social progress in the US for the next thirty years.

Division

Jim Dietz — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:04:39 EDT

This week's Economist has an interesting column (Lexington is the nom de plume) about divisions within the Democratic Party. It talks about the difference between traditional left-liberals and the union/blue collar Democrats and how Obama represents the 'rich' end of the political spectrum and Clinton represents the blue-collar side of things.

I guess I shouldn't laugh--but I find it funny that a black man represents the wealthy part of the party while a former first lady, lawyer who has worked for 'Big Business' and squashed unionizing efforts is seen as a champion of minorities and the working class. I obviously have missed something somewhere....

What is disappointing is that Lexington's column goes against what the Economist wrote as a main editorial last month--that the divide between Obama and Clinton comes because Clinton is busy refighting 1968 over and over again and Obama is the first significant politician to come after the 'Me Generation'/Vietnam.

And really--that's the big issue AND problem with the country. Right now, the biggest group are the Baby Boomers/Vietnam Generation. And they've been spoiled by having everything handed to them for going on 45 years (at least). They expect that to keep going. --They feel ENTITLED to power, wealth, etc. The attitude of Hillary's campaign makes this obvious.

But look at the other two candidates remaining, the Republican and the other Democrat still in the race. Obama is not a Boomer and is talking about hope and working across the aisle to end partisan strife and to try and work together--and GASP has even mentioned how he admired Reagan for doing the same thing (and any props given to Reagan will win you brownie points in my book). McCain is older than the boomers. He actually sacrificed on behalf of his country--he represents the views that Republicans SHOULD hold--small government, not interfering with social rules/mores, etc. He, too, is a complete contrast to Clinton.

It's now six weeks until Pennsylvania and it'll be a long wait. I expect that Clinton will pull out a couple dirty tricks and repeat lies constantly. It worked for Hitler--the 'big lie' concept--and it has worked well for others...I wish, I hope, it will be different in 2008, but the way certain groups are voting--I'm not feeling positive at the moment.

The bright side of it all is that if Clinton is somehow given the election, I know who I am voting for in November without doubt or hesitation. My dilemma is an Obama/McCain race--because I believe both of those men have the best interests of the nation at heart (and ultimately, that's a good dilemma to have).

Integrity

Jim Dietz — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:44:47 EDT

It's amusing to see the person in 2nd suggest to the person in 1st that maybe the leader should agree to be the VP candidate....right.....

All I know is that if Obama is involved in any ticket with Clinton, I'll vote for McCain, even if he has Satan as his running mate (though I know Dick Cheney won't actually be the VP nominee...)

I am stunned that Clinton doesn't get it. Americans want actual change, real change. Everything around her is corrupt and represents the very worst of the past 16 years--actually more...it represents what is wrong with the entire Me Generation (The Economist discussed this a month ago--that people like Clinton and Cheney are still busy fighting 30-40 year old battles rather than looking at America's future)

But...I trust the Obama campaign (there's an odd juxtaposition--trust and a political campaign!). They have maintained the high road against numerous scurrilous attacks and continue to do so. They understand what Clinton and her ilk represent. (Thank god)

War--Politics by other means

Jim Dietz — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:47:42 EST

Some odd observations based on the latest news/opinions regarding the Democratic Primary...as always, my disclaimer: I'm a Republican and hold traditional Republican views.

143 years ago, the US was near the end of a civil war. By March of 1865, it was obvious that the North was going to win the Civil War. In the councils of the Robert E. Lee, there was a debate whether to continue in the field with the Army of N. Virginia, disbanding the armies and continuing the fight as guerillas, or surrender. By the time of Appomattox, the decision was made--Lee surrendered his army, asking only that his men be allowed to return home. Grant, wisely, agreed. There was no sense for either to continue fighting when the results were obvious. Lee saw that continued fighting, even with no chance of winning, was only harmful to the country. He chose dignity rather than fighting to the bitter end. The country was better for that.

In 1960, Nixon was screwed out of the election by voting shenanigans in Chicago. The rigging was so obvious that Nixon had a legitimate case in the courts and could have overturned the election--even Kennedy admitted that. Nixon's advisors and the Republican Party urged him to take the issue to court, to force an overturning of the election--to fight the cause to the bitter end. Nixon, on his own, decided not to fight the results. His logic was that there were irregularities in all elections and that our system was built on trust and respect for the system. Nixon went to Kennedy and congratulated him on his victory. At a critical moment in the Cold War, a domestic crisis was averted (though Nixon is rarely recognized today for this vital, courageous gesture).

In 2000, ignoring history, a similar situation arose in Florida with questionable results. The losing candidate, Gore, chose to fight the issue through the courts all the way to the Supreme Court--fighting to the bitter end. And when the SCOTUS did not overturn the results, Gore and the leaders of the Democratic Party screamed partisanship and that the SCOTUS decision was rigged. And all that did was undermine faith in the highest court of the land and continued the partisan bickering that started in 1994 (and continues right up to today). Even now, whack-jobs on the far left still scream that the election of 2000 was unfair/rigged, not paying attention to any other election in history.

And now, even though she trails, Hillary Clinton is intent on following a scorched earth policy as well. She has essentially declared that she will fight to the bitter end even though she has no chance of winning the nomination--but has been 'gracious' enough to suggest that Obama could be her VP (neve mind she trails him in delegates). The key point in war (ie politics) is knowing when the chance of victory is gone and it is time to end the fight. Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, Clinton is choosing the Hitler method of war-->fight until the entire edifice has burned down screaming 'You are not worthy of me so now you will all be destroyed' rather than that of more statesmanlike leaders in the past.

Someday, someone in either the Democratic or Republican Party will start paying attention to the parallels of history and use history as a tool for guidance in making decisions. (Anybody in charge around here looking to hire a historian???--hint, hint, hint)

Guaranteeing a Win

Jim Dietz — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:43:26 EST

History is important. Always has been, always will be. Santayana was right about people failing history doomed to repeat it (which is especially true of students who don't come to class...)

Long ago, there was a great man of letters who became president who forged a great coalition that led him to a sweeping win in the presidential election of 1800...yes, 208 years ago. At that time you had the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans-->the J.R. will eventually become the Democratic Republicans and because that's a mouthful, they shorten it and become the Democrats (this is why they celebrate with Jefferson-Jackson dinners)

Jefferson's coalition consisted of three groups, the groups that Jefferson believed were the heart and soul of America and what it was and would be. The three groups:

1 - trade workers / 2 - immigrants / 3 - farmers/the agricultural sector

So?? What does that have to do with 2008? Everything. go back through EVERY election of the past 200 years and when the Democrats get the full support of those three basic groups, they win. If they do not have the full support of those groups--they do not win.

The groups are slightly different now. The three groups making up the modern Jeffersonian triumvirate: 1 - blue collar workers / 2 - minorities / 3 - farmers

So the question for the 2008 election is whether the Democratic Party will have the full support of these three groups. Can Clinton unify these groups? No--the unions dislike her waffling on NAFTA and her reversal from her husband's administration. Minorities? With Clinton, these are split, especially since the former president insinuated race was significant. And farmers? Well, look at who won Iowa, Kansas, et al.

This suggests that the only Democrat --REGARDLESS OF POLLS-- with a chance of winning the presidency in November is Obama.

* * *
But there's more. Check out the homes of recent presidents. Presidential candidates from New England and the Mid-Atlantic have not been successful in many years. (If you go back 70 years, the only two presidents whose support is in New England are FDR and JFK).

"Home" states of recent presidents:

TX, TX, AR, AR, TX, CA, CA, GA, MI, CA, CA, TX, MA, *, *, MO, NY, NY, NY, NY, IA

* = Dwight Eisenhower--technically from Kansas, but his support was nationwide given his status as war hero. The MA = Kennedy, and the NY are all four of FDR's election. 13 presidents and only 2 from New England. If you want to win--you want a president from the south or west.

In this regard, once again, Obama is a better choice than Clinton. But this is why an Obama/McCain election will be close--McCain is from the southwest, the other 'key' for election.

* *
That leads to a very important question--once Hillary Clinton is defeated, how bitter and vengeful will they be towards the Democratic nominee? Will they help Obama unify the core constituencies or not? ...a million dollar question right there

Considering History and -TRYING- to repeat it (Obama, Reagan, and the Presidency)

Jim Dietz — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:55:45 EST

As always, remember--I'm a Republican. And yes, this is on barackobama.com. I'm aware of the apparent contradiction. I got asked about that this past Friday, teased about it, too, in a playful way.

By profession and education, I am a historian (and a coach, but that's a different topic entirely). It is absolutely important to look to the past for guidance and as food for thought.

In 1980, the U.S. elected Ronald Reagan. Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter who struggled due to the economic conditions of 1979-80 as well as the Iranian hostage crisis. Reagan offered very little specifics in his campaign for what he would do. His campaign boiled down to "Let's Make America Strong Again" and he talked a great deal about America being the proverbial city on the hill--the role model for the world. REAGAN WAS ELECTED BECAUSE OF HIS IDEALISM, HIS VISION, AND HIS ABILITY TO CONNECT WITH ALL AMERICANS. (Hopefully that sounds like a current candidate)

Reagan provided a vision and then surrounded himself with experts who understood government and were incredibly competent--Schultz, Cap W., Howard Baker, etc. And then he let them do what they did best--there was no micromanaging on Reagan's part. Because of his vision, his ideals, and even his willingness to work with the opposite party--the 1980s are considered (by everyone other than partisan hacks) as a great, prospoerous decade where the Soviet Union is brought down, Europe stabilized, and China allowed to become a major player in Asian and international affairs. Even the aftereffects of his administration were beneficial--the 'peace dividend' that Bill Clinton claimed was ultimately the result of Reagan's actions and not anything he had done during his term of office.

Okay, Jim, so what? Why all this Reagan stuff--because I'm a Democrat and don't like him OR I don't care about history OR none of this is relevant....

But it IS relevant.

Election following botched US policy towards MidEast ---CHECK

Candidate with vision---CHECK

Candidate taking the high ground and not slinging mud---CHECK

You get the point. There are parallels to 1980 going on right now--including another oil crunch which caught American car companies unprepared (twice...TWICE caught unprepared--duh!!!).

Obama has shown a flair for set-piece speeches, just like Reagan. He has outlined a vision that appeals to most Americans, just like Reagan.

So what? Why the comparison? Because the presidency is not and should not be about mastering minute details of policy. It is not about micro-management. The presidency is about 'the bully pulpit' as Teddy Roosevelt called it. It is about setting a course for the nation, representing its interests, and then helping Congress legislate the will of the people. Who is better suited to use the office of President in such a fashion? Clinton or Obama? Who is actually able to connect with people who are NOT members of the Vietnam generation?

Hopefully, things will turn out well in Wisconsin and Ohio? I suspect that Obama is doing well in Ohio. My wife's family is getting bombarded by anti-Obama commercials and ads--the sign of desperation when you can't elucidate your policies, but instead just attack the other guy.

* * *
Finally...I could use some global warming right now. Five degrees and a 20mph wind. It's co-old!

Hedge Funds

Walt — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:24:52 EST

Hedge funds are tax loopholes that allow the rich to become richer with little risk to themselves by using borrowed money to speculate, that is gamble, in financial markets where you and I the taxpayers bear most of the risk.

If you or I invest in the stock market, we can borrow no more than 50% of what we invest. That is a government regulation. On the other hand, a hedge fund in some cases can borrow as much as 99% of their investment. That means a 1% increase in the worth of the investment can double the hedge fund's money. A decrease of 1% can wipe them out. The kicker is that hedge funds borrow so much that banks and governments cannot allow their losses to stand because the shock to international markets could cause the worldwide financial system to collapse. It's a case of heads they win, tails the taxpayers lose.

Only the wealthy are allowed to invest in hedge funds which are largely unregulated. The taxes the wealthy pay are less than what are paid by investors in the stock markets. Hedge funds charge their investors 2% per year to manage the funds and take 20% of the gains if any that they manage to win. No wonder hedge funds can afford to pay their owners/managers 100's of millions per year.

How do I start a hedge fund? Hire a bunch of smart people to write computer programs (algorithms named after former VP Al Gore the inventor of the internet) that spot differences in the markets for financial products wherever they occur on earth. The differences can be momentary and small but the sums of money involved are huge. The computer programs model the real world and work well until the unexpected occurs. Then huge losses are a possibility and you and I will be forced to stand those losses through taxes that finance government giveaways.

Kennedy Comes Around

Sam — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 19:04:00 EST

They're so meaningless, but I just can't help myself. From ABC News:

ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., will endorse Barack Obama's presidential bid on Monday in Washington, a source close to Kennedy tells ABC News.

From The Nation: Slick Willie Rides Again

Sam — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:25:54 EST

Hilarious and oh so true.

my favorite part:

The one-two style of Clintons, however, is as informative as low-life street fighters. Mr. Bill punches Obama in the kidney and from the rear. When Obama whirls around to strike back, there stands Mrs. Clinton, looking like a prim Sunday School teacher and citing goody-goody lessons she learned from her 135 years in government.

Or maybe:

The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package.

God I hope the Dem voters in this country can find some sense - and soon.

Fire it Up!

Jeremy Ziemer — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 19:22:53 EST

Dear Supporters of Senator Obama,

Please consider giving a small donation to Senator Obama's campaign and show the special interests that they are not going to dominate this election. Donate at the site below to meet our fundraising goal.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/iowasfbo

Fired Up! Ready to Go!

Best,

Jeremy

Hillary Clinton, Future President Or Past Perjurer? Peter Paul Weighs In

A DREAMER — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:31:13 EST

THE CORRUPTION WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT OF WASHINGTON. PLEASE WATCH AND LET ME KNOW UR TAKE...........................................................................................................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related for Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related for part 2

and supporting document below

http://www.hillcap.org/images/fec_conciliation_letter.bmp

January 11th, 2008 by Simon Barrett

I had the opportunity to review an interesting documentary about the lady that may well become our first woman president. Hillary Uncensored, is a very unflattering look at this woman and her modus operandi.

I contacted Peter Paul about his documentary with an interview in mind. We don’t have the interview yet, but what he had to say was illuminating.

It certainly gave me pause for thought, enjoy….

An abbreviated time line of the whole thing may help- Please keep in mind that the DOJ Prosecutor Schwager told Rosen’s jury that it was a felony to deny the people the right to know that Peter Paul gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s campaign” And it is a crime for a candidate or their agent to solicit and coordinate excessive contributions knowingly accepting more than $25,000.

Kelly Craighead and Jim Levin- agents of Hillary and Bill- conceived of the Gala Event 39, to coincide with the DNC convention, on June 23, 2000 after a Hillary fundraiser in Chicago when Hillary detailed them to vet my agent, Aaron Tonken who I had paid the expenses for him to supply Olivia Newton John to entertain the fundraising event at Howard Tulman’s apartment.

June 24, 2000- Jim Levin as an agent for President Clinton who was acting as Hillary, the candidate’s agent, called me in my office to solicit my underwriting and producing of the Gala fundraiser they conceived of the night before on Hillary’s behalf

June 25, 2000 Levin calls back saying he will be seeing President Clinton on July 4 weekend if I would pay for the event he will discuss my interests with Clinton- I say if Clinton will work with me (as both Hillary and Tonken personally advised him from June 9 and in a limo ride with the President on June 16) I will pay for and produce event. (Levin confirmed in his Rosen trial testimony he called me June 24 and said he would meet with President and come and see me)

July 5, 2000- Levin visits with me in LA vetts me and my company July 11, 2000 he arranges a conference call with Kelly Craighead he and Rosen in my office and Howard Wolfson on the phone where we discussed the $1.1 million budget and that I would pay at least $525k, and the structure of event- This is how Wolfson and Hillary knew two days after the event that the event cost more than $1 million as Hillary was quoted through Wolfson in the Washington Post)

July 14, 2000- Levin flew to Washington where he saw the President at Camp David and got Clinton to confirm he would accept my $17 million employment package for 1 yr of post White House rainmaking for SLM and my other company Mondo English. Levin called from Washington to confirm the deal.

Sunday - July 16, 2000 - Rosen and event producers have meeting at my house to begin deciding on printing and sending out 25.000 invitations etc- I begin paying for the event.

Monday, July 17, 2000- Hillary calls me at my office where Stan Lee and others are present to thank me for agreeing to pay for and produce the event and she discusses her role in helping produce and ensure the success of the event.( I video taped that conversation and the videotape was subpoenaed by the US Attorney for the Eastern Dist of NY in 2001 and withheld from every investigation, grand jury and the criminal trial of David Rosen until April, 2007 enabling the Rosen federal judge and prosecutor and the FEC and Senate Ethics Committee, and all Clinton apologists and media supporters to conclude there was no evidence that Hillary was involved in any direct way!)

August 12, 2000 - Hillary, Bill and Chelsea confirm at the Gala when I spent over 6 hours with them that we had a deal

August 13, 2000 - At a Clinton Library fundraising brunch at Barbara Streisand’s, Chelsea spends 45 minutes sitting with me, my wife, Oto and Haim Saban describing the nite before when she played Scrabble with her parents after the Gala and they were excited about working with us when they left the White House. Hillary introduced my wife to Barbara Streisand as the wife of the man who underwrote the Gala, Bill speaks to Oto about his agreement to share the $17 million employment package with me.

Aug. 13 - Tendo Oto and SLM make their deal for Asian partnership - Oto gives $5 mil and promises another $5-7 mil in November for the American joint venture…On Aug. 12 he had paid $27K to attend the federal fundraiser gala. Giving money was illegal. Attending was illegal. Since Oto had no social security number to check out when he showed up at the event with his camera crew, the Secret Service said no way. Clinton had the Secret Service stand down, and Oto sat directly behind the president and first lady.

Aug 14 - Ed Rendell calls Peter Paul in a panic. Lloyd Grove is preparing a story for the WASHPOST about Paul’s felony record for “The Cuban Coffee Caper” two decades previous when he was an international attorney in Miami. Rendell tells Paul to deny he gave any money and just play along. Shortly after the warning call, Grove called. Here is the callsheet from SLM, certified by the government as evidence.

Aug 15 - Lloyd Grove writes the story in the WASHPOST about Paul’s felony past from two decades previous involving the Cuban Coffee Caper and defrauding Fidel Castro of $8.7 million … Howard Wolfson vows that they would never take any money from Peter Paul

Aug 17 - Grove writes a second story about $2,000 given by Paul at Spago … Wolfson says they will return the money, and a check is immediately cut and sent to Paul … Wolfson actually admits Hillary knew the gala cost over a million dollars when he says to Grove on Hillary’s behalf that Paul gave no money to the event and that “it cost more than $1 million but was an in-kind contribution.”

Aug 18 - behind the scenes, while disavowing him in public, the Clintons write personal notes to Paul, dated Aug 18, and sent Aug 21, almost a week after the Washington Post disavowals, espressing their gratitude … Hillary: “We will remember it always”… Bill’s note… Even Chelsea got into the act.

Aug 24 - Campaign Finance Chairman David Rosen is directed by Hillary to send a fax to Paul asking for another $100,000 (actually, one of several faxes)as payment for the $150,000 pledge he made to host the unreported Spago lunch fundraiser for her (videotaped by Paul but never reported to the FEC according to the FBI)… Hillary had promised the money for the Working Families Party in New York … Paul will send no more money until he hears it face to face from Bill Clinton that they still have a deal (second document shows Gordon’s acknowledgement that it was “done”)

Sept. 22, 2000 - Clinton steps off AF-1 in Los Angeles (we have photo) and assures Paul that the deal is still a go … Paul has Steven Gordon send a stock transfer of $55K to the Working Families Party for Hillary… we can find no evidence that they ever declared that donation. If the Clintons were disavowing Paul in public, claimed he gave no money, and had no business arrangement with the President as claimed by Hillary, why would the President of the United States be meeting Paul in public as he stepped off AF-1? For what possible purpose? That’s not hard to figure out, is it?<

Nov 7 - Hillary is elected

Nov 13 - just six days after Hillary's election, an agreement for Venture Soft USA Inc is recorded in Illinois between Jim Levin, Clinton’s business adviser, and Tendo Oto … Levin was Clinton’s “eyes and ears” in dealing with Paul, got proprietary business information, and with Clinton’s knowing assistance stole the Japanese partner for their own deal

Dec 2000 - Stan Lee Media collapses when Clinton’s interference with his business partner… the additional $5-7 million promised in November from partner Tendo Oto was not invested due to the Clinton/Levin interference by convincing Oto to reneg on his promise and incorporate his US subsidiary with Clinton through his agent Jim Levin in Illinois instead of Hollywood, it will be proven that Oto’s money would have kept the company solvent until Clinton came aboard as he had promised Peter Paul.

Early 2001 - Paul discovers that the campaign has filed two fraudulent FEC reports, only reporting 366K for the cost of Event 39 … he spent over a million dollars on it. Paul hires Judicial watch in March, 2001 at the request of the US Attorney in new Jersey to proffer Paul’s evidence against the Clintons to 4 AUSA’s from NY, CA and NJ.

June 18, 2001 - Paul files initial civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons and several others for business fraud>

July 3 - Treasurer Andrew Grossman is served with the lawsuit that includes documentation for $1.6 million spent by Paul

July 11 - David Kendall accepts service for Hillary along with the exhibits that corroborate more than $1.6 million documented expenses paid by Paul as an in kind contribution to Hillary’s campaign

July 18 - press conference at National Press Club . Paul has messenger hand deliver a demand letter to Hillary’s senate office

July 30 2001 - despite Paul’s demand letter to Hillary Clinton, the ABC 20/20 expose on Paul’s claims, and all of the documentation attached to the civil complaint, a third false FEC report is filed by Hillary’s campaign… this time they declare $401K to be the final cost for Event 39 … continuing what the FEC itself found to be the fabrication that Stan Lee Media donated the money.

October 17, 2003- Paul refiled the Civil Fraud suit against the Clintons and the AP reported that Hillary’s office stonewalled their questions for two days, never oproviding any comment about Paul’s suit or claims. Hillary has never denied Paul’s claims and in her sworn Declaration in the case.

Jan 2005 - criminal indictment of David Rosen is unsealed.

May 2005 - Rosen acquitted in criminal trial in Los Angeles…the perjury in this trial was astounding…the judge (appointed by the Clintons) and prosecutor (directed by Chief of Public Integrity Noel Hillman who protected Bill and Sandy Berger in the destruction of National Security documents) went out of their way to condemn Paul and claim that Hillary had nothing to do with it… FBI affidavit during the trial documenting $1.2 mil from Paul that was not declared was confirmed by the prosecutor as the basis of the prosecution of Rosen- Denying the public’s right to know what peter Paul gave to Hillary’s campaign. The prosecution does not call Paul, Aaron Tonken, or key witness Kelly Craighead (Craighead was also never called by the FEC - she will be a key witness in Paul v Clinton) or Howard Wolfson whose quote on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post Aug 17, 2000 confirms Hillary knew the Gala cost more than $1million, was an in kind contribution- …. The prosecution does not use damaging evidence against Rosen obtained while Ray Reggie (brother in law of Ted Kennedy) was wearing a wire. In Tonken’s book, KING OF CONS, he tells how he sat in a van with Hillary detailing all of the money that was being spent on her.

Dec 2005 - FEC determines that Hillary’s campaign deliberately under reported $721,000, but finds no evidence Hillary personally knew of the illegal contribution and fines the campaign treasurer a mere $35,000, and orders a new amended FEC filing in exchange for immunity from further investigation for everyone connected with the campaign…treasurer Andrew Grossman signs conciliation agreement with the FEC, the equivalent of a nolo contendre plea.

Jan 2006 - the fourth fraudulent FEC report is filed … among the false statementsare that Stan Lee (whom we have on tape in a deposition swearing that he gave no money) is credited with a 225K personal donation and two of Paul’s holding companies are credited with RECIVING $839,000 rather than paying $1.2 million that the DOJ Prosecutor told the Rosen jury Paul personally paid. Paul is still never named personally as the donor of ANY money as he has demanded- This leads to the conclusion that the FEC has aided and abetted what the DOJ prosecutor described as a felony- denying the public again the right to know what peter Paul donated to Hillary’s campaign! This time the crime was done 6 months after it was described by the DOJ and with the apparent complicity of the FEC NO MEDIA OUTLET REPORTED on this FEC report being filed or that it omitted any mention of peter Paul’s contributions again.

April 7, 2006 - Hillary removed as defendant but judge made clear to Kendall that she would be testifying … Hillary’s sworn declaration turned into the court by Kendall can only be described as a work of fiction … no reporters attended the hearing and not one mainstream media source wrote that a trial date had been set for defendant Bill Clinton (trial date postponed until appeal is hear to bring Hillary back in as a defendant) … Chelsea will be one of the witnesses called … although her mom claims no knowledge of the business deal, if Chelsea testifies honestly, she will tell how the family stayed up late after the gala playing scrabble and discussing the excitement of daddy going to work for the creator of Spiderman … from a private fundraiser at Zev Braun’s house in early 2000, Paul has home video of Hillary laughing and discussing with him how he had arranged in 1993 for Fabio to chase her around the room and pick her up in a romance pose…the president referenced that event the next year at the Italian-American Foundation Dinner…. her declaration claiming that she met Paul in early 2000 is simply a lie.

June 2006 - Senate Ethics Committee announces it will not investigate Hillary on Ethics charges because the Judge, prosecutor in the Rosen case and the FEC failed to find any culpability of Hillary they refuse Paul’s offer to appear and testity.

is delivered to Hillary’s DC office with copy delivered to Sen. Voinovich, chair of the Senate Ethics Committee.

Jan. 10, 2007 - Paul counsel files Appellate Brief to bring Hillary back into the case as a defendant (that delays the trial date for Bill, set for March 27, 2007…it also delays depositions)….no mainstream media source had reported that defendant Bill Clinton had a trial date in a case involving the collapse of Spiderman Stan Lee’s company).

April 2007 - after a two-year battle for the return of evidence, including home videos, an assistant US atty provides Paul with a list of items they will return to him…..included was the “smoking gun video”: July 17, 5-minute conference call, Hillary Clinton….. when the numerous pieces of evidence were finally sent, the shipment did not include that video…..Paul’s counsel argues vehemently for that to be sent….Paul believes that a low-level functionary screwed up by putting that piece of evidence on the manifest — Hillary never thought it would see the light of day…that video was finally sent because they could not deny its possession.

Top Ten Reasons I Support Barack Obama!

Chad Nelson — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:22:40 EST

After a couple years of closely following the candidates' voting records and watching their debates during the primary season, I am convinced that Obama is not only the best Democratic candidate available, but that he is someone who offers genuine hope for a better America.

The reasons I like Obama more than the other Democrats are listed below. I have not focused in detail on vitally important issues like Global Warming, Health Care, A Women's Right to Choose, Gay Rights and others because the differences between the Democratic candidates on these fronts is minimal at best. On those issues it's more a matter of who we can trust. Who acts out of principle and not out political convenience:

1 - He was active in campaigns and rallies against the Iraq War from as early as 2002. He continued speaking out against the war at a time when polls showed 2/3 of Americans supporting an invasion. This unpopular position shows not only his independent thinking, but his sound judgment as well.

2 - He showed his courage in an early debate by stating that he'd be willing to have dialogue with Iran during the first year of his Presidency. Oddly enough, Hillary attacked him on this issue. He also showed his willingness to challenge the Washington status quo by proposing to engage post-Castro Cuba. The American embargo--which because of political interest groups has not been debated--has ravaged the Cuban economy and added to the plight of the already afflicted poor. His courage in refusing to accept the mold among Washington insiders gives hope that we can change our standing in the world and regain the respect that we once had.

3 - He was a part of the most major ethics reform bill to have been passed in recent years in the Senate. The same efforts were central to his career as an Illinois State Senator. There he helped write one of the rare ethics laws in Illinois, which the Washington Post described as "the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure." He has since upped the ante and refused to take any money from Washington lobbyists. Hillary Clinton has refused to do the same.

4 - Democracy for America, a champion of progressive values, believes that he, along with Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, are the only real progressive candidates out there. And his experience is a testament to that. As a state legislator, he worked with both Democrats and Republicans in drafting successful legislation on health care reform. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he received a "100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptive." Knowing this there's is little reason to doubt that he is a progressive through and through, with deep convictions that he acted on even when having had to work with a Republican controlled senate for several years as a state legislator.

5- More than any of the other candidates, he realizes that acting on his values and explaining them with conviction will do far more to create a working majority than political calculation for incremental changes. This conviction and his ability to effectively express it is what makes him so appealing to voters who are not only Independent, but Republican too. That he gains their support even though he compromises his values less than his Democratic opponents is a sign that he is the most likely candidate to bring about change.

6 - He was against approving a resolution which deemed that it was a "vital national interest" to act against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The measure labeled the military force, which is much made up in large part by ordinary Iranians, a terrorist organization and gave an opening to the Bush administration to attack Iran. Although he didn't vote in the measure because he knew it was inevitable that it would pass (76-22), he was outspoken in his opposition from before the day of the vote. His worries about the recklessness of the Bush administration proved true just recently when the NIE report came out saying that Iran had stopped actively trying to build Nuclear Weapons in 2003, proving that the Bush administration was using belligerent language to inflate the urgency of the matter (so as to pursue a military solution). This had "WMD" and "imminent threat" written all over it again. Hillary Clinton, so as to appear "tough" on foreign policy, repeated her mistake of trusting the president once again.

7 - He broadened the scope about which we must think of terrorism. He did this by acknowledging that the threat of terrorism is, among other things, tied directly to the realities of global poverty. This, I believe is a fundamental change in discourse, from one in which the only solution for national security was based on our ability to find terrorists and kill them to one which demonstrates a more complete understanding of the problem. This again shows that he is someone who can think independently and outside the box. Says Obama: "In countries wracked by poverty and conflict, citizens long to enjoy freedom from want. And since extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need [...] As president, I will double our annual investment in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed toward worthwhile goals. For the last 20 years, U.S. foreign assistance funding has done little more than keep pace with inflation. It is in our national security interest to do better."

8 - Poll after poll has shown over the past year that he has the best chance of any Democratic candidate to beat his Republican opponent.

9 - He has the best chance of beating Hillary Clinton. Clinton has become a symbol for political calculation, someone who wants to win, but who has forgotten why it is important to win. In this vein, she is the only candidate who refuses to present a concrete plan to protect social security; she is the only candidate who has not revealed when she will withdraw our troops from Iraq; and she is the only candidate who refuses to answer clearly on immigration. These recent stances come after years of taking right-wing stances on foreign policy issues, from approving the Iraq war and supporting the original Patriot Act, to voting in support of the use of cluster bombs, and even the Iran resolution. Click here for the history of posts covering Hillary Clinton on this site.

10 - One final reason, which is perhaps the least concrete, but nevertheless possibly more important than all the others, is that he represents a hope for change. This campaign isn't about Obama... it's about us. Ordinary citizens, long apathetic to the process, are starting to care again. People feel like reason has a voice again. I used to not care, was apathetic, and didn't get involved. Now I care. I want to get involved. I want to do something for this country. I want to go buy energy efficient light bulbs and tutor students in math. Most of all... I am not alone. I am part of something bigger than myself. And together we're going to change the world.

This is a repost of: http://contrapuntalnews.blogspot.com/2007/12/i-support-obama.html
Point #10 has been significantly edited and reflects my personal experience.
http://contrapuntalnews.blogspot.com/

Diebold Voting system Fraud Rumors in New Hampshire Primaries

A DREAMER — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:45:54 EST

"Multiple indications of vote fraud are beginning to pop up regarding the New Hampshire primary elections. Roughly 80% of New Hampshire precincts use Diebold machines, while the remaining 20% are hand counted. A Black Box Voting contributor has compiled a chart of results from hand counted precincts vs. results from machine counted precincts. In machine counted precincts, Clinton beat Obama by almost 5%. In hand counted precincts, Obama beat Clinton by over 4%, which closely matches the scientific polls that were conducted leading up to the election. Another issue is the Republican results from Sutton precinct. The final results showed Ron Paul with 0 votes in Sutton. The next day a Ron Paul supporter came forward claiming that both she and several of her family members had voted for Ron Paul in Sutton. Black Box Voting reports that after being asked about the discrepancy Sutton officials decided that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes in Sutton, but they were left off of the tally sheet due to 'human error.'"

2 Hopes

Walt — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 20:12:20 EST

Mike Huckabee's most recent book is From Hope to Higher Ground. Barack's most recent book is the Audacity of Hope. Mike's book is the easier read and is rather folkesy. Barack's book is a bit long in places and more intellectual. Read them both for a preview of this year's coming campaign.

Some Characteristics of the OBAMA'08 Campaign

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 01:26:10 EST

I think it will be nice if the campaign HQ can provide a summary of the characteristics of the OBAMA'08 Hope campaign before the first caucus/vote is casted. This information has been disclosed on various occasions but it has not been presented in a written form.

I believe it will also help a lot of people in Iowa, around the nation and around the world who will all be visiting this website in the coming hours/days/weeks or months to try to understand the amazing results. How history has been made with new set of ethic principles?

I am thinking of something that gathers the ethic of this campaign by the people and for the people:
1- No PAC money
2- No personal or character attack
3- Stay positive
4- Draw contrast with other candidate's policies
5- Focus on the same message: Change based on Hope
6- "Hope is not singing Kumbaya together and waiting for change to happen"
7- Respect to voters and the competitors
8- Present the most comprehensive policies on issues that matter to the people
9- No 527 group, "I don't control them", swift boat tactics
10- Listen, listen, listen
11- Never compromised on principles
12- Keep Hope alive for a Change We Can Believe In!
...
You probably get the idea. I hope someone will take this, improve it and complete it.

Thank you all and Happy New Year 2008! We know it will be a great year for this country and its people as One. When the American people sees greatness they know it.
Thank you in advance Iowa! Thank so much to all volunteers.

History will be made!
Go OBAMA'08

Abe Lincoln and Barack Obama on Experience

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 00:25:53 EST

Abe Lincoln and Barack Obama

1. Born outside Illinois
2. Moved to Illinois later in life
3. Raised by mother until about 10; relationship to father insignificant
4. Mother died at relatively young age; before start of political career
5. Chose lawyering as a profession
6. Married
7. Fathered children
8. Worked in Illinois before becoming a lawyer
9. Practiced law in Illinois; had a partner
10. Elected four terms to Illinois legislature
11. Made major policy speech years before becoming Presidential candidate
12. Ran unsuccessfully for US Congress
13. Later elected and served one term in US Congress
14. Wrote autobiography before running for President
15. Became a symbol of achievement of equality for African-Americans

Maybe Abe Lincoln didn't have enough experience to be President. But he had the character, temperament, judgment and leadership qualities that set him apart from almost all other Presidents before and after.

"Experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going." - John F. Kennedy

When asked about his experience few months ago, Senator Obama answered with this (JVC):

1- Judgment

2- Vision

3- Character

This video says it all (please copy/paste into your browser):
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4527108363798025966&q=obama&total=18667&start=0&num=10&so=1&type=search&plindex=0

America Our Moment Is Now
A Change We Can Believe In!
Go Obama'08

Video: A must see interview of good judgement.

Mr. Mr. — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:17:13 EST

Iowa newspaper interviews Obama in a no glitz setting. This video shows why I support Obama. He is a candidate of good judgent!

Please copy link below and past to your address bar (browser):

http://videos.qctimes.com/p/video?id=1609167

He is a measured, thoughtful, non-conventional leader, who doesn't just take a poll of what's most popular, but actually has convictions and principles which guide his decisions and his vision. I think everyone should watch this. I think Obama clearly makes the case as to why he would be the best qualified person to be our next President.

When Encouraging Iowans to Caucus for Obama

Mr. Mr. — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:35:15 EST

Help Iowans to understand they can be a part of making history by supporting Obama on January 3rd. Caucusing for Obama is transforming the country and the world positively. The world will take notice. It will be like the era of J. F. Kennedy! Good judgement and new approaches.

John Edweards could not deliver his home state for Kerry in 2004. He does not have the funds or organization to go all the way.

In relation to Hillary, I just don't want the same old approach, boring, divisive, cautious managing of the status quo which Hillary would bring. She would unite the Republicans and the country will end up more divided than ever before.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=LrXARjssOOM

Experience: The JVC Answer from The Man Himself

Thu, 27 Dec 2007 02:17:08 EST

When asked about his experience few months ago, Senator Obama answered with this (JVC):

1- Judgment

2- Vision

3- Character

The video says it all:

Link

America Our Moment Is Now

A Change We Can Believe In!

Go Obama'08

NYT Long Article: Clinton’s Résumé Factor

Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:16:10 EST

Nothing flattering for her. It is mentioned for instance that she wasn't even talking to her husband for most part of his second mandate because of the Monica story.

New York Times -
Clinton’s Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady
Published: December 26, 2007 (3 pages)

Link

Enjoy!

America Our Moment Is Now!

Go Obama'08
A Change We Can Believe In

Some Decency If Anything Please

Fri, 21 Dec 2007 03:53:15 EST

About all the personal attacks from Bill Clinton, can anyone say which policy of Senator Obama he doesn't like?

When was the last time we saw any member of the First Family (father, mother or wife) attacked the character of any candidate of either side?
When you are dealing with people who have a little bit of decency (like Bush 1 or his wife Barbara Bush demonstrated) you will not see all that excess of hypocrisy that Bill Clinton is showing the country and the world these days.

Link

Some people only cares about themselves. They will do anything to stay above people's interests. They never admit mistakes like the vote for the war in Iraq, they never apologize (or only if you can test a blue dress).

They are suggesting that you can get two for the price of one. Remember, we cut that deal fifteen years ago. Now, we should have two for less than half the price of one after the Iowa Caucus of Januray 3rd 2008 because of the time wear and tear! They are offering old ideas and same old politics.

Don't let them fool you. Oh! No ...

America Our Moment is Now!
Change We Can Believe In.

Go OBAMA'08

Iowa endorsement news

Nick Kimball — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:51:41 EST

Yesterday, Rekha Basu, who The Nation's Ari Berman calls "the [Des Moines] Register's most insightful political columnist" wrote a glowing endorsement of Senator Obama:

Basu: Obama can heal divisions, win hearts and minds

I remember wishing Hillary Clinton would run. Not last January, when she announced, but before the 2004 election, when someone with her intellectual heft and stature was needed to stand up to the Bush/Rove/ Rumsfeld cabal and dismantle its agenda.

But Clinton didn't run then, and when she jumped into this year's race, days after Barack Obama, it was a different field and a different moment.

This moment belongs to Obama.

The White House is virtually imploding after four more years of bungling the war, the economy and domestic crises such as Hurricane Katrina. With the president's poll numbers in the 20s and Rove, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft on the run, this is the moment for a fresh start.

This newspaper has endorsed Clinton on the Democratic side. I respect its decision. But after sitting through most of the same candidate meetings, watching, reading, listening and searching my conscience, I've concluded Obama is the one who can best pull off what needs to happen.

Clinton is smart, hard-working, gutsy and tough enough to absorb all the muck that's come her way. But Obama is simply a better candidate. He's that rarest of leaders, combining roots in white Midwestern America with black Africa, and experience both organizing in barrios and editing the Harvard Law Review. He's got idealism, compassion and intellect. And he lacks the baggage Clinton comes with, including all the controversies that swirled around her husband's White House. Nor is he compromised, as she has been, by the Senate vote that got us into this quagmire in Iraq...

Read the whole thing here.

Also yesterday, Senator Obama received the endorsement of the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Here's an excerpt from their endorsement:

Obama has what it takes to restore nation's integrity

The Iowa City Press Citizen | December 19, 2007

By Press Citizen Editorial Board

After seven years of being lost in the wilderness of oppositional presidential politics, Democrats now seem well positioned to do in 2008 what they failed to do in 2004: Replace a rogue cowboy president with a new president capable of uniting the country and resetting the nation's foreign policy and global reputation. The Press-Citizen Editorial Board thinks Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is the best candidate in a well qualified field of Democrats to make those long overdue changes. We endorse his candidacy enthusiastically.

...Obama has the right vision for a new national politics and a new global reputation. He now needs voters and supporters who will help him transform that vision into reality. It's a transformation that should have started three years ago. Neither the nation nor the world can wait any longer.

Read the whole thing here.

The Daily Show Got the Answer for Charlie Rose

Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:01:54 EST

On Thursday September 20th, 2007 Jon Steward received Bill Clinton and the beauty of this is that he said:

"I like them I respect them ... the Democrats ... I like this field, I love having a filed as a Democrat where I don't have to be against anybody. You know how many elections had you have where you said I don't really want to vote for A but I couldn't bear to see B win right. I like these guys".

Link

So when was Bill telling the true? When he was with Jon Steward or when he talked about "rolling the dice" with Charlie Rose just last Friday December 14th, 2007? Is Bill Clinton's message different depending on the day of the week, the month of the year or only when his wife's and his selfish interests are at risk versus the American people's interest?

You decide!

Link

America Our Moment is Now!

A Change We Can Believe In.

Go OBAMA'08

I am so sick of Bush lies. Sick of Clinton lies (both of them again).

A DREAMER — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:59:30 EST

TAKE IT FROM IOWAN. THE DES MOINES REGISTER IS ONE GOOD NEWSPAPER WITHOUT FLAWS AND LIES, AND THEY ARE VERRY CREDIBLE, BUT IN PICKING HILLARY THEY WERE SIMPLY WRONG. I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IN THEIR HEADS THEY FIND HILLARY MUCH BETTER THAN ALL OTHER CANDIDATES. THEY ARE JUST WRONG, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL FOR OBAMA AT ALL. IOWANS DON'T EVEN LIKE HER AT ALL.

Recent news of note: President Bush's director of the National Economic Council resigns. Mission accomplished, I guess. Karl Rove declares, "The Democrats made the president go to war." Bill Clinton says he "was always opposed to the Iraq war."

I am so sick of Bush lies. Sick of Clinton lies (both of them again). Sick of Karl Rove's lies - thankfully there is only one of him. And sick to death of partisan political bickering in Congress preventing them from serving the people of this country.

We need a president who will change the status quo in Washington. A leader with real skills in creating consensus, a leader who can build cooperation between the parties.

There are many running for president, but only a handful with a real chance of being nominated. Obama and Clinton are the two Democrats. Can you imagine Sen. Clinton building cooperation? Can you imagine her ending partisan bickering? Can you imagine her ending Karl Rove / Lee Atwater style politics of personal destruction?

Obama is the only candidate with the vision and skills we need now. His experience as a community organizer and effective nonpartisan coalition builder is what we need now. His courage in speaking directly and honestly to the issues will serve us well. President Obama will be a triumphant reaffirmation of the greatness and potential of our system and be a giant step toward restoring our international standing.

I am a die hard Republican

A DREAMER — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:47:09 EST

I am a die hard Republican who leans towards supporting Obama. Why? He offers hope to those of us totally dismayed by the other candidates. Experience is wonderful, but only the person who has been the President has experience. Everyday is a new one, we need someone like this man to guide the Nation and ensure our safety. The Clintons and their mob will only steal what they did not take during the first go around. Wake-up, she is not ready for the presidency. She gives the distinct impression that it is a position she earned supporting that lunk. Look to greener pastures, I am.

Hillary and Bill ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON.

A DREAMER — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:39:57 EST

When are people going to WISE UP and realize

Hillary and Bill ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON.

Hillary does not have the charisma BIll did.

Hillary does not have the support BIll did.

Hillary does not have the freshness BIll did.

Hillary does not have the ability to win that BIll did.

Hillary cannot claim the mantle of change as BIll did.

Hillary does not have the judgement BIll did.

and most importantly

Hillary does not have the EXPERIENCE BIll does or did.

BILL was the president, not Hillary.

And if Hillary was so active and supposedly did SO much during Bill's administration, why didn't we hear about any of it until she started running for president?

CLINTON ATTACKS OBAMA'S 3rd GRADE ESSAY.

A DREAMER — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 10:04:17 EST

When a political candidate opens a line of attack against an opponent, it's usually wise to avoid the kind of criticism that will be viewed by many observers as the pot-calling-the-kettle-black, the sort of finger-pointing that can easily be turned back on the finger pointer.

That would seem to be the case with the renewed effort by Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign to dirty up Sen. Barack Obama by accusing him of wanting to be president ever since he was just out of the womb and not being honest about it. The Clinton campaign issued a press release Sunday that included this:

In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]

In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.’ "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]

Yes, you can believe your eyes. The Clinton people are citing a kindergarten essay by Obama as evidence against him in a presidential campaign. Good thing he was born before widespread pre-natal ultrasounds. Who knows how they might've used that against him?

Clinton's people have thrown similar jabs before at Obama but it hasn't fazed him. So their seems to be a little more fury behind the punches as now that Obama's may have taken the lead in Iowa according to the Des Moines Register's most recent poll.

"I'm running for president because I think we can"

Nick Kimball — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:17:17 EST

Here is one of the best moments from last night's debate - a moment that crystallizes why Barack Obama is the best person to be the next President of the United States.

Barack Obama’s was excellent.

A DREAMER — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:22:01 EST

The leading Democratic presidential candidates showed up for the Iowa Democratic Party’s big Jefferson Jackson Dinner Saturday night.

Five of them gave really good speeches.

Barack Obama’s was excellent.

It was one of the best of his campaign. The passion he showed should help him close the gap on Hillary Clinton by tipping some undecided caucus-goers his way. His oratory was moving and he successfully contrasted himself with the others - especially Clinton - without being snide or nasty about it.

Historically, the iowa party’s “JJ” dinner is a landmark event in Democratic presidential caucus campaigns. All the key party activists, donors and players from the state are present. This year, about 9,000 of them showed up, most were from Iowa though there was some grumbling that Obama packed the place with people from Illinois. The charge was denied by the Obama people, who were clearly pleased they beat the other candidates in the noise war inside Veterans Memorial Auditorium.

A candidate who does well at a JJ is quickly in the political buzz around Iowa. A candidate who does poorly can be quickly written off by some important players in the party. Candidates also know the event provides them with an opportunity to sound new themes, launch new attacks or mount a defense of their weaknesses. Local and national observers show up to chronicle the changes.

Obama was particularly impressive Saturday night. Should he win the Iowa caucuses, Saturday’s dinner will be remembered as one of the turning points in his campaign in here, a point where he laid down the marker and began closing on Clinton, the national frontrunner. For example:

*He said the Iraq war “should have never been authorized and should have never been waged,” a shot at the votes Clinton and most of the others cast in favor of it.

*He said the nation has a “moment of great opportunity” and “we have a chance to bring the country together to tackle problems that George Bush made far worse and that festered long before George Bush took office.” Translation: Clinton is divisive and there were problems the Clinton era didn’t solve.

*He said “the same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do it in this election.” Translation: Democrats can’t win running a Bill Clinton campaign again.

*He said “Not answering questions because we’re afraid our answers just won’t be popular just won’t do it.” Translation: Clinton doesn’t take questions at some of her events. Now she’s bogged down in a flap over staffers planting questions for her when she does and this was neat way to remind Democrats of it without tweaking Clinton directly.”

*He said “telling Americans what they think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won’t do it.” Translation: Obama is often inclined to say things party interest groups don’t want to hear - like the need for school reform, merit pay, more efficient cars or money to rebuild the military. She panders or is mushy.

*He said “triangulating and poll-driven positions because we’re worried what Mitt or Rudy might say about us just won’t do it.” He said he offers “change that is not just a slogan” and “change we can believe in.” Polls were a hallmark of the Clinton era.

*He said he wanted to “stop talking about the outrage of 47 million Americans without health care and start actually doing something about it.” That was a smooth way to remind the audience how Clinton’s effort at national health care failed.

*There were also references to not taking money from lobbyists. And he said “I am running for president because I am sick and tired of Democrats thinking the only way to look tough on national security it talking and acting and voting like George Bush Republicans.” Ouch.

His coup de grace came with this: “When I am the nominee of this party, the Republican nominee will not be able to say I voted for the war in Iraq, or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, or that I support Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don’t like.”

“I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s,” a reference to the polarization of the Clinton years. “I don’t want to pit red America against blue America.”

Obama "actually understands Iowa"

Nick Kimball — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 09:38:21 EDT

Every Iowa caucus veteran will tell you that one factor, above all others, is key to success here: organization. You can have a great candidate and all the money in the world, but none of it matters if you can't put together an organization that gets people out to caucus on a cold night in January.

Barack has attracted a lot of enthusiasm around his candidacy for president, but the question that remained was whether he could harness the enthusiasm and actually turn people out.

Well, I think that question has been answered.

In the comments section, Maria from Delmar, NY, pointed out this column from veteran political reporter Roger Simon about the organization that Barack has built in Iowa. The column speaks for itself:

Barack Obama acts like he understands Iowa
By: Roger Simon
DES MOINES, Iowa — Barack Obama began his speech in an odd and important way, a way that did not make a single news story.
Obama was delivering a major address, reminding voters of his early opposition to the Iraq war. It was big deal speech. There were prepared texts handed out to the press and everything.
But Obama’s first words were not in his text, even though they may have been the most important words he spoke all day.
“If you have not yet signed up as a Barack Obama supporter, hopefully after the speech you will,” he told the crowd at the Polk County Convention Complex.
“Fill out one of those cards. We’ll have volunteers all across the doors. You won’t be able to get out without seeing one of these cards.”
Pretty mundane stuff, right? Which is why most candidates don’t bother with it. Especially not in a speech being covered by the national press, with six TV cameras grinding away.
But that Obama did bother with it is the most important sign I have seen that he actually understands Iowa.
...
I traveled around Iowa with Fred Thompson one day this week and never heard him ask anyone to sign up for his campaign, fill out a card or even vote for him in the caucus.
And his staff didn’t hand out sign-up cards in a disciplined fashion.
Obama’s staff did. There were staffers at every entrance and exit. They collected names, home and e-mail addresses, and phone numbers.
These names will be added to other names to form huge lists. The campaign then will contact every person on the list (several times) to pitch them on the candidate, answer questions and judge the level of support.
This is the unglamorous, arduous drudge work that in Iowa is absolutely essential.
...
Having an inspiring, energetic, magnetic candidate is real nice, but without an organization to back him up, it doesn’t mean much.
While I was in Des Moines, I talked to Gordon and Monica Fischer. Gordon was the Democratic Party chairman here during the last presidential election. Monica worked in the administration of former Gov. Tom Vilsack.
Every Democratic presidential campaign called the Fischers this time to ask for their support. Last week, the couple announced they were going to work for Obama.
One reason, they told me, is they think Obama is the best candidate, with the greatest chance of winning.
But there was another reason.
“He is the best-organized in Iowa,” Gordon said. “He has the best ground game.”
“And his people,” Monica said, “are relentless.”
Relentless is good. Real good. Relentless works in Iowa.
After Obama’s speech, he worked the rope line, which just about every candidate does. But on the rope line, there was a staff person behind him, with sign-up cards in her hand.
And if you shook the candidate’s hand, or got an autograph from him or got him to pose for a picture with you, she handed you a card and asked you to sign up, to volunteer, to bring four friends with you next time.
...
“You know there is starting to get a little zip in the air,” Obama said. “It is time to make a decision. And I hope you make a decision on my behalf.”
Mundane stuff. The stuff that didn’t make a single story.
But the zip is in the air in Iowa. And soon the snow will fall. And caucus night will come.
And the race is not always to the swift here. It is often to the relentless.

obama lincolns

A DREAMER — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:12:47 EDT

For all the talk about experience - Abraham Lincolns sole governmental experience was eight years in the Illinois House and just two years in Congress, yet he was one of our greatest presidents. What Lincoln brought to the presidency, which was very much needed at the time ...It was a very fine ear for listening to the publics concerns and then being able to articulate responses that created consensus that was able to move the country forward in positive ways, this is exactly what i see in Obama, direct and comparison. Obamas calls for unity and the way Obama had sparked so much interest from people who normally don’t care for politics

What's in a name?

Walt — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:49:29 EDT

Barack Hussein Obama.

It is unfortunate that Barack Obama has a middle name and a last name similar to two of today’s most notorious villains, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Those who would oppose him anyway will use any excuse to do so, even pointing to his name. We could respond that Barack means blessed by God in Swahili and lightning in Hebrew, and we are working to ensure that lightning does strike his campaign for the presidency in 2008.

A most effective response is Barack’s words themselves as delivered on the campaign DVD. I give copies of the DVD to potential voters and ask them to pass it on to friends if they feel the message is worthwhile. In today’s environment, the printed word does not receive the same attention that it once did. Audiences are more attuned to visual presentations and the words and images of the campaign DVD are very effective in getting Barack’s message across.

Cyclones Come Out for Barack

Jaime Mulligan — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:59:33 EDT

This afternoon, 4000+ students gathered in Central Campus to hear Barack's message of hope and change.

He discussed the need to end the game playing that has characterized the political process in this country for so long. But he also talked about how in order for that to happen, it isn't enough for him to even be elected---that true change comes from the bottom up, and it will require all of us, especially the younger generation, to come together and leave the cynicism about the political process at the door.

You have to be involved...the cynics in Washington are counting on you not paying attention...If you believe in yourselves, in your own ability to bring about change...we will transform a nation.

Barack also asked any supporters in the crowd to participate in our "4 more" program. Two Iowans who recruit four new Iowa Obama supporters will be selected to represent Iowa and join Barack at one of our biggest and most historic rallies to date in New York City next Thursday. You can click here for more info on the contest: http://iowa.barackobama.com/4more.

(One of the 4 more supporter cards.)

Were you at the rally? Click here to see more pictures. Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Iowa State for Barack Obama

Corporate governance

Enhanced interrogation

It's the economy

Nobel peace prize part 2

Chicago violence

Patrick Henry Caucus

Liberal/conservative

Racism

Writing

Medicare versus insurance

Death panels

Thumbs

Beck/Buchanan

2010

The Blinds of Justice are Lifting

Embarrassment for Whom - Notre Dame, The President or America

The GOP Plan to Recovery

An Inside Man at AIG - Maybe

The Intent of the Law or Misuse of it

What is it Money or Power

One Vote – One Campaign Contribution

Europe is Invading Our Stimulus Package

We The People - Not Wall Street

YES WE DID... AND WE STILL CAN...

A Proud Nation

Winning

2020

Obama Ties McCain to Republican Philosophy

Nuts

I Voted

Socialism

The Tenet of an Obama Presidency

Retrospective Pragmatism of Obama Realism

McCain Defining Moment of Retrogression

Perfect Storm

Change is a Conscious Choice

Run Through the Tape!

Hurricane Gustav and Katrina retrospectively

The Race that was never close

Posters, pins

Poll: Obama Leads In Alaska; Campaign Red State Efforts Making Gains

Re: McCain's bluff

The Center

We must keep up the good work

Politicization of National Treasure by President Bush and McCain

Selective Executive Execution: the case of the offshore drilling

Sen. Obama's Security fundamentalism and McCain obsession

Sen. McCain many limitations on Iraq

Obama highlights McCain energy mediocrity!

Sen. McCain’s energy policy Hypocrisy

Obama: McCain "Should Look in the Mirror" on Energy Reform Record

Obama Campaign: relieve the squeeze on ordinary Americans

Sen. McCain is “out of touch” with Americans

The Women in Obama's Life

Ted Kennedy

Re: the Realism of Jackson’s Remarks

Much Ado about Flip- Flop

Sen. McCain Free Trade Agreement Detrimental Rigidity

The limitations of Rigidity

Sen. Obama’s Pragmatism on Trade Agreement!

Why McCain must Emulate Obama

Iowa Was Sweet!

Meet the Press

Pennsylvania Primary

An interesting comment...

McCarthyism

The Great Depression / musings on religion and politics

Division

Integrity

War--Politics by other means

Guaranteeing a Win

Considering History and -TRYING- to repeat it (Obama, Reagan, and the Presidency)

Hedge Funds

Kennedy Comes Around

From The Nation: Slick Willie Rides Again

Fire it Up!

Hillary Clinton, Future President Or Past Perjurer? Peter Paul Weighs In

Top Ten Reasons I Support Barack Obama!

More Questions About Diebold Voting Machines, Did Hillary Really Win New Hampshire?