Added New Link: News Hounds

Jane Fleming Kleeb

So I came across this on the web with one of the young democrat news searches LINK

Jane is the past Executive Director of the Young Democrats of America, the role now held by Al Acker. This article covers an interview that Jane had on Fox news, and this website gives her made props for a job well done. The News Hounds Website covers the news on Fox, they watch Fox so you don't have to. A neat concept, and a useful website. If you are anything like me, you can watch Fox news in short spurts, but it starts to wear on you after a bit. On the News Hounds website (link in title bar) you can review the propaganda, without having to watch it.

And if I am mentioning Jane, I want to mention Scott Kleeb, her husband. Scott ran for Congress last year in Nebraska, and did well, and is being recruited to run for the Senate. Scott would be a great Senator, and would have the support of Young Democrats from across the country. Check out his website to see a short video by Scott. I have high hopes that he will run and win and be a part of our efforts to gain a majority in the Senate.

Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son Bilawal Zardari New Leader

Bilawal will follow in his mother's foot steps and be the co-chair of Pakistans largest political party, sharing the responsibility with his father. All 3 Major parties will participate in the election still scheduled for the start of January. The BBC has done a short profile on Bilawal Zardari.

Benazir Bhutto's son, Bilawal Zardari, a student with no experience in politics, said he would remain at Oxford University, leaving his father, Asif Ali Zardari, who was officially designated co-chairman, as the effective leader of the country's largest political party.

"The party's long struggle for democracy will continue with renewed vigor," Bilawal told a news conference. "My mother always said democracy is the best revenge."

Supporters chanted "Benazir, princess of heaven" and "Bilawal, move ahead. We are with you."

Bhutto's grandfather was a senior figure in the Pakistan Muslim League, the party that helped Pakistan split from India and lead it to independence in 1947. Her father — Pakistan's first elected prime minister — founded the party in 1967 and its electoral success since then has largely depended on the Bhutto name.

Bilawal said that Zardari would "take care" of the party while he continued his studies. Zardari then told reporters to direct questions to him, saying his son was at a "tender age."

Zardari, who spent eight years under detention on corruption charges in Pakistan before his release in late 2004, is a party powerbroker who served as environment minister in Bhutto's second government. He has denied the charges of large-scale graft during his wife's rule.

He immediately announced the group's participation in the elections but said another party leader, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, would likely be their candidate for prime minister if they won.

Zardari appealed to the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to drop plans to boycott the polls. Sharif's party later agreed to the appeal and said it would take part in the elections.

Some people have called for a delay in the elections given the turmoil in the country following Bhutto's killing, but a senator from her party said it was demanding that they take place on time.

"We want elections on Jan. 8 and we will not let the government run away from the elections," said Sen. Safdar Abbasi.

Thought Police?; CA Democrat introduces legislation to quiet dissent

H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

I suggest that everyone contact their legislators to oppose this legislation.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-giraldi/the-violent-radicalizatio_b_74091.html
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/19/5320/
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/112907J.shtml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/knaebel/knaebel11.html

A Sad Day in Pakistan; Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

The death of Bhutto could send the nuclear-armed country into a civil war. This was at least the third, and final, attempt on her life since returning to Pakistan in October.

Let's hope for a peaceful Pakistan ahead of the January 8th elections.

Video:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/27/former_pakistani_prime_minister





News Reports:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/737B73AE-EE5D-4C41-8CA2-E04B356FBCBC.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481.html

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bhutto39s-assasination-leaves-Pakistan-in.3623006.jp

Several Stories and Tributes are published here:
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/

Severe food shortages, price spikes threaten world population

Below are a few links on the new report released by the UN FAO on the world food supply.

Makes you really think about your food choices and about world policy on food control and how we use our food supplies in other areas.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2007/1000733/index.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/17/europe/food.php
http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=124558
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/dec2007/food-d22.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/12/18/5877/

Where are the Clinton Bumper Stickers

Just an observation I have made recently, there are Obama and Edwards and Kucinich bumper stickers all over Tallahassee, but I haven't seen any Clinton bumper stickers.

On the other side Ron Paul, Huckabee, Romney and McCain have cars bearing their names on bumpers.

Maybe it is comment more about the type of person who supports Clinton, maybe they don't like bumper stickers. Or maybe her support isn't as strong as people think it is, at least in the activist community of people that will buy a sticker on line and put it on their car.

Turning out the Youth Vote

“‘Tis the season of targeting the youth vote,” proclaims the Washington Post’s Jose Antonio Vargas. He links to a handful of websites like Scoop08, VoteGopher, and No Vote, No Voice that are devoted to the so-called millenials. The much-anticipated Scoop08 is a daily online newspaper written and produced by students, and focused on the election; VoteGopher compares the candidates on the issues and manages to insert a cartoon gopher into almost every image; and No Vote, No Voice was started by former Congressman Jim Leach in order to link youth with online political resources.


http://scoop08.com/

http://votegopher.com/splash.php

http://www.novotenovoice.com/

Just for fun!

Christopher Walken--Gettin' Down!

Cause we are young, we are MTV's Target

Florida's Guy: FL Anthony Wojtkowiak http://think.mtv.com/mediaforchange/

Based in Miami, is a student at Miami. He seems like a decent fellow, although he interned with the Knight Foundation, and the Knight Foundation sponsored this program. But his causes seem to be worthwhile.

Reach out to him South Florida People, let's make sure he is hearing from us!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MTV TAPS 51 STATE-BASED CITIZEN JOURNALISTS FOR “CHOOSE OR LOSE ‘08”

AP Online Video Network & Top Mobile Carriers to Distribute Weekly “Street Team ‘08” Reports

December 20, 2007 – New York, NY – MTV, as part of its Emmy-winning “Choose or Lose” campaign (www.ChooseorLose.com), today unveiled “Street Team ’08”: a specially recruited group of 51 citizen journalists – one from every state and Washington, D.C. – who will cover the 2008 elections from a youth perspective and tailor their reports for mobile devices. The members will contribute weekly, multi-media reports (short form videos, blogs, animation, photos, podcasts) that will be distributed via a soon-to-launch WAP site, MTV Mobile, Think.MTV.com and to the more than 1,800 sites in the Associated Press Online Video Network. Carefully selected by MTV after an extensive nationwide search, the one-of-a-kind press corps will be armed with mobile media like laptops, video cameras and cell phones, and charged with uncovering the untold political stories that matter most to young people in their respective states.

Record inequality in the US

Record inequality in the US:
Billions for Wall Street bosses as workers’ share of income shrinks

By Patrick Martin
20 December 2007

Goldman Sachs, the most profitable US investment bank, will distribute a staggering $12.1 billion in bonuses this month, up from $9.9 billion last year. The company will pay $20.2 billion in all forms of compensation, up from $16.5 billion last year.

While the total compensation figure includes salaries and benefits for all 30,000 people employed at Goldman Sachs—leading to breathless media reports of an “average” compensation of $661,490 per employee—the lion’s share will go to a few hundred top executives, managers and partners, who will receive tens of millions apiece.

Chairman and CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein will rake in about $70 million himself, up from $53.4 million last year, which at the time was the highest income ever reported by a bank CEO.

The bank reported Tuesday that its fourth-quarter profits rose 2.2 percent to $3.2 billion, $7.01 for each share of stock, well above the expectation of $6.61 a share set by stock analysts. Total profits for 2007 were $11.6 billion, up 22 percent over 2006, on total revenues of $88 billion.

Lehman Brothers, the fourth-biggest securities firm, announced last week a bonus pool of $5.7 billion and total compensation of $9.5 billion, with CEO Richard S. Fuld Jr. awarded a $35 million stock bonus, on top of his salary and benefits.

The vice-grip on Wall Street by a handful of big firms is underscored by the report that Goldman’s bonus pool alone was bigger than the total market value of the fifth-largest investment bank, Bear Stearns.

Another yardstick of the influence of Goldman Sachs is that the company’s bonus pool of $12.1 billion was greater than the $11 billion total increase inUS government spending on all domestic social programs proposed by the congressional Democrats, and blocked last week by a White House veto threat.

A single Wall Street firm will distribute more than twice as much money to a few hundred executives as the US government spends on the State Children’s Health Insurance Program serving millions of children of low-paid workers, and more than the federal government spent this year on Hurricane Katrina reconstruction and relief.

Goldman Sachs total annual compensation exceeds the budget of the federal departments of Treasury, Justice, Labor, Agriculture or Interior, the EPA or NASA.

Such figures demonstrate the grotesque distortions inflicted on American society by the domination of financial speculators whose activities create nothing of value and have, from the standpoint of material production, an entirely parasitic and destructive impact.

Much of Goldman’s record profits this year come from its successful financial manipulations in the subprime mortgage market, where it essentially bet against its major Wall Street rivals, who plunged heavily into the business of repackaging home mortgages into ever-more-complex financial securities whose value is now problematic, even unknowable.

The company also raked in over $1 billion in profits in the fourth quarter alone from its private equity operations. Goldman-owned hedge funds serve the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent, those who can afford to bet tens of millions on financial manipulations that may return 20, 25, even 30 percent, far more than can be gained from investment in the development of the productive infrastructure of society.

One of the principal activities of hedge funds and other private equity firms is to buy up struggling companies, strip their assets, shut factories and offices, fire thousands of workers, and then refloat them on the stock exchange at a huge profit. Essentially, these firms coin the economic distress of laid-off workers and their families into gold.

Goldman Sachs reported its record bonus pool only a few days after a new report by the Congressional Budget Office that documented, from the standpoint of the US economy as a whole, the increasingly pernicious role of the super-rich.

The CBO report, made public Friday, found that the richest one percent of Americans saw a greater increase in their total income from 2003 to 2005 than the combined total income of the poorest 20 percent of the population. The income of the top one percent rose from under $1.3 trillion in 2003 to $1.8 trillion in 2005. The increase of $524.8 billion far exceeded the total income of the poorest fifth of Americans, $383.4 billion.

If the top one percent had simply been compelled to live in 2005 on the same exorbitant income they made in 2003, with the increase diverted to the poor, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent of the population could have been increased by 170 percent. In other words, the abolition of poverty inAmerica would merely require stopping the superrich from grabbing an ever-greater share of the vast wealth produced by the labor of working people.

The CBO report provided other metrics for gauging the staggering growth of economic inequality. The total 2005 income of the top three million Americans was equivalent to the total income of the bottom 166 million.

The average household in the top one percent enjoyed an increase of $465,700 in annual income; the average household in the bottom 20 percent saw an increase of only $200, while those in the middle fifth saw a rise of just $2,400.

Further analysis of the CBO data by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute suggests the historic dimensions of the social polarization in the United States.

The wealthiest fifth of the population now collects 55 percent of total national income, considerably more than the total combined income of the bottom 80 percent, and the highest such figure ever recorded in the US.

The wealthiest one percent saw it share of national income double from 1979 and 2005, rising from 9 percent to 18 percent. During that quarter-century, the average income of this top layer more than tripled, rising 228 percent, from $319,000 to $1.1 million. During the same period, the average after-tax income of the poorest fifth grew only 6 percent, the average income of the middle fifth grew 21 percent, less than one percent a year.

The disparities between rich and poor, and between rich and the middle, ballooned accordingly. In 1979, the top 1 percent averaged 8 times more than middle-income families and 23 times more than the poorest 20 percent. By 2005, the top 1 percent had 21 times the income of middle-income families and 70 times the average income of the poorest 20 percent.

Jared Bernstein of EPI, summing up the record of the years 2003-2005, wrote, “Over those two years, the growth of inequality transferred $400 billion dollars from the bottom 95 percent to the top 5 percent.” He concluded, “Such concentration of income is unsustainable in a democratic society.”

Or to put it more bluntly: such a concentration of income is the driving force of the present assault on democratic rights, spearheaded by the Bush administration and supported by both big business parties, which defend the existing economic order.

The Right Attacks the Left, Attacks Obama & Edwards

Check out this Greenwald anti-fox pro Edwards & Obama video:



Fight Back, Vote!

Early Primary Combined With Campaigning Ban Good For Senator Clinton

Stealing stories from other blogs... But I had heard this from Obama's campaign and Edwards campaign too. The staff that I have spoken with believe that the state is going to the person with the most name recognition and most money. Clinton had the strongest infrastructure before campaigning and there isn't a way to change that.

And, she is campaigning better. The articles this year about Senator Lawson endorsing her campaign shows that she is the better politician. She was the only person to contact the future Minority leader and the longest serving state Senator in Florida. He started off supporting Obama and switched to her because she called him several times, and Obama never did.

Read more here

The Sleeper

Will the cover of Newsweek help Edwards win?

Governor Crist is a new kind of Republican

In our state, as gerrymandered as it is, we don't need a politics of compromise. The majority of our candidates and elected officials, on both sides of the aisle, are such safe partisan seats that it makes no sense to ever compromise on an issue. They should play to the extremes on both sides (the far right and the far left). We have a few D's that will play to the left, and the have a lot of R's that play to the right(the gerrymandering does favor the R's more than the D's, always remember the D's out number the R's in registration)

But then I go read this story about Governor Crist on the Marriage Amendment from the St. Pete Buzz (which I am pretty sure he supported in the Gubernatorial race, or at least the primary):

Crist won't join gay marriage ban campaign
Don't look for Gov. Charlie Crist to trumpet a gay marriage ban in Florida's Constitution. Upon news that the measure's supporters claimed to have gathered enough signatures to put it on the ballot in November (Full story here), he told reporters in Tampa Thursday, "It's not an issue that moves me."

He said he'd rather focus on raising teacher pay, reducing property taxes and combatting climate change.

"I'm just a live and let live kind of guy," he said. Crist has previously asked the GOP to stop donating money to the initiative.

-- Asjylyn Loder

Teachers pay? Climate Change?

Back when I use to work for the Democratic Party I was led to believe that the Democrat is always better than the Republican, but there are days (rare and far between) when I sometimes question that truth. Perhaps electing this very moderate Republican Governor to lead our very Conservative legislature back to the middle as one of their own will pay off in the end. And we will have a better Florida.

We will see...

Wexler calls for impeachment hearings

Rep. Robert Wexler (FL-19) and two other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee - Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) and Tammy Baldwin (WI-02) - today called on the committee to begin impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney.

They declared, "The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings."

The three Democrats wrote an op-ed to announce their position, but none of the nation's leading newspapers would publish it - just as they refuse to include impeachment in their polls, and just as they refuse to publish their own investigations of the crimes of the Bush Administration. Why? Because the Corporate Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, as it has been since the Reagan Revolution of 1980.

So this important announcement was made on a Blogcall hosted by Democrat.com, and was covered by progressive blogs - the only news media that serves the people, not the Corporations.

You can read the full op-ed at Rep. Wexler's new site - http://wexlerwantshearings.com - where you can also watch a powerful video by Wexler.

Rep. Wexler needs to collect 50,000 signatures to convince his Democratic colleagues that the American people truly support impeachment hearings. So please sign his petition:
http://wexlerwantshearings.com

You can also send an email to Wexler's other colleagues on Judiciary:
http://www.democrats.com/topelosiandjudiciary

Please share this exciting news with your friends, your favorite blogs, and your favorite talk shows.

Give Peace a Chance

Mike Gravel....from a couple weeks ago. In response to not being allowed to participate in the last debate of the year in Iowa.

Dennis Kucinich was also not invited.

Five Reasons for Public Financing in Elections

USA TODAY, December 10, 2007

Our view on elections: 5 reasons for public financing

States, cities lead with clean-money alternative to a seamy system.

The election year hasn't even begun, but the nation's political system is already awash in record amounts of money, much of it spent to buy influence.

In other times, this would have evoked outrage. But candidates have grown so dependent on the money that all but a few stand mute — afraid to push the obvious remedy, public financing of elections. So perhaps it's worth pausing to note some of the reasons that the idea makes sense, even if it's getting no attention from the major presidential contenders. Here are five:

* Wretched excess. Candidates, the two major parties and the nominally "independent" groups allied with them are on track to raise and spend $5 billion or more in the 2008 campaign, far more than ever before. In Iowa alone, it's projected that Democrats will spend the equivalent of $300 a vote for each caucus participant who turns out on Jan. 3. That kind of money doesn't come just from upright civic-minded citizens.

* Wealth test. Both parties acknowledge that in recruiting candidates for congressional races, a major criterion is whether the prospect is rich enough to personally finance a campaign. That smells of reserving public office for the elite.

* Dialing for dollars. Members of Congress complain repeatedly that running for re-election is so costly that they have to spend up to one-third of their time "dialing for dollars." For challengers, it's worse.

* Fat cats. Despite all the stories about an Internet-powered rise in small contributors, just 21% of all presidential campaign contributions have been in donations of $200 or less, little change from previous years. Meanwhile, contributions are up 91% from donors linked to the securities and investment industries, 68% from the entertainment industry, and 47% from drug makers.

* Shady bundlers. The power of "bundlers," power brokers who aggregate individual donations into giant packages, continues to grow. Hillary Clinton has been embarrassed twice by such operators, one indicted on business fraud charges.

There is an alternative already adopted by seven states. It's called clean elections, or clean-money campaigning. Pioneered in Maine a decade ago, it lets candidates accept public financing in return for a promise not to take private contributions beyond a required threshold sum of small donations.

The result is more time for candidates to talk with the voters; more women, minorities and middle-class candidates seeking office; and fewer campaign-finance transactions that look like thinly disguised bribes.

Clean election systems cost from $2 to $6 per year for each voting-age resident, a bargain for trimming costly special-interest influence. In North Carolina, for example, the clean-election option has virtually ended an outrageous special-interest bidding war for seats on the state's top courts.

But in Washington, a clean-election plan for Congress is buried (Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich are the only presidential candidates listed as sponsors), and the presidential campaign fund is woefully outdated.

As in state and local politics across the country, reform will only happen when citizens demand it. What's missing is a high-profile champion willing to lead the charge.

John Edwards: Can He Win?

Watching Hardball tonight, they said this advertisement is an effort by the John Edwards campaign to remind people that he has a southern accent. It came out of a conversation where the consultant said that Giuliani should run commercials that show he is the only candidate that can beat Hillary Clinton. I didn't catch the name of the media consultant, but he encouraged the Mayor to run an advertisement that conveyed the message that "Sure Edwards beats me, but I won't be running against Edwards, I'll be running against Hillary, and only I beat Hillary"

Chris Matthews then went on to talk about the advertisement above, saying that John Edwards is trying to run on being southern, and by pointing out that the last two Democrats to win the Presidency had southern accents, and I would add that so does our current President. I don't think that is the message of the advertisement. I did not watch the ad and think, southerner.

But I do think that discussion is worth having regarding the southern vote. Can the south vote Democrat in a federal election? Congressman Boyd represents our thoroughly rural and southern congressional district. Our CD elects a Democrat so strongly that during the last two cycles the Republican party failed to field a candidate at all. So, yes, I do think that the south will vote Democrat, but I don't think that they are guaranteed to vote Democrat.

Southern voters are more inclined to vote for someone because they like the candidate, not the party. I think that people in the south are more inclined to like someone who speaks like they do. Which I do think gives John Edwards and Mike Huckabee an advantage, especially against some of the candidates that I think will rub many southerns the wrong way... like Mitt Romney.

I Yahoo'd (I use Yahoo over Google as a search engine) John Edwards and Southern and most of the articles were from the 2004 election, there was this one article: Link by Tom Schaller, author of "Whistling Past Dixie".

I think I might write more on this in the near future. As I sign off tonight, I still have Hardball on in the background, and it is getting ready to end. Chris Matthews keeps talking about how Sen. Edwards is the most popular D with the R's. Another interesting tid bit...

Provide some feedback, and let me know what you think....

Transitions in Tallahassee

Local Leon Young Democrat update: Immediate past LCYD President Beth Kennedy has moved on past Leon County, at least for a little while, and she is with the Democratic Leadership Council in Washington, DC. Specifically she is now working for the DLC's think tank The Progressive Policy Institute. We are really proud of Beth and wish her the best of luck on her new adventure!



Congrats Beth, we already miss you here, and if the weather continues like last week, I think you will wish your were back sooner than you thought. Here is the view of Pennsylvania Avenue from Beth's Window. Gotta love snow!




Also, with news this week, Tevya Harley will be taking Beth's place as the new Executive Director of the Florida Mainstream Democrats. Mainstream is the equivalent of the DLC in Florida. I think Tevya will do a great job, and continue the hard work of former ED's Beth, Justin Day, and the work of the Chair's Sen. Aronberg, and Rep. Ausley. Keep up the hard work! The LCYD's are here to help Mainstream in any way that we can.



Congrats & Good Luck Tevya!

Huckabee stands by his 1992 statement on AIDS & gays & exile

The Chicago Tribune reported that Huckabee is standing by his statement in 1992, when he advocated quarantining and exiling everyone with HIV/AIDS and call homosexuality a health risk. Link to Time Magazine Article

This past week a political insider told me how this coming out was going to be the end of Huckabee. But I argue that it will only help him with his primary. Huckabee is reaching out to the Christian Right and they will only embrace him for these statements that are based in ignorance and hate.

As a christian I find this intolerance despicable.

Here is the article from the Tribune


Huckabee stands by '92 comments on AIDS, gays
by Christi Parsons

Mike Huckabee says he stands by his statements fifteen years ago about AIDS patients, though he concedes he might phrase them differently today.

In some old candidate questionnaires the Associated Press has dug up, Huckabee suggested back then that AIDS patients should essentially be quarantined.

"Fifteen years ago, the AIDS crisis was just that. It was a crisis," Huckabee told reporters at a campaign stop in Asheville, N.C. this weekend. "There were a lot of questions back in that time as to just how the disease could be carried. There was just a real panic in this country."

Huckabee said he also stands by his words that homosexuality is sinful.

"I believe it would be, just as lying is sinful and stealing is sinful," he said.

Maybe some people were outraged by what Huckabee said, but those people didn't seem to be in attendance at his weekend campaign events in the Carolinas.

The former Southern Baptist preacher and Republican presidential candidate drew enthusiastic crowds for his message about conservative values and religious faith.

Who <3's Huckabee?

Here is an article from Salon.com (Link)

In this article by Max Brantley, titled "The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee" gives an inside Little Rock opinion of the man who appears to be swinging up in the polls.

Highlights from the article:

Huckabee insists he's not one of those harsh, punitive, "angry" conservatives, but again, there are witnesses who might say otherwise if anyone's interested.

Ask the retarded Fort Smith teenager, raped by her stepfather, who sought Medicaid funding for an abortion as federal law required. Huckabee stood in the hospital door, at least figuratively, to prevent state funding. Ask the gay people belittled by his cracks about "Adam and Steve." Ask the scientists who've seen evolution virtually disappear from the textbooks and classrooms of Arkansas with his administration's acquiescence.

and

At the American Spectator, once home to the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project, senior editor Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial writer, wrote recently, "National media folks like David Brooks [of the New York Times], dealing in surface appearances only, rave about what a nice guy Huckabee is, and a moral exemplar to boot. If they only did a little homework, they would discover a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak, and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics."

At last, something the national media and the Arkansas media can agree on.

Huckabee needs a little more scrutiny before he starts winning votes, then again, it could be fun to win a race by a landslide!

This article was the first time I had heard that he had his Governor's office computers crushed to ensure that there could not be any records to access in the future. That makes me happy to live in Florida with our Sunshine State Laws, and allows me to applaud Governor Crist in his efforts to expand and enforce those laws.

Today Sen. Nelson & Rep. Hastings to try to help Florida count

OrlandoSentinel.com
State Dems take presidential-primary dispute to court
By John Kennedy ~ TALLAHASSEE BUREAU CHIEF

TALLAHASSEE — The state's top congressional Democrats will make one final attempt today to breathe life into the party's all-but-ignored Florida presidential primary by pressing a federal lawsuit against national party leaders.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson and U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, chairman of Florida's congressional delegation, accuse the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Howard Dean, of violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by stripping the state of all 210 delegates to next year's national convention.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

By contrast, the Republican presidential contenders will gather Sunday in Miami for a debate hosted by Univision, the Spanish-language network. It will mark the third time in six weeks that the Republican field has flocked to Florida for a nationally televised debate.

"I think it's a huge advantage to us," said Florida U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, former chairman of the Republican National Committee. "Their candidates are not being known in Florida. They're not here.

"They're really kowtowing to New Hampshire at the expense of Florida," Martinez added.

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

Full Article posted in comments. But, again, with the 4 state pledge, I don't think this matters.

Who will John Edwards hurt worse, Hillary or Obama? What happens if he doesn't hurt anybody?

So in my effort to try to rev this blog up again this is the first of what will probably be a periodic posting of verbatim articles that I think are worth reading. I will try to splice in original thought now and again over the next month or two, but no promises from me.

On the other hand, this might reinvigorate our whole collection of bloggers, and this whole blog could pop back in full force... We will see.

The title bar of this, and future articles, links to the original story.

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

From the New Republic:

Spoiler Warning

Who will John Edwards hurt worse, Hillary or Obama? What happens if he doesn't hurt anybody?

E.J. Dionne, Jr., The New Republic Published: Monday, December 03, 2007


NASHUA, N.H. -- In the back of a crowded room at Daniel Webster College here, Joe Trippi, John Edwards' campaign manager, watches closely as his candidate delivers a series of passionately populist orations, summed up by his declaration that "the few are controlling this democracy for the many."

Next to Trippi, his colleague Glen Pearcy tends a camera recording every word that the tie-less, bluejeans-clad Edwards speaks for possible use in future television commercials. Standing before a large American flag, the former North Carolina senator insists that the country shouldn't "trade a crowd of corporate Republicans for a crowd of corporate Democrats."


As the news about the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination focuses on the increasingly bitter confrontation between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Edwards is fighting for survival. He knows his fate hinges on a strong showing in the Iowa caucuses that are now less than a month away. He will be out of the race if he runs third.


If Edwards fades, supporters of all three candidates agree that his backers are more likely to drift to Obama than to Clinton. Yet if Edwards gains ground, he could push either Clinton or Obama into third place -- crippling one of them.


The Iowa polls suggest that this is Obama's time. Over the weekend, The Des Moines Register released a survey showing the Illinois senator with 28 percent to Clinton's 25 percent and Edwards' 23 percent. Obama was up six points from the paper's last poll, conducted in October. Clinton was down four, and Edwards held steady. A Pew/Associated Press poll released Monday still put Clinton on top, but interviewing for the survey began in early November.

The Clinton camp is clearly worried and the candidate herself is now taking Obama on personally. Addressing reporters in Iowa on Sunday, she spoke of "a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for."


Standing in the way of a straight Obama-Clinton struggle is Edwards. He has been campaigning in Iowa since 2003, nearly won the caucuses over John Kerry four years ago, and stubbornly remains within easy striking distance of the front-runners. The Edwards campaign has a theory of how he can beat both of them.

As Trippi sees it, Clinton has relied on support from less affluent voters, particularly women, who are especially engaged on economic questions.


Trippi argued in an interview that some of these soft Clinton voters could eventually move to Edwards because his message of economic populism and his background as a mill worker's son will trump Clinton's arguments based on her experience. Trippi claims to see "lots of potential" among "blue-collar women who are currently leaning her way."


Similarly, he says, some of Obama's less-committed voters actually prefer Edwards' fighting style to Obama's pledges to bring Washington together across party lines. Clinton, with her emphasis this weekend on what she's "willing to fight for," clearly senses the same vulnerability.


David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, agreed in a telephone interview on Monday that Democratic voters want a strong advocate for "Democratic ideals," and see Obama in those terms. But he added: "Even the most hardened Democrats are tired of the partisanship and the game-playing."

Edwards, who was once tougher than Obama in his criticism of Clinton, may now profit as the onlooker in a Clinton-Obama slugfest. During his Nashua appearance last week, Edwards smilingly noted that "Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton have been bickering about their health care plans." Edwards said he shares Clinton's view that universal health coverage would be impossible without a mandate on individuals to purchase insurance. Obama's health plan contains no such mandate.


Yet Edwards' mild tone -- in contrast to his fiery attacks on a corporate-dominated Washington -- suggested that he prefers to have Clinton take the lead in the controversy.


The Edwards theory is just that, a theory. The momentum is now with Obama even in a progressive blogosphere that has been favorably disposed toward Edwards. For example, Daily Kos' regular canvas of its readers found a substantial bump upward for Obama between October and November.


The big choice Edwards faces will be whether to move his campaign more to the sunny style that became the trademark of his 2004 effort. Edwards insists that he's as optimistic as he ever was.

Given the flow of the news, he has to be. Edwards needs a January surprise. But if he achieves it and pushes one of his leading foes into third place, he will revolutionize the Democratic campaign.

Check out a comic

It is called "A Town Called Dobson" with a tagline: Blue life in Red America

It is a comic strip, but also a bit of a blog. I think I found it on Florida Red & Blues Facebook Page. Make sure you add them as a friend if you are on Facebook.