Isn't he great

One more reason to vote for Senator Obama.

A picture is worth a 1,000 words.

Julie Nixon Eisenhower endorsed Obama

Watching Michael Moore on Larry King tonight and he made a good point I hadn't heard... Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of President Nixon and daughter in-law to President Eisenhower, has endorsed Senator Obama for President, as has her sister in law. JNE also maxed out her donation to his campaign.

You can read about it here

And as Michael Moore said, Obama is the future of our country because he unites people like Michael Moore & the Daughter of Richard Nixon.

This blog doesn't endorse one candidate over another in the Democratic Primary... but that is good logic...

Super Delegates Vs. Pledged Delegates

Today I was researching the rules for Pledged delegates switching during the floor fight. It is my understanding that a pledged delegate has to vote for the person that she or he is pledged for during the initial vote, but in a floor fight, as the rounds of voting move forward, delegates can switch to help secure a nominee.

The argument here is that delegates are elected for their commitment to a candidate and would never switch.

But apparently it is just a pledge, not even an oath, and nothing is sacred. Doing a Yahoo search earlier today it appears that this time last month Senator Clinton's campaign basically announced that depending how things go during Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, they plan to try to pull people off of Obama's pledged delegates, even before the first round of voting. Obama's campaign has denied a similar plan, but many people expect that Clinton campaign attacks, the Obama campaign may retaliate.

This would make regular delegates all equal to super delegates, who vote their conscience. There are some interesting articles out there, one, from what appears to be a conservative magazine, Investors Business Daily. The article by Roger Simon Even Delegates Now 'Pledged' Are Fair Game. The author has a good insight to what I think could happen. I am not sure what it will mean for the party, party loyalty, the 08 election, and for our country.

I understand that Florida Young Democrats President, Alan Brock, who was elected as a Congressional District Delegate for John Edwards. He has been contacted by the Clinton Campaign in an effort to start persuading him on where his next vote should go.

Bill Clinton thinks young people aren't savvy

Bill Clinton, who heavily targeted young voters almost 20 years ago when he was first elected, how now said that they aren't savvy enough to figure out who they should vote for.

Older voters gravitate to Hillary Clinton because they're too wise to be fooled by Barack Obama's rhetoric, former president Bill Clinton told Pennsylvania voters today.

Clinton's comments, to a packed high school gym about an hour north of Philadelphia, were one part presidential politics and one part legacy protection. His beef was with Obama's contention that many of the problems facing the country today were simmering long before President Bush took office seven-plus years ago.

I don't think he meant it the way that he said it, but he did say it. That isn't going to win his wife any more votes.

Read the full post by clicking here.

Obama Art in Tallahassee

This is on the side of the All Saints Coffee House in the All Saints District. I thought that you, the loyal blog reader, might like to see it.

I am not sure what all it means, the rays coming out of the Senator's head, or the Mohawk...

The fleur-de-lis, is the adopted symbol of France, but also the All Saints District.

Michelle Obama is coming to the Moon next week!

Here is the direct information From Obama's website, available if you search by zip code. It is a little biased, but one would expect that from the candidates website. This is not an endorsement by the local YD's.

Michelle Obama will be in Tallahassee, Florida at The Moon, 1105 E Lafayette Street on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, for a coffee, running approximately from 11 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. The host committee is offering tickets at two price levels: $250 and $125, very affordable by Presidential campaign standards. The $250 tickets are for admission to the ground floor, where the speaker's platform will be, while the $125 tickets are for the balcony.

Send checks to Patsy Palmer, 1117 Myers Park Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32301 or to Don Hinkle, Hinkle & Foran, 1545 Raymond Diehl Road, Suite 150, Tallahassee, Fl 32308. If you need to use a credit card, please call Don's assistant, Patti Liedy at (850) 205-2055 and she will e-mail you a donation form. Don says if you can't afford to write a check yourself, try to gather small donations and bundle them to reach the $125 amount and he'll get you a ticket.

This is an excellent opportunity to galvanize and energize support in the Florida Big Bend area. This is also a testament to how successful Tallahassee was in showing that support on Barack's two visits last year. We need a good turnout so our area will continue to be a stop heading into the Fall. Of course, we also need to bring in new support to ensure that Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee and the next President of the United States!

Si, Se Puede! (Cesar Chavez Holiday)

One of the first things I participated in when I arrived to Tallahassee was a rally with UFW and the AFL-CIO. It was quite an experience. Thousands of migrants work in Florida. A holiday to recognize that effort and to highlight the 'real cost' of our food is definitely something I can get behind.


Cesar Chavez Day is currently an observed holiday in eight states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin. With legislation is in the works to make it a federal holiday. Visit the United Farm Workers website
to sign a petition urging legislators to commemorate Chavez and the struggles of the migrant workers with a federal holiday.

Here is a good article on Chavez.

Also, there is another effort in the legislature to get the homes and places of work of Chavez declared historical sites. Apparently, it is being fought by Republicans.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Lawmakers renew push for federal Cesar Chavez holiday
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 03/31/2008

WASHINGTON—Congressional Democrats are renewing their call for a federal holiday honoring the late farmworkers' rights activist Cesar Chavez.

Chavez was born March 31, 1927, and in 2000 California became the first state to create an official state holiday in his honor. Other states including Texas and Arizona also observe the day.

In Washington, D.C., members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and others have pushed for a federal holiday since Chavez's death in 1993.

Legislation by Hispanic Caucus Chairman Joe Baca of California has about three dozen co-sponsors and Baca plans to call for its passage at a news conference Tuesday.

He's getting support from Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama who issued a statement backing the holiday.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
A few more links:

Visit Democracy Now! for excerpts from Chavez's speeches and an interview with Delores Huerta, co-founder of UFW.
California Celebrates Cesar Chavez Day
Obama Calls for Nat'l Holiday

Obama on Race in America

Obama gave a speech today. He hit a lot of good points. I have linked to the whole text in the title bar. I worry about Obama. He might be to smart. People didn't like Kerry cause he was too smart, they preferred the President. This speech hit a lot of issues that need to be discussed to move America forward.

It is long and I recommend that you read the whole speech at the link.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
....

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. ...

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.
...

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicia ns, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

...

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committ ed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances – for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives – by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.
...

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds – by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle – as we did in the OJ trial – or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

...

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation – the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today – a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Obama Has More Experience Than Most Presidential Candidates

From a 2008 article I stumbled on....
'Which of the Presidential candidates has the most experience as an elected official? According to a new study by the researchers at Planning/Communications, it’s not who the campaign rhetoric suggests."

"Topping the principal Democratic contenders is Senator Barack Obama with 11 years in elected office versus just seven for Senator Hillary Clinton and six for former Senator John Edwards — according to their own official biographies. The facts show that not only does Senator Barach have more experience as an elected official than the other major Democratic contenders, he tops half of the leading Republican hopefuls as well. Obama is the only candidate of either party to have his experience questioned by his opponents."

Florida/Michigan: How would a recount affect the race?

Almost 294,000 voters (Source) are up for grabs in Florida and around 263,000 in Michigan if there is a re-vote.

That is not counting a surely increased voter turnout with actual candidate campaigning in the states and the increased interest in the race.

Florida:
Senator Bill Nelson wants a recount and have the DNC pay for it , but the DNC can't afford to help pay for the cost of the process. Right now, the cost is estimated at around 22 million dollars. Personally, the DNC and the FDP are trying to work out a solution and Nelson should keep his 'train wrecks' to himself.

Florida is trying to figure out how to hold a new primary and how to keep the cost down. More importantly, how to engage the largest number of Floridians. I say Nelson should put his millions where his mouth is to ensure broad-based democracy in a re-vote.

Hilary won 55% and Barack received 30% of the primary vote in January. Now, theoretically, if Obama could win all of the now unpledged voters, he would narrowly beat Clinton. This is not counting the heavy campaigning efforts, increased voter turnout or swing voters.

Florida will not be easy to predict if there is another primary. On the other hand if, for some reason, the FDP decides to go with a caucus I think Hilary would win.

Let's hope that we include the wider populace and not just party activists.

Michigan:
Well, Michigan has apparently had a plan all along (according to some)--to hold a caucus. But, there is still a lot of wrangling still to come.

I will not even try to predict what will happen here. Obama was not on the ballot originally. They seem to be Clinton leaning. But, with Obama's new lead and strong campaign....anything is possible.

To top it all off Clinton wants the delegates to be seated for both states. Obama seems to be opposed stating, " “I think that we have played by whatever rules the DNC has put forward . . . and we will continue to play by those rules,” he said. “And whatever the rules are, we think we’ll do well.”

Finally, a REAL fight between the two!

More Links:
Let's Do Nothing
The Zimbabwe Guardian - interesting at least.
Irish Inependent

Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela

Published on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
Obama Glosses Over Colombian Attack in Ecuador; Clinton Calls for Escalation Against Venezuela
by Robert Naiman

The Clinton and Obama forces have asked us to consider who we want answering the phone at the White House at 3 AM. There is little need to speculate. We have a lot of evidence about how they will respond.

On Saturday, Colombia launched an attack on a FARC camp in Ecuador, with, Ecuador plausibly alleges, U.S. support. Colombia’s President Uribe — a close Bush ally — lied to Ecuador’s President Correa about the attack, claiming it was in “hot pursuit.” Ecuador’s soldiers, when they reached the scene and recovered the bodies of FARC members who had been killed, reported to Correa that they had been asleep when attacked. They were in their underwear. Correa called it a “massacre.” Both Ecuador and Venezuela have moved troops to their borders with Colombia, warned Colombia about violating their sovereignty, and cut diplomatic relations with Colombia.

Colombia’s attack was a flagrant violation of Ecuador’s sovereignty. “Hot pursuit” was Colombia’s only possible defense. There is no right in international law to engage in military attacks into another country with which you are not at war if it is not an immediate continuation of an engagement that began within your borders (unless your action is explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council.) If you say that international law doesn’t matter, you’re essentially saying that Colombia has special rights to violate international law because it’s a U.S. ally. That may sell well inside the Beltway, but it’s going to sell very poorly, in general, from the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego.

While no one should dispute that the tactics of the FARC have caused tremendous suffering — as have the tactics of the U.S.-backed Colombian government — it’s important to consider the likely motivations of the Colombian government for carrying out this operation. Raul Reyes, the top leader in the FARC who was killed, led negotiations that resulted in the FARC releasing six political hostages to Venezuela, including four a week ago. This is a pattern for the Bush-backed Colombian government — to meet the “threat” of successful diplomacy with military escalation. The Colombian government, with vigorous U.S. support, is taking actions whose probable consequence is to reduce the likelihood that FARC hostages will be released — including three American captives.

Indeed, Ecuador says it was in talks with rebels to release 12 hostages, including Ingrid Betancourt and three Americans, that the talks were in an advanced stage, and that the process was thwarted by the Colombian raid.

Now consider the statements of the Democratic presidential candidates. First, Obama:

Obama Statement on Recent Events near Colombia’s Borders - March 03, 2008

“The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The recent targeted killing of a senior FARC leader must not be used as a pretense to ratchet up tensions or to threaten the stability of the region. The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors.”

Obama is absolutely right, of course, that nothing should used as a “pretense” to ratchet up tensions or threaten the stability of the region. But this glosses over the apparent fact that Colombia flagrantly, deliberately, and with premeditation violated Ecuador’s sovereignty. Ecuador is a U.S. ally. The U.S., as a member of the Organization of American States, has an obligation to defend Ecuador’s sovereignty. If you say that doesn’t matter, then what you’re saying is that a country like Ecuador can’t rely on the U.S. to behave in accordance with international law, and has to turn to countries like Venezuela to help defend its sovereignty (as it has.) In this assertion, you’d have a lot of agreement in Ecuador, including from its U.S.-educated president.

Obama says, “The presidents of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela have a responsibility to ensure that events not spiral out of control, and to peacefully address any disputes through active diplomacy with the help of international actors.” That’s absolutely correct. He might also note that the U.S. — which is a protagonist through its role in Colombia — shares this obligation.

Now let’s consider Hillary’s statement:

Statement from Hillary Clinton - 3/3/2008

“Hugo Chavez’s order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. The Colombian state has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security of the region. Rather than criticizing Colombia’s actions in combating terrorist groups in the border regions, Venezuela and Ecuador should work with their neighbor to ensure that their territories no longer serve as safe havens for terrorist groups. After reviewing this situation, I am hopeful that the government of Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in closer cooperation with Colombia on this issue. Hugo Chavez must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to support democracy, promote an end to conflict, and to press Chavez to change course.”

This is 100% wrong. Hillary acts as if the “event” is not the Colombian attack in Ecuador, but the Venezuelan response (Ecuador, the country whose sovereignty was violated, is an afterthought.) . According to Hillary, Colombia has “every right” to “defend itself” by violating Ecuador’s sovereignty — that’s the event — but if Venezuela sends troops to its side of the Venezuela-Colombia border — its own national territory — that’s “unwarranted and dangerous.” Hillary says that “after reviewing the situation,” she is hopeful that Ecuador will determine that its interests lie in “closer cooperation with Colombia” — the country that just flagrantly violated its sovereignty — than with Venezuela, its ally that is speaking up against the violation. She is hopeful that Ecuador will lick the hand that beats it. As president, she will work with our partners in the region and the OAS to press Venezuela to change course. Good luck with that. It’s the U.S. and Colombia that need pressure to change course — to forswear violations of international law and to choose real diplomacy.

Judging from Hillary’s statement, we should expect no meaningful change in U.S. policy towards Colombia, Ecuador, or Venezuela (which she falsely claims is a dictatorship) if she is elected president — unless it is a change to make it worse.

Robert Naiman is National Coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, a membership organization devoted to reforming U.S. foreign policy to reflect the values and serve the interests of the majority of Americans. Naiman edits the daily Just Foreign Policy news summary.

Recent Attacks on Obama

Obama dismisses right-wing 'unpatriotic' attack, only to get a xenophobic attack by Clinton.

Of course, the Republican attack is nothing new. But, the Clinton's campaign peddling pictures of Obama in Somalia--respecting their customs--is a new low.

Oprah may be a false prophet and sign of the end times.

So I received a forward today on Oprah, (I love my grandparents) and how she is a false prophet, and that is why she supporting Senator Obama for President.

Here is an excerpt:

RECEIVED FROM A FRIEND TODAY 2/18/2008

Oprah leads us where the end-time says we will go

"Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

This is very discouraging news to hear about one who has such tremendous influence on the general public.
Please ask God to show Oprah the real Jesus Christ.

Just to make sure this was true, I went on Oprah's web site and there it is.
The below article is very interesting, so I thought I would share.


Subject: Oprah joins false prophets Bible warned about

I have tried to read through this, and if nothing else, my grandparent's are going to lump this into false prophet category. Marianne Williamson did a show on Filmmaker Michael Moore's Spirituality

There is an article that the email references that you can read if you would like to see the body of the email. "Oprah and Friends" to teach course on New Age Christ

The email ends with:

It's not surprising at all that Oprah Winfrey is supporting Barak Obama!!!

Christians.....Take heed!!

And PLEASE pass this one on.....if you never forward anything else!

I don't write it, I just share it.

Right slams Obama as 'shady Chicago socialist'

from TimesOnline:

"Grover Norquist, an influential conservative tax reform lobbyist, said: “Barack Obama has been able to create his own image and introduce himself to voters, but the swing voters in a general election are not paying attention yet. He is open to being defined as a leftwing, corrupt Chicago politician.” "

I know how Joe Liberman must feel

RJC Launches "I Used to be a Democrat" Ad Campaign

The RJC is up to trouble. Actively working to divide America. Insulting Sen. Obama for his efforts to bring peace to the middle east, and attacking Sen. Clinton for race baiting.

This seems especially harsh today. Yesterday Rep. Tom Lantos passed away. Rep. Lantos was the only Holocaust survivor to serve in congress, and he served proudly as a Democrat. The RJC doesn't acknowledge his passing, instead it blast hate & division across the nation.

This is one more reason why we need Democratic Leadership in our country. Someone who can united us, and help us get pass our partisan divides and help us work together for a better America.

Will So-called 'superdelegates' Pick Our Nominee?

From Common Dreams:

"Superdelegates - mostly members of Congress, governors, party officials and grass-roots activists - can back any candidate they choose. While ordinary delegates are technically committed to a candidate, superdelegates can change their allegiance whenever they feel like it.

Former President Clinton, for example, is a superdelegate - hence his vital importance to his wife’s bid for the White House. The Washington Post reports: “Clinton, former president Bill Clinton…and their allies have been working aggressively for months to court the superdelegates, drawing on old loyalties to open a huge advantage for the senator from New York in total delegates amassed.”"

WW[MLK]D?

from the The Black Commentator

On or around the January 21st celebration of the life and work of Dr. King, Senator Obama was asked the question of who did he think Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported for President. Senator Obama offered a very profound answer: He said, to the effect, that Dr. King would probably have not supported anyone but would have been pressuring everyone on behalf of social justice.

In the wake of Obama’s outstanding victory in South Carolina, two things are clear:

* One, that this race is not over and that everything is clearly up in the air, meaning of course, that each state’s primary is critical.
* Two, that the candidates (especially Senators Clinton and Obama) must not be allowed to engage in a tit-for-tat squabble, but must be pushed on the actual content of their visions and platforms.

In this sense, Senator Obama’s words may be more insightful than even he realized when he uttered them.

In suggesting that Dr. King would be pressuring all of the candidates, Senator Obama was, perhaps, inadvertently offering a critique of this presidential season. At a point when the two top Democratic contenders, along with most of the media, are focusing on symbolism and celebrity, little attention has been given to the actual programmatic differences and similarities between Senators Clinton and Obama. Instead, we have been “entertained” to the political equivalent of reality TV with he said / she said / they said, instead of a focus on what the candidates, should they be elected, would commence to do the day after Inauguration.

It is easy to get swept up in the whirlwind. A serious African American candidate and a serious female candidate running in the same election is historic. A friend of mine (and fellow activist), commenting on the race said that while he agreed with former Senator John Edwards on the issues, he felt that the world did not want another white man in the office of the President of the United States. I remained silent for a minute in hearing this and then, after agreeing on the significant symbolic value of a woman or black man as President, asked my friend “…but what about the issues? What about what they would ACTUALLY do?” Sadly, my friend had no answer other than to repeat his point about the symbol of a different face in a high place.

My guess is that Dr. King would have been far less swayed by symbolism than are many of us. Among other things, Dr. King believed in the necessity for social movements to change conditions. While it is absolutely true that Dr. King, like many other great social movement leaders, needed political allies in office - as was the case with his relationship with President Lyndon Johnson at a certain moment - it was also the case that Dr. King gave priority to the movement over the person. In other words, while King agreed with Johnson on his civil rights reforms, he was willing to take the immense risk of turning against Johnson on the question of the Vietnam War. King stood on principle, and particularly, his central concern was for the welfare of those in mainstream society stepped upon each day, whether by throwing them into an immoral war; casting them aside in the name of a more efficient economy, or allowing them to languish in the poverty of the ghetto or the hills of Appalachia.

It would be worth thinking a bit more deeply. How are the candidates approaching the immense challenges of today? What are they saying about Iraq? About the recession we are entering? About healthcare? What difference will they make in the lives of the person who just lost their home to foreclosure?

We, who are concerned with justice, must be asking those questions and in that sense, emulating precisely what Senator Obama suggested Dr. King would be doing today. The pressure that Senator Obama believed Dr. King would be exerting would be far more than that of a phone call, email or fax and it would be far more than an individual act. It would be organizing and mobilizing a movement, that is, hundreds of thousands of those who have decided that they are ready to take their futures into their own hands, rather than await a savior.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is Executive Editor of The Black Commentator. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum.

Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton

Published on Thursday, January 10, 2008 by Salon.com

Why I’m Still Not for Hillary Clinton
Women voters rallied en masse for her — but she has run as a stereotypical male and represents the same old cowardly Clintonian politics.

by Frances Kissling

In the wake of Hillary Clinton’s surprising win Tuesday and all the wrongheaded punditry leading up to it, there has been much discussion about why women voters rallied en masse for her in New Hampshire. Some believe she benefited from a powerful backlash against her many eager naysayers in the media. But whatever the reason for her campaign’s resurgence, I still don’t buy Clinton as the women’s candidate.

I’m a lifelong feminist activist. In this crucial election, I am supporting John Edwards, whose economic policies I think will best serve women. Barack Obama is a close second, with Hillary Clinton a distant third. At first, as a feminist, I felt strange, almost embarrassed not to support Clinton, but it wasn’t a tough decision. I did some soul searching, and in the end there were too many issues of principle on which she was willing to compromise. Her commitment to practicality over principle made it hard to be enthusiastic about her candidacy.

At the same time, watching Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire was a roller-coaster ride — there were moments when I just wanted to throw in the towel and support her, those flashes of humanity and passion, the confidence she expresses in her record, the reality that she probably is the good person her husband says she is. I imagine her frustration with people like me who sell her short and will not settle for the conventional wisdom of what a woman has to do to get elected and trust her. And then she would frustrate me with her almost absolute inability to understand that being a leader is much more than an exercise in competency; it is the ability to capture people’s imaginations and make them believe that there is indeed hope. The low point was her dismissal of Obama’s and Edwards’ visionary platforms as false hopes. Jung’s bad mother wagging her finger at the boys who dared to promise the American people more than they could deliver was too much.

I contrast the closing speeches from New Hampshire: Obama’s three words — “yes, we can” — and Clinton’s heartfelt claim of having found her voice, an unspoken acknowledgment that she had to learn and she learned it. One goes to bed with the feeling that the next six weeks will include a national opportunity for all but the far right to take apart questions of race, gender, class and political integrity. In a way, it is the first 21st century election. Will Obama force Clinton into the new millennium? Can she meet my expectations?

Then her record enters my consciousness: her votes on Iraq, the Patriot Act and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

I wonder if I am, as antifeminists are constantly taunting, one of those women who is jealous of other women? Am I harder on women than on men? After all, the first qualified woman who becomes president is not likely to be everything a feminist would like her to be. Am I just not practical enough to hold my nose and go with a qualified woman? Clinton is to be respected for her intelligence, knowledge of the issues and consistent work for social justice. There is no one best person to be president, and there is no doubt in my mind that, if elected, on most issues she will make good decisions, do the best that can be done in difficult circumstances and, as would Edwards and Obama, work to change some elements of the debacle of the Bush years.

But her approach to Iraq leads me to think she would more quickly and inappropriately use military power than other Democrats, and that is impossible to ignore.

The decision about whom to support is also based on more subtle issues of character, a sense of where the candidates will lead us and how much of a socially transformative vision for America they have. Being a feminist means not only supporting policies that improve women’s lives, but that lead to a new understanding of women’s and men’s nature, identity and role in the world. It means an unrelenting attention to the questions of exclusion and marginalization, and to leveling the playing field. Asking whether Clinton is that person is not just a fair question, it is the feminist question. In answering that question, the history of centrist Democrats and Clintonism must be confronted.

Now, I’ve never been a centrist Democrat and everything I have seen of Clintonism and the Democratic Leadership Council confirms that women are far down their priority lists. But there must be some small space in the political world in which women are important. It is also not to say that Clinton doesn’t care about women — of course she does, and she has supported and will support many policies that improve women’s health, employment and education. Perhaps one hears so little of that commitment on the campaign trail because it is assumed that the woman candidate does not have to talk about those issues. But whatever the reason, there is no evidence that Clinton’s feminist history currently influences her thinking about women, or that it is any further advanced than Obama’s and Edwards’ thinking.

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda.

For example, she might begin by following the European example and create a Cabinet post on women. In addition to outlining her foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, she might write about women from a thoroughly modern perspective. As important as they are there is nothing new about talking about issues such as violence against women or research on women’s health issues or funding family planning at home and abroad. We need a candidate who advocates for the economic benefits that women all over Europe — and increasingly women in developing countries — have: better support for the retirement of women who do not work outside the home, paid family and medical leave, expansion of Social Security benefits to spouses (mostly women). And we need a feminist candidate for president who is not afraid of issues such as gay marriage, adoption and America’s changing attitudes toward women’s sexuality and all sexuality.

When John Edwards stepped up to the podium to concede victory to Barack Obama, he said, “The one thing that is clear here in Iowa is that the status quo lost and change won.” I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

The women’s movement, along with other progressive movements, did little to challenge the Clinton administration to live up to its campaign promises. And now it seems that the longtime women’s movement is falling into the same trap over Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Just read the feckless and stale defense of Clinton’s record on the war posted on the National Organization for Women’s Web site to get a sense of how willing some in the feminist establishment are to defend any woman, regardless of her track record.

But some women aren’t buying it. We’d like to see a woman president, but more than anything we want to be able to say at the end of the first woman’s tenure in the highest political office that it really mattered. That the first woman president did things no man would have done, that feminist values were at the core of her decisions — and that the country was on the road to further transformation.

Frances Kissling is the president of Catholics for a Free Choice.

Copyright ©2008 Salon Media Group, Inc.

Playing the Class Card

	Published on Wednesday, January 9, 2008 by TruthDig.com Playing the Class Card by Robert Scheer As long as Hillary Clinton, and now Gloria Steinem, has chosen to play the women’s card against the race card, let me throw in a third one: the class card. Clinton claimed in the New Hampshire primary debate that she is the unmistakable agent for change because she is a woman and her election as president would send a strong signal of a new day aborning to America and the rest of the world. It is hoped that it would be a more progressive message than the one sent by Margaret Thatcher’s ascent in England. Steinem put a finer point on the argument in her New York Times commentary, published Tuesday, New Hampshire’s primary election day, arguing that women get wonderfully more “radical” as they age, and therefore older women are more inclined to vote for Clinton, Steinem’s preferred candidate, as opposed to Barack Obama, whom younger women went for in Iowa. Maybe those younger women were more worried about how to pay off college loans or swelling mortgage obligations than gender identity. What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can’t be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton’s “unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House” without referencing the Clinton White House’s giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton’s key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation. I am not trying to play the class card here by claiming that because Obama grew up black and middle-class he will therefore inevitably be that rare politician who remembers where he or she came from. Bill Clinton, who came from a poor family, disproved the notion about remembering. To his everlasting shame as president, Clinton supported and signed welfare legislation that shredded the federal safety net for the poor from which he personally had benefited. He faithfully served big corporate interests by signing off on Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization Act, which, as a gift to the banks, insurance companies and stockbrokers, reversed consumer protection legislation from the New Deal era. Thanks to Bill Clinton, those pirates were allowed to merge into the largest conglomerates the world has ever witnessed and, adding insult to injury, to “data-mine,” thus sharing your most intimate financial and health information. Bill Clinton’s next biggest concession to the fat cats was the Telecommunications Act, which ended what was left of public control of the airwaves and permits mega-media corporations to grow even bigger. No wonder Rupert Murdock and Hillary Clinton now get on so famously. Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course. John Edwards deserves credit for putting this issue of the growing division of American society front and center, and certainly Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich has related his politics to growing up in abysmal poverty. As Kucinich has pointed out, a permanent war economy in which more than half of federal discretionary funds go to the military leaves no room for needed social programs. Question the honesty of any candidate who continues to vote for war funding while talking up all the wonderful domestic programs he or she claims to favor. At least Ron Paul is consistent in saying he would cut both. Obviously, coming from an impoverished background does not ensure a social conscience, and there is no better example that the contrary can be true than Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the scion of a wealthy family, who, as president, was a god in my Bronx home for expanding federal poverty programs that put food on our table when both my parents were out of work. Yes, it is important for the health of our democracy to break barriers that have held back a majority of our citizens, and for that reason it would certainly be an advance to have a black or female president. But that alone is not enough to justify a vote. What we need far more than a change in appearance is one of perspective. Otherwise, Condoleezza Rice would make the ideal candidate. Robert Scheer is editor of Truthdig.com and a regular columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle. © 2008 TruthDig.com

The Right Attacks the Left, Attacks Obama & Edwards

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



Fight Back, Vote!