We now know that it is almost imposable for Clinton to win the nomination through democratic means. She would have to get around 70% in all the remaining states. And asside from a "political meteor" hitting Obama, this is not going to happen. But she seems not to notice or care, and it's likely that her candidacy will just go more and more negative as this thing drags on. Her only hope is that the 800 superdelegates at the Convention will appoint her as the winner, and ignore the voters who worked so hard to make their opinions known. This undemocratic attitude really rubs me the wrong way. If votes don't matter there is no hope for this country.

More people are saying that the Clintons don't care how much they damage Obama or the party, Clinton wouldn't mind a McCain presidency cause she could run again in 2012. Not saying it's true, she's just making weird choices and statements.

Read an article yesterday, Clinton Donors write Scathing Letter to Pelosi
Kind of bothered me they were insisting the Superdelegates give Clinton the nomination, like they have the right.

Another good Article by David Brooks in the NY Times "The Long Defeat"


Not obeying the will of the voters really bothers me, so I decided to write a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the DNC. I faxed it to Reid and Pelosi, emailed to the DNC.

My Letter

Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, et all

If the Democratic Party overturns the vote of the public and chooses Hillary Clinton during the convention, at best you will alienate a generation and validate their cynicism about American Politics. But the damage will likely go well beyond that. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents will stay home, others like myself will vote for a third party, and many more will vote for John McCain.

The truth is, Americans believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, but they don't believe in the politicians or the political system. This is why we have horrible voter turnout, even in presidential elections. If you can inspire people to get off the couch and vote, Democrats will win elections year after year.

If you don't take the opinion of the voters seriously, they will not trust you, and they will not vote for you. To win an election you need votes more than anything else. If you begin the presidential election with the candidate who did not receive the most votes, you will be at an enormous disadvantage, and the mistrust of the voters will carry on for years to come.

The Democratic Party needs somebody who can champion our principles, and get results, someone who is more trustworthy and convincing than the right wing. An eloquent person who can speak in terms that Americans identify with. Someone from a working class background who we can relate to and respect.

A candidate who inspires people will always get results, because once you convince the public that something is the right thing to do, politicians have no choice but to go along or lose their seat. You need a better salesman at the bully pulpit, someone who believes deeply in the values of the party, and clearly puts the good of the country above themselves

My story. I switched my party affiliation to Democrat, just so I could vote in the primaries. This time in history, and this election are so important that I needed to make my opinion known. In New York State voters must switch a year in advance, I took that step and I voted for Barack Obama. I'm also a small business owner, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I read the news, and have a BA in Political Science. I'm not quiet about my opinions, I vote every single year, even in local elections. There are lots of people like me, potential Democrats who need some reassurance that you will not let us down.

The people have voted, and we will continue to vote for the candidate we prefer. Do not ignore our votes in the primaries, or you will not get our vote in the general election, or in future elections.

Dcoffee

As you may know, today is the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq. 5 years, and so little to show for it.

Somebody once wrote that it's easier to fool somebody into accepting a Big Lie. We all commit small lies, but when it comes to life and death, it's hard for us to believe somebody would trick us, and lie about something that serious. Something like war.

America was fooled on purpose.
I tried to stop it.
And as time goes on there is more and more evidence like the Downing street Memo, which tell us that the "reasons" for the war, were nothing but excuses.
WMD, links to terrorists, nuclear weapons, "We don't want the Smoking Gun to be a mushroom cloud". All of it, just for the sake of Fear. This was not an investigation. The goal was always war. A better goal for a democratic nation would be justice, order and stability.

The congress and the press failed us. They believed the Whitehouse, instead of scholars and generals. They followed the herd, instead of getting a second opinion.

Today, there are no good options in Iraq. We leave, and Iraq falls apart. We stay, and America falls apart.

We have nothing good to show for ourselves after 5 years.

National Debt, international hatred, economic crisis...
These are deep wounds, serious problems, that we willfully brought upon ourselves.
And the fact that we've gotten rid of some punk dictator, and trained a couple thousand Iraqis to manage their country again doesn't make me feel better about it.

Fuck the War.

War Numbers,

Timeline before the war 2001-2003, How this all started.
Remember this.
First Ultimatum: We demanded Saddam let Weapons Inspectors in or face war. Saddam let them in by November 2002. Iraq is stubborn at first, but making concessions and actively disarming.
March 2003, Hans Blix is in Iraq looking for WMD, publishes the first Weapons Inspection report, Things going well, cooperation.
Dispite progress Bush strangely "advises" UN Inspectors to leave the country in the middle of their work. Next day...

Second Ultimatum: Saddam Leave the Country, and take your two sons with you in 48 hours, or else we bomb you. (this impossible request, on live TV, is what realy led to war. Saddam agreed to inspections, so Bush just raised the bar to an impossable height)

I challenge you to go back and read some of this. We lived through it, but in retrospect we can see just how bogus these claims were.
September-November 2002 is interesting, that's when Bush speaks to the UN, the US Congress passes the Authorization to use force in Iraq, and Saddam Lets the UN Inspectors into the country.
Also interesting the just before the war after about March 7 2003, Check out some of the news articles published then, it feels like 1984.

Bush in his own words


Timeline of the War 2003-2008
Just browse through this timeline, it highlights some of the major news with photos and gives details. you'll be amazed at all the stuff the you haven't thought about in a while.

Articles

Buffalo News Article


UK Article, inside Iraq


War Hurting the American Economy

War and the Working Class



Share your Thoughts, Links, and News Articles below.

So much News So little time.

Pentagon Cancels Release of Report that finds Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda.

"An exhaustive Pentagon review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network."

This is not news to me, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, they wanted to overthrow the bastard to have a chance at religious theocracy in Iraq. Bush wanted to link these two bad guys to have a justification to invade Iraq on a wave of post 911 blood-thirstiness. And it worked, when we invaded 70% of the country thought Saddam was "personally involved" in the 911 attacks, even though there were no Iraqis on the planes, but Americans didn't get that either. Propaganda anyone? Stop taking what politicians say in a speach as the official fact. Especially when we're talking about war. *cough* Iran *cough*

If I knew there was no link, Why didn't Hillary Clinton? "(Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Clinton October 10, 2002

Anyway, the report, with the obvious conclusion, finally coming from the Pentagon, is not going to be quite as public anymore. If they don't talk about it, maybe it will just go away right?

Put that together with the fact that almost 4,000 of our soldiers have died in Iraq alone, many more wounded. Fighting for our.. um.. what.. our right to tell other nations what to do? I'm not sure anymore.

And we've been there for 5 years on March 19,

And it's costing us 12 Billion per month and over 3 trillion so far, 50 times more than the 60 billion predicted in 2003,

Add that to higher oil prices, stronger terrorist networks, and a less stable world, and a less safe USA, and you might want to... oh I don't know Impeach the President!

Deep Breath... next

The Iraq War is only 2% of media coverage.

No news is Good news... for the bush administration and McCain at least, if we don't hear about Iraq it must be going great. A perfect time to cancel the release of the Pentagon Report so Iraq doesn't become news again. The lack of media coverage is partly to blame for the fact that only 20% of Americans know we're about to hit 4,000 dead in Iraq


At least I'm talking about Iraq here right? I'm doing my part.

Admiral Fallon, the top US commander for the Middle East Abruptly Resigns.

Who is this guy? Probably the highest ranking officers in position of power trying to talk sense into a bush administration hell bent on World War III. You know telling Bush it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran.
What? We'll be greeted as liberators! More Kool-Aid Please.

Quoting Fallon
"This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Bush Quote Instead
"Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy."

Talking trash and telling countries they are pert of the "Axis of Evil", and we might bomb their country if we feel like it, doesn't help anybody, every time bush gets on the TV and threatens Iran it makes us less safe.

Read more about Fallon resigning .

Presidential Politics.

The math is against Clinton, she needs about 64% in all states to overtake Obama, not happening.

The only way she can win is if the super-delegates appoint her at the convention, against the will of the people. That sounds pretty terrible right, we have all kinds of young people voting for the first time, huge turnout, new grassroots networks, and millions of people believing that if they vote, they can take back the government. Protesting in the streets didn't work, but maybe voting will, that's how everyone tells us democracy works right?

But the Democratic party could just say, thanks for your opinion, I know you spent months of your life working for this candidate, but you can't have him. You don't know what the hell your doing, let us take care of the government, you're too stupid to be trusted with that kind of power.

The Democratic party has no desire to snub their voters at a time like this. I know it was supposed to be Clinton's turn to be president, sorry, I'd like to see a woman president too. But Barrack Obama is just a better candidate.

But Clinton is counting on the super-delegates appointing her in the end. Probably the reason her campaign keeps mentioning Obama as a splendid Vice President, but a terrible Commander in Chief, like that makes any sense. But maybe, she can convince us that really it was her turn, but she will let Obama be VP.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign had a private meeting in DC with her big donors today "the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate."

I have bad news for Clinton, she's not winning the popular vote or the delegate count, and she's right that those things do matter.

I'm starting to think The Clintons really want their power back so they can get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton, and going after him for all those years. They were a royal pain in the ass, and still are. I think the Clintons have their pockets full of smear tactics and venom that they were intending to use on the Republicans, but Obama has been getting their dirty tricks cause he got in the way.


"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Sorry.. I know this is long already and I wanted to get straight to the point here. What the fuck is that? And this woman hung around for an entire week before voluntarily resigning her post as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign?

Obama has gotten to this point because he's black... funny, cause that didn't work for Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton... We've had a black presidential candidate almost every election for the past 30 years. But Ms. Geraldine Ferraro can say that crap and pretend it's fair, it's objective, it's just the truth nobody wants to admit right? No, it's a smear tactic, meant to win points with other racists. Obama got this far because he's a good candidate. Because he's run a good campaign, and risen above petty attacks like this.

And Hillary had this to say "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal." yea, take that, I love Black people.

On the Obama Campaign, an Staffer named Samantha Powers called Hillary a "Monster" and was gone the next morning. Hillary still has not condemned Ferraro's remark. Not to mention the Muslim thing that came from her campaign chair in Iowa, and the Drug Dealer thing, and the Obama doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance thing... yea real cool. If the truth doesn't work, make something up.

Olberman did his homework and found at least 3 occasions where Ferraro said the same crap about Obama. But the media is taking it out of context... sure they are. Interesting, the first time we herd about Ms. Ferraro this campaign season, she was calling Obama, Edwards, the Media, and the entire nation sexist for confronting Hillary. Ok she may be right about the nation, and about Chris Matthews. But now that someone is calling her statements Racist, she thinks that the Obama Campaign owes her an apology for calling her racist. And she's not even close to being sorry for what she said.
Here's Olbermann


"Senator Clinton Isn't A Republican, As Far As I Know" 't-a-r_b_91187.html

Found that title while looking for some sources for this entry it cracked me up. The title is a play on Hillary's response to the muslim garbage "there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said on 60 minutes.

Anyway, there's all the news that's fit to bother me, for now.

I've discovered I really enjoy reading Novels. I haven't read too many yet, because I just realized how relaxing and interesting it is to read Fiction. When i was younger I thought people who read fiction were lazy, maybe they just couldn't handle the truth or had some other issue. Truth is stranger than fiction right, so why bother? Turns out, there's a big difference, non-Fiction is a bit like studying an interesting topic, and Fiction is like immersing yourself in a movie.

I read a lot of news, and the Nation, some other magazines, and listen to talk radio, but recently somewhere between 7:30 and 10:00pm I grab my book and relax for the night. Right now I'm reading Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five, I really like Vonnegut, he cracks me up, always entertaining. I just finished Cats Cradle, also by him. Anyway, I wanted to share this tidbit from Slaughter-House Five..

Billy was twelve years old, quaking as he stood with his mother and father on Bright Angel Point, at the rim of Grand Canyon. The little human family was staring at the floor of the canyon, one mile straight down.
'Well,' said Billy's father, manfully kicking a pebble into space, 'there it is.' They had come to this famous place by automobile. They had had several blowouts on the way.
'It was worth the trip,' said Billy's mother raptly. 'Oh, God was it ever worth it.'
Billy hated the canyon. He was sure that he was going to fall in. His mother touched him, and he wet his pants

Maybe it's just me, maybe it's not as hysterical out of context... but if I wanted to describe Vonnegut's writing style, I might read that paragraph for starters.

Other books... I read the Lord of the Rings twice. My last novel was a 4 book series by Dan Simmons called the Hyperion Cantos, best Science Fiction series you'll ever find, in my opinion. Read that one for the second time a few months back, Takes a while to finish, and when i finally did, I was a little depressed that i didn't have my book anymore, I felt homeless or something, a fish out of water, till I found Cats Cradle. A while back I read a few others that were good, Black Like Me, 1984, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, Forever by Pete Hamill. Next I want to read Catch 22, Tale of Two Cities, Animal Farm, and some of the classics.

Different topic, my old job. I've been gone since October, they hired somebody new. I tried to leave good records of how things were done, because nobody knew how to do all the things I did and I was worried the place would fall down without me. So it goes.

Found this advertisement in the Phone Book Coupon thing that came in the mail. They just shifted around an original design I created for them last year.



My Original, designed for the phone book, you'll currently find it under Photography.


I know, they own it, it's not my property, as a business they don't want to waste time reinventing the wheel, or whatever. But it made me sad. I'm not even there and they are still relying on my creativity to get them by. I don't care if they reuse my ad for the next 10 years, but subtly mutating it instead of being creative on their own, kind of burns me. This type of thing ever happen to you?

And now for something completely different

I have a new hobby. I really enjoy Skiing. The first time I went was about 3 years ago in the Adirondacks with (e:mmtornow) and her family, I caught on fast. I guess after skateboarding for most of my life balancing on skis is like second nature. My mother never skied so growing up we just went sledding at Chesnut Ridge. Snowboarding seems fun, but I feel like it's easier to control yourself on skis. But eventually I'll probably try snowboarding too. Anyway.

This past weekend (e:mmtornow) and I went to Kissing Bridge, it was my 5th time ever skiing, my third at Kissing Bridge, We've moved on to black diamond hills, jumps, and a really fun hill called "Moment of Truth", it consists of about 8 big quick jumps and then a steep dropoff. It was really fun. After a while I got pretty confident, decided I wanted to do some jumps and try sliding on a rail, the rail didn't work, but the jumps definitely did. They wear out your legs when you start really flying over them, but it's so fun. We Skied for about 7 hours. I'm looking forward to using my last pass of the season.

Me on the Hill at KB


Not Skiing, Cheap Plastic Snowboarding at the Cabin in the ADK's


Marvin the Mountain Dog.


The Fam at Oak Mountain in the ADK's


(e:mmtornow) on the slopes at Oak Mountain


Check out the View of Lake Pleasant from Oak Mountain, Larger at Flickr


Oak Mountain's only lift. Small but cheap and laid back place, they have these long chill trails that wander through the woods, after a while you just go full speed all the way down, they're not too steep.


On the Lift


Leaving Kissing Bridge


After Skiing, Pizza and a Beer, or Hot Chocolate, whatever you like.


Not Cooking tonight. Beer Pizza, Couch.

In my last entry I forgot to mention that Nader is running without the backing of a third party. Probably no third party wants to base its mission on pissing off Democrats, but agitating the political system is an honorable vocation, and shame on Nader for abandoning the Green Party.

To change the 2 party system we need a persistent threat of "spoiling" and "stolen votes" not an occasional surprise candidate. The two parties should expect a Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate who mess up their pretty little duopoly, not the current "aww crap, Nader's running again". The only way the system will change is if it's in the Democrats and Republicans self interest to change it. A determined third-party can accomplish this, an individual can not.

So even though I may defend Nader's candidacy, he is a jerk for failing to inspire a third party to agitate the system in the long run. The Greens should run a candidate every year, and embrace the anger of Democrats, tell them if they don't like it, do something about it, because there are a lot of people out there who don't believe in either of the 2 parties. For example, 90% of the people who will read this. Carolinian, Jason, Josh, James, Jim, Terry, Metalpeter etc etc


About fixing the electoral system, (e:metalpeter) commented that we should have each state divide its electoral votes based on the percentage each candidate receives. Good idea, but it doesn't fix the Ralph Nader Spoiler problem though. If some third candidate goes through the election with 5%-20% of the vote from all the states combined, it's similar to "spoiling" Florida or Ohio except Nationwide. We could end up with neither of the two popular candidates receiving a majority of the vote (ie. winning with 44%), so we still don't know who the majority of Americans actually prefer. In order to find out who would have beaten all other candidates in a 2 way race, we would still need a runoff election, or IRV to figure out the majority candidate.

It does however make my vote count here in Blue NY, and it eliminates the "swing state" garbage. I'm pretty sure at least one state does it that way (can't find a reference source). I do like that Democratic Primaries are done this way, makes a lot of sense, but it still pushed Edwards out and gave us only two. (It's a start Sign a petition to support this )

The solution I recommended is to have each state do their own Instant Runoff Election. Voters rank candidates so that even if there are more than 2, we can still find out who the majority of the voters in that state support. If you voted for Nader you also put down a second choice. if nobody gets 50% your second choice is counted and Nader's votes are reallocated. This should be done nationally but it would require a constitutional amendment. States could either give the majority winner all their electoral votes, but a better system would be to divide the votes by percentage after the runoff is complete.

Instant Runoff Voting explained


Healthcare - going to make this quick -
I'm starting to see a system like Social Security. The government guarantees some basic insurance, and it is paid for through a percentage of your taxes automatically. With Social Security you can still invest in additional retirement accounts, or if an employer is trying to compete for skilled workers by offering a hefty retirement account they can do that too.

Same with Universal Healthcare, you won't get screwed if you break your arm no matter what, you can go to the hospital and they will help you. You won't end up a cripple who can't work just cause you couldn't afford the hospital bill, and you tried to deal with it on your own. If you have money, or a good job, you may get some fancier service, but everyone is at least covered.

And it would be cheaper, because of less paperwork, and a more purchasing power. I paid $1000 in healthcare this year, you bet your uninsured ass my healthcare tax would be less than that.

Please spare me the criticisms of Social Security going bankrupt, etc. Those problems come from our lazy and corrupt politicians not following the rules. And I said "like" Social Security.

We need a new system, and yes it will include the private sector, no matter who calls it Socialized.

Just started watching the MSNBC Debate from last night. First Topic is Healthcare. They spent a bunch of time on it. They both want universal healthcare, the specifics of their plans differ slightly. But I realize that the nitty gritty details will be worked out as the bill moves through the House and Senate.

The question in my mind, is who can get the job done, who can go beyond the smear politics of "socialized medicine" and convince the 100 senators and 435 house members to move on, and finally get down to business. Americans have been demanding Healthcare for years, it is literally embarrassing that this wealthy and educated nation cannot provide this basic need for its people. The process in Washington has gone nowhere. Which candidate can get the congress and the people to move past the turf wars and smear tactics and get results?

Watch the video for yourself, you'll see Hillary slander her opponent, call him stupid, misrepresent his remarks, and mock his approach. This may be par for the course in Washington, but you're not going to get people to agree with you. Obama is better at getting people to see where he's coming from and see eye to eye. You need to reach agreement with other people to get things done. Especially if you want to transcend buzz words like "socialized medicine" and "Islamofascism". Hillary is divisive, and Obama can get people to move beyond petty politics.

Watch It


Ralph Nader

I guess I'm one of the few, who don't blame Ralph.
Our election system is broken. We call ourselves a democracy, but we can Only have Two choices. And most of the time, one candidate has 5x-10x more money and airtime as the other candidate. In fact, the battle is so difficult over 90% of US House races only have one choice. It's not Ralph's fault.

Here's a quote I hear all the time, but this really bothers and amazes me. "This election is too important to have a third party." Stop, think about it. You're really saying, "This election is too important, we need fewer choices, fewer ideas, less diversity of opinion, fewer solutions, fewer voices, less discussion, less involvement, please... only two." This is our problem. Important decisions deserve robust discussion, and important elections inspire many candidates and voters to voice their opinion. That is a good thing, why do we think it's ok to limit the debate? Why do we think it's ok to throw out candidates with passion and ambition? Someone decides to run for office because they are so moved and inspired and determined to make a difference in their community. But we think it's ok to get rid of them as quick as possible, just to make the election fit nicely into an ancient and broken electoral system.

So, Ralph, go on with your bad self. And if it pisses off the Democratic Party good!! Change the system to allow more than two candidates, without "spoiling" the election or "Stealing" votes from the better candidate. There is a nonviolent way to keep Nader, and Bloomberg, and Steve Calvenesso, and every third party candidate in history from ever "Spoiling" another election, change the system. If the Democratic party is pissed off and scared of Ralph, they had better do something about it.

Solution. In the constitution, States decide independently how they award their electoral votes. They can split them up or do winner take all. Also the vting process is up to them, as long as it is an open fair election.
Get all the Democratic Governors together, and have each state agree to do Instant Runoff Voting (aka. Ranked Choice Voting). In this method we voters rank our candidates in order of preference, (Nader first, Kerry Second). If nobody gets 50% you get rid of the loser (Nader), and his votes are redistributed to the voters second choice (Kerry). Bingo, no constitutional amendment, everyone's vote counts, there is no spoiler candidate, and we don't have to blame people for voting for the person they actually believe in. And we get to rank our choices, which is what we do in our head all the time. (Kucinich, Obama, Edwards, Dodd)
IRV Explained




We can speculate about 2000 and 2004 elections, What if, Ralph didn't run, what if black areas had adequate voting machines, what if Jeb Bush wasn't the Governor of Florida...

Let's think about a different set of What ifs. What if this year, we had a stage full of candidates, Ron Paul, Kucinich, Edwards, Blomberg, Lieberman, Nader, McCain, and Obama. There are a lot of Republicans who will be staying home, if Ron Paul was out there taking the party back from the neo-cons, you know he would get a couple hundred-thousand votes. And you'd have Kucinich calling out hypocrites and sticking to real progressive values as always.

You'd have a real discussion of critical issues. The most public discussion of ideas in the nation is the presidential election, let it be a marketplace of ideas, where people present real and diverse solutions to problems. We'd have near 75% voter turnout, and an informed electorate. If this is truely an important year, and a crossroads for the country, let's have democracy. Government would once again be more engaging than sports and Hollywood.

My Guess, Nader gets at least a few people out to vote who would stay home otherwise, so do Kucinich and Edwards and Ron Paul. Let them participate. I hope Nader Scares the crap out of Democrats, go fix the system, you have the power. I am loyal to no party, I only seek what is best for the American people in the long run.

(Disclaimer, I am not loyal to any party, in fact I think the 2 party system is one of Americas biggest problems. I am a patriot, not a party loyalist. But the democratic party is on the verge of something important.)


The Democratic Party has finally started to figure out that it needs People, more than anything else.

Not money, or TV ads, or fliers, not consultants, patronage, or polls, just People.

Since the dawn of color TV, advertising and packaging has been the main concern of a campaign. Usually about 80% of a candidates budget was spent on TV advertising. Lots of attack ads, and focus group tested soundbites for 30 second commercials.

Now, move on to the internet, Howard Dean, Barrack Obama, and a Democratic Party that is finding its Grassroots.

The power behind Obama's campaign is its volunteers. Real People, voters who usually sit at home on election day, now have decided to go door to door asking people to vote.

I say it every election. Inspire people to get off the couch, stop fighting for the ambiguous middle that makes up their mind on election day. Now the benefits of that strategy are finally coming true.

There's a technical side and an emotional side to this revitalization of American Democracy. Howard Dean, as current Chair of the DNC, helped lay the groundwork, and create an organized network to coordinate volunteers. Standardized databases, and intra/internet systems, to help connect with interested volunteers and put them to meaningfull work.

Barrack Obama, is the emotional side, he gets volunteers energized because he actually believes in us, he believes in the public, and he believes in democracy.

Other candidates have tried to dumb down the debate with wedge issues like flag burning, haircuts, and fear. Obama insists on rising above that, and treating the public like a collection of concerned individuals, not a heard of sheep who can be fooled and manipulated into giving you their vote.

I have been waiting for a candidate like this, one who can stand on principle and speak openly and honestly. A candidate who has little tolerance for divide and conquer political games. Someone who doesen't have a hidden agenda. One who has faith in the beautiful chaos of an informed democracy.

Systematic, organized word of mouth, has become the most important tool of the Democratic Party. Thank You Barrack, and the Internet. If the youth stay involved, the political games of 2000 and 2004 will be forced into extinction.


One Quick Note, about Obama's position on the war.

Some people say that since he was not a senator at the time, and he didn't have to vote on the Iraq War resolution, it is easy for him to say he opposed the war from the start. That argument really bothers me, anyone who agrees with it does not remember 2002.

Or maybe in 2002, you agreed with war in Iraq, maybe you were like 70% of the country who were convinced by Bush Cheney propaganda that Saddam Hussein was 'Directly responsible' for the attacks of September 11( ). Maybe you believed that Saddam had links to Al Qaeda, like Hillary Clinton who spoke on the senate floor about her vote, and specifically mentioned ties to Al Qaeda. If you know anything about the Middle East, you know Al Qaeda and Saddam were enemies, that the terrorist group had tried to overthrow Saddam, If he gave them any WMDs they would bomb Baghdad, not NYC.

In 2002, I was protesting on the streets of Washington, NYC, Buffalo and Fredonia, I was passing out fliers, planning events, and sitting behind an anti-war information table in the Campus Center. And I can tell you for a fact, that it was not easy, or popular to be against Bush and his war. There were ribbon magnets and flags on all the cars, we were shouted at, demonised, and threatened. Our protests were marginalized, the media and 3/4 of the government never gave us the time of day. Obama's opposition to the war was courageous. And he was right about the consequences.


Obama on War


Clinton on War



PS, The Nation is now endorsing Obama

Holly crap, I just found a video of Hillary Clinton on Dave Letterman''s show, from like 2 days ago,

And when Dave asked how much money she raised for he campaign, she said 100 million dollars, and said it's not a good way to run campaigns, and we should we should go to public financing of campaigns!!! That's beautiful, she gets a giant gold star for that one.

Campaign financing is my biggest issue, if everyone got pissed off about that one thing and went out and changed it, we would be saved. seriously, the whole country would be saved, from the corruption and greed that led us to this point. no middle class, huge poverty, insecurity, devastated cities, and bridges falling into the Mississippi river. Public financing would do the most good for our country over time.

One thing letterman said, when they talked about the supreme court saying "money = free speech", essentially that means people who can't afford to contribute money to campaigns have less speech. That's key. Equal Influence. People united as a group should have a bigger voice, but as individuals we shouldn't have to pay for access. It's like a reverse of the poll tax, income based influence.

Anyway, here's the video... maybe I'm starting to see that dream ticket after all.



____________________________________________________
And here's Barrack's speech from yesterday, this man speaks plainly and honestly. You can tell he's for real, he's not just saying what you want to hear. It's easy to see how he could unite the country around a progressive agenda. Obama will get the results by having public support. And his agenda is boldly progressive.



PS
The key for the Democratic party is to get people off the couch to vote. So many don't vote because they don't have faith in government. Restore that faith.
____________________________________________________

Time to share voting stories,

I went to my polling place on Rhode Island at about 1:30, I go a little late so I can see how many people voted before me. I was voter #148 But the interesting thing is that about 120 of those voters were Democrats. I know I'm on the West Side, and there are more democrats around, but I thought that was an interesting contrast. Nationally far more Democratic voters are showing up to the polls. And I'm glad the democratic candidates are keeping the dialogue relatively civil, unlike the Republicans.

I like voting, I vote every year. Even when the 2 party candidates are lame, I proudly vote third party, and get great satisfaction from it. Voting third party is definitely not a wasted vote, especially in NYS which is not a swing state. I feel like my 3rd party vote means more than voting for some Democrat. and even if I do vote for a Democrat, I vote on the Working Families line.

Anyway this year, I voted in my first primary, and I dig it.

PS, my firefox spellcheck never heard of Rhode Island, WTF?