Saturday, August 2, 2008

Please Go Away! UPDATED!!!!

Somebody needs to send Bob Herbert on a three month vacation on a deserted island. This should come as no surprise after his slanderous accusations against Hillary Clinton and his ridiculous claims that white, blue-collar workers are racist.

From today's New York Times:
Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain. You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.”

There was nothing subtle about that attempt to position Senator Obama as the Other, a candidate who might technically be American but who remained in some sense foreign, not sufficiently patriotic and certainly not one of us — the “us” being the genuine red-white-and-blue Americans who the ad was aimed at.
And it gets worse:
Now, from the hapless but increasingly venomous McCain campaign, comes the slimy Britney Spears and Paris Hilton ad. The two highly sexualized women (both notorious for displaying themselves to the paparazzi while not wearing underwear) are shown briefly and incongruously at the beginning of a commercial critical of Mr. Obama.

The Republican National Committee targeted Harold Ford with a similarly disgusting ad in 2006 when Mr. Ford, then a congressman, was running a strong race for a U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee. The ad, which the committee described as a parody, showed a scantily clad woman whispering, “Harold, call me.”

Both ads were foul, poisonous and emanated from the upper reaches of the Republican Party. (What a surprise.) Both were designed to exploit the hostility, anxiety and resentment of the many white Americans who are still freakishly hung up on the idea of black men rising above their station and becoming sexually involved with white women.
Huh? Childish? Maybe. Desperate? Sure. But racist? Are you kidding me? The ads implied that Obama was a celebrity, an empty suit. There was nothing in that ad to imply sexual activity between a black man and a white woman.

The race card may have worked against the Clintons, but it will backfire in the general election. Look at how quickly Obama backed off his "presidents on the currency" comment.

Earth to Bob Herbert: Paranoid accusations of racism do NOT help Barack Obama. For the sake of the progressive movement, please shut up.

UPDATE: While most of our side of the blogosphere seems to agree with Mr. Herbert's contention that the ad is racist, the majority of voters, according to a new Rasmussen poll, are with me:
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of the nation’s voters say they’ve seen news coverage of the McCain campaign commercial that includes images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and suggests that Barack Obama is a celebrity just like them. Of those, just 22% say the ad was racist while 63% say it was not.

However, Obama’s comment that his Republican opponent will try to scare people because Obama does not look like all the other presidents on dollar bills was seen as racist by 53%. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree.
I firmly believe the reason Obama "shifted" on offshore oil-drilling was to get the media attention off what clearly was a losing issue for him--race.

Revised Estimates? You mean there's more of us?

(Cross-posted to MyDD per adtnext's request)

So, I was perusing the local news, and ran across a story about some new math coming out of the International AIDS Conference, currently being held in Mexico City.

CBS13 is reporting:
The country had roughly 56,300 new HIV infections in 2006 -- a dramatic increase from the 40,000 annual estimate used for the last dozen years.

While the CDC doesn't think that their "New Math" will dramatically increase the total projected number of infections in the US, they do feel it a failure in prevention efforts.

But some advocates complain that CDC's annual spending on HIV prevention in the United States has been held to roughly $700 million since 2001, while costs have risen. (That's about 3 percent of what the federal government spends on AIDS; much of the rest is on medicines, health care and research.)

This figure is VERY small, considering the total number of ASO's out there that are doing harm reduction programs. We, as a society, need to drastically increase our investment in protecting our future generations from this epidemic.

While both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have signed onto the National AIDS Strategy, we need to hold their feet to the fire to ensure they keep their committment past this election cycle.

That's why I'm proud to be working with the Campaign to End AIDS on their Stand Against AIDS action in Oxford, MS the 3 days leading up to the first Presidential Debate. Sen. Obama's people will be attending a Town Hall meeting the day before the Debate with our participants, and the C2EA is working to get McSame's people there too. We're pretty sure, however, that McSame doesn't really care about AIDS in America .... just like the Bush Administration's current stance.

As y'all can see, this is a pet issue for me, as I am living with HIV. Hopefully, the next administration will do more to help prevent the virus from spreading, and will work to shore up both continuing care for those of us with HIV/AIDS, and working even more agressively towards both a Therapeutic and Preventive Vaccine.

Just my 2 Cents - comments welcome


Running Scared

The Toronto Star nails it:
Just when you think you've got the presidential race figured out, something comes along to upend your carefully wrought conclusions.

Mainstream media provided lavish coverage of Barack Obama's trip abroad the week of July 21 and predicted he would get a bounce in the polls. Some of his supporters believe he has put the election away. Other observers employ the hackneyed and meaningless phrase, "it's his to lose."

The poll numbers tell a different and more nuanced story.
Indeed, for the second day in a row, Gallup has Obama and McCain tied at 44%. Today'sRasmussen Daily Tracking Poll put's Obama at 44% and McCain at 43%. gives Obama the advantage (316-209).

But a closer look at the battleground states shows a closer race.

The race is tightening. It's not a creation of the mainstream media. It's reality. Is he still leading? Sure. But that lead is smaller. After the barrage of negative advertising from the McCain campaign, this was to be expected.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

For most of 2007, the conventional wisdom was that Hillary was going to win the Democratic nomination. She had all the advantages. She was the inevitable nominee. Nobody took Obama seriously until the polls begin to tighten in December. Hillary ran as the nominee in waiting, the fortress candidate, assured of a resounding victory on Super Tuesday.

When that victory did not come, she changed her strategy and Hillary the Populist Warrior stepped out on stage. With her back to the wall, running scared, Hillary became a formidable candidate. After re-tooling her campaign, despite being dramatically outspent and dismissed by the MSM and the commentariat, she racked up victory after victory. On the day her opponent clinched the nomination, she won the South Dakota primary.

The point I'm making is that realizing the possibility of defeat made Hillary--and McCain, for that matter--a better candidate.

After Hillary conceded, Obama got a bounce in the polls. And he's been widely seen as the front-runner ever since. "It's his race to lose," the commentariat repeatedly has repeatedly told us. Have any of us seriously entertained the possibility of defeat since Hillary endorsed Obama? Has Obama?

There's been some grumbling on our side of the blogosphere about how the mainstream media is talking down Obama's numbers, trying to make the race seem closer than it actually is. The reality is that pollsters cannot declare a candidate in the lead if that lead is within the margin of error. That is the nature of statistics.

Does Obama still have the advantage? Of course. But we need to be careful about overstating that advantage. If the primaries showed us anything, it's that over confidence is the enemy. Candidates run better if they are running scared, fighting for victory, rather than confidently running down the clock. Perhaps contemplating defeat, tasting that fear just one time, will make Barack Obama a better candidate, too.

Friday, August 1, 2008

It's Over....Or Is It?

Cross-posted at Taylor Marsh.

It's time to let go of the dream. Hillary is going to be in the Senate for the foreseeable future. From

Because of your work, Senator Obama asked Hillary to be his keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention! We hope you are as pleased as we are that he has tapped Senator Clinton to deliver one of the most important messages of that crucial week—the very role that Barack Obama had four years ago.

Regretfully, this means that Senator Hillary Clinton is no longer under consideration as Senator Obama’s running mate.

For those of you who are considering withholding your support for the nominee:

We worked for Hillary for a combined ten years, so we know how many of you may be feeling. And to those who are hesitant to support Obama right now, we urge you to keep giving him the chance to earn your vote. We are confident he will.

Because, when it comes down to it, even the most ardent Hillary-supporter must ask himself or herself, “Do I want John McCain sending our soldiers off to more wars, giving Big Oil free rein to gouge us at the pump, and letting ideology overrule decisions that should be made on the basis of science and health?”

No. Never.

This is a little easier for me, because I never wanted her to be on the ticket with Obama. But I understand that others may be disappointed. However, we need to accept the reality that the Clinton Democrats are going to be shut out of the executive branch. With Hillary's keynote address, we are politely being shown the door.

For now, we're down. But are we out? Where do we, the Clinton Democrats, the Clintonistas for Obama and the PUMAs, go from here? Is there an alternative to (a) voting against the party—and thus against Hillary’s and our own interests—or (b) standing nauseous on the sidelines with an Obama sign and a phony smile?

One of my friends had a wonderful idea, an alternative to giving John McCain control of the White House:
"Deaniacs" are a brilliant example of what can be done. Dean has done a great deal for the party in my eyes and the fifty state strategy is so important! And think about this, what if PUMAs put all that energy into getting their local democrats elected? Krazy huh?

Think about this for a second. Our alternatives in 2008 are Obama and McCain. Period. Hillary is not going to be resurrected. If the PUMAs succeed in tilting the election to McCain, the Clintons--and their supporters--are finished. We are the scum that extended the war in Iraq and put two more Alito's on the Court.

But suppose we decide to attack from the bottom rather than the top.

Obama is all about big speeches in front of large, adoring crowds that will go away after November 4th. His "youth voters" and "Obamacans" aren't the committed Democrats that many of us are. For the most part, the college students don’t understand the hard work that changing this country is going to require. And the Obamacans will wipe their hands of the Democrats after the cathartic relief of punishing GOP leaders. The day after the election, these "Democrats for a Day" go back to their own lives and we step in. We start running for local offices. We take over key positions. The Clinton Democrats re-take the party from the bottom.

Right now, the latte/arugula wing of the Democratic Party thinks that they have successfully marginalized the Clinton Democrats. Their guy is on the top of the ticket. Hillary is out. The DNC has moved to Chicago. Bill is back to fighting AIDS in Africa. Their guy is so confident of success, he started mapping out the legislation for 2009 in a meeting with House Democrats.

Let them think that they are in charge. Meanwhile, we organize at the bottom (and give our money to Hillary) and we reshape the Democratic Party for the future. Because in the end, that's what this is really about.

And after all, success is the best revenge!

Get Local, Get Active, Get Democrats Elected


(Cross-posted at MyDD)

Yesterday, I had a chance to see my friend Ellinorianne at a very special event. You see, her husband is running for State Senate here in Orange County, CA. And since running for office isn't a cheap thing to do, he was asking folks to donate so he can keep fighting the good fight and defeat a wacky extreme-right GOP establishment fixture who could care less about the people who actually live here.

But anyways, I'd like to tell you more about what happened last night, so why don't you follow me downstairs for more...



Everyone had a great time at this lovely house on top of a hill in Anaheim Hills. The candidate himself played some great tunes with the band. People were enjoying the good food & drinks. Oh yes, and everyone was also happy to see the special guests.

There's nothing that cheers me more than seeing Democrats supporting other Democrats, so I was thrilled to see other local candidates attending to help Gary Pritchard. We had our local school board candidate, our candidate for Superior Court judge, one of our water district board candidates, and the Executive Director of the county Democratic Party. All in all, it was amazing to see so many great Democrats together to support one of our own.

There are so many challenges facing us in this nation, but not all of them can be solved by the President. That's one reason why it's important for us not to forget local races like this one. Here in California, we have Republicans in the Governor's office and the State Legislature preventing the Democratic majority from passing a fiscally responsible budget. Closer to (my) home, we have incompetent GOP school board members who put far-right ideology over our kids' education. We have Republican-appointed judges who care more about partisan politcking over applying equal justice under the law. Basically, we're in a mess and we need some good people to clean it all up.

I'm sure my area isn't the only municipality with corrupt GOP politicos running the show (to the ground). There are probably some in your area, too. So come on, you know what we all need to do.

Volunteer with your local party & your local candidates. Donate to good local Democrats. Whatever you do, just don't forget that change begins with us & change beings locally! :-)






See, I Told You So! (Again)

When Obama said he was going to bring people together and unite the country, we had to know that it meant some compromises.

If you are still smarting after FISA, you'll need to sit down for this.

In Florida, Obama announced that he is willing to compromise on offshore drilling:
"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

"If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done," Obama said.

Off-shore drilling has become a push-button issue in the presidential campaign since Republican candidate John McCain announced his support to open more of the country's coastline for drilling in order to reduce gas prices. Both candidates are campaigning in Florida today.

Obama has opposed exposing more coastline to drilling, saying that oil companies have not fully explored the areas open to drilling now and insisting that it would have little immediate impact on prices at the pump.


Don't believe me? Believe them...

And believe our friend Todd. We can do it. YES. WE. CAN! ;-)

It's Getting Ugly

The McCain Campaign, out of ideas, running the same old Karl Rove campaign of 2000 and 2004, making a lie out of John McCain's claim to be a man of principle and honor, has released this attack video:

See, they are already getting desperate. You would think that given the gravity of our problems, John McCain would want to have a serious debate. Is this the best that he can come up with? Is this really what this election is about? Barack Obama says this election is about the American people:

CAUTION: Boring Troll-Free Diary!

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

Beware, I have no food available here to feed the trolls! I'm not speculating over who Obama's VP will be. I'm not mulling over the details of Obama's recent trip abroad. Believe it or not, I'm not even playing the guessing game over whether or not Hillary wants a roll call vote at the convention.

No, I can offer you no flames. But hopefully, you'll still take a look at what I do have to offer. I promise you'll like it. ;-)

I know that talking about growing the grassroots may sound boring at times. I know that discussing what to do to elect more Democrats may sound dull at times. I know flame wars about controversial topics may look sexier, but in the end that doesn't accomplish anything. Grassroots activism, on the other hand, does.

I hate having to sound like a broken record, but I'm really getting sick & tired of fighting the same old flame wars over the same old garbage. I'd rather be talking with you about these great Democratic candidates that need our help to win. I'd rather be telling you about amazing people like this guy who are getting out and doing something to make a change. I'd rather be contributing in a positive way than being a part of the same old negative BS.

So can we all please move on from the old fights that were supposed to end two months ago and get back to working together to help Democrats win? Pretty please? It was difficult for me to move on at first, but I ultimately did it. And if I can do it, so can you.

Ahh! Now doesn't that feel better? That's right. Just release the negative energy. Do something positive. Let's forget the trolls and get back to winning some elections! :-)

Pew Has Obama Up by Five

A new poll by The Pew Research Center has been released that shows Obama has a five point lead over John McCain:

Barack Obama 47
John McCain 42

There is much delight among people who do not want Senator Obama to become president that the two daily tracking polls right now show Obama with a one or two point lead. It is important to keep the totality of polling data in mind when we analyze any given result. This Pew poll bears striking resemblance, for instance, to data that CNN released the other night. When we take together the totality of polling results, there is a strong statistical chance that the notion Barack Obama and John McCain are tied is close to ZERO. As Brian Schaffner from observed the other day:
Obama has consistently led in national polls over the past two months. In fact, according to national poll results listed on, Obama had been tied or ahead in 50 consecutive national polls through Sunday. Sure, many polls may show Obama holding a lead within the statistical margin of error, but if Obama and McCain were actually tied, we'd expect as many polls showing McCain ahead as show Obama ahead. Based on some basic calculations, the probability that 50 consecutive national surveys would show Obama tied or ahead if the candidates were actually tied is .0000000000000009. In short, this race is not a "statistical tie," despite what a few scattered surveys (drawing disproportionate attention from the pundits) indicate.

Low Road Express

The Straight Talk Express has taken a nasty turn into the gutter.

The Obama campaign has started a new website called The Low Road Express, ostensibly named after the New York Times editorial:
Well, that certainly didn’t take long. On July 3, news reports said Senator John McCain, worried that he might lose the election before it truly started, opened his doors to disciples of Karl Rove from the 2004 campaign and the Bush White House. Less than a month later, the results are on full display. The candidate who started out talking about high-minded, civil debate has wholeheartedly adopted Mr. Rove’s low-minded and uncivil playbook.
Visit the Low Road Express for more details on the McCain Smear Campaign!

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Beef, Smears, C4O and Other Dramz!

About 2 months ago, give or take - I was approached by psychodrew and atdleft and asked if I wanted to join as a contributor for the blog Clintonistas for Obama.

I went to the site and saw the list of people that were involved. Some of the names I didnt recognize, but others not only did I know - but were some of my favourite people at MyDD. I didn't hesitate in accepting.

Around the same time that I was working on a diary that was not particularly flattering to Obama. I didn't know what to do - should I cross post it or not? Since now it was not just little old canadian gal speaking - I was afraid that the C4O's may not want to be associated with it. So I emailed psychodrew and atdleft asking what I should do. They were split - on one hand we agreed that the C4O are explicitly not cheerleaders but on the other - this would be my first post - would this be a good introduction?

In the end - they both encouraged me to cross post - I did. But the fact that I considered censoring myself due to the political climate should be bothersome to those that share progressive values. For the record C4O do not ask for consensus before posting - although I did this particular time.

Why am I sharing this, or better yet why should you care?

Well currently one of the C4O is being attacked for 'smearing' Obama. We are not a monolithic voice. Just like none of you are. And speaking only for myself is I COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHETHER A PRAYER WAS LEAKED OR NOT. And I might add that not only am I Jewish but have been to the Wall.

But that's not the point of this diary really - rather that this hysteria of criticism of Obama - whether accurate, warranted or not needs to stop. *YOU* ARE NOT A PURVEYOR OF DISCUSSION THAT IS ALLOWED. Now that isn't to say that there are some blatant troll diaries around like this or this, but I think the disctinction is pretty clear to intellectually honest people.

We, as bloggers are not water carriers for a particular candidate but rather united in are desire to see liberal (or Democratic) values and agenda in governance (at least most of us are).

I read a piece at Talk Left that summed this problem up rather nicely:

Consider how some on the Left react to any criticism of Barack Obama. Instead of thinking about the ramifications for the policies they claim to support (or oppose), their kneejerk reaction is to defend Obama at all costs and to lash out at anyone who criticizes Obama.

Do they care about the effect on the actual policies? Not so much. By attempting to create a political landscape where Obama can do no wrong - they lose the war on issues.

So really this has got to stop. People have a right to gripe and complain about Obama and anyone else, you want to debate them - go for it. That's why its called Democracy!


If any of you have the chance, please check out the Young Democrats' YouTube page. They have some great vids explaining why we're Democrats. I really couldn't explain it better myself in words!

A more peaceful world. An economy that works for working people. A healthy planet we can leave to our kids. A better & stronger America. These are just a few of the many reasons why we're all Democrats.

So why are you a Democrat? Consider this a mostly open thread. I just want to listen to all of you. :-)


After Bill Richardson leaked details of his private conversation with Hillary Clinton, I bashed him up one side and down the other. Now that he is reaching out to the Hillary Clinton, I need to give credit where credit is due. On August 17th, Gov. Richardson is going to hold fundraisers for Hillary Clinton in Santa Fe and Albuquerque.

Money raised will go toward helping Senator Clinton pay down the debt remaining from her historic and hard-fought Presidential primary campaign. After withdrawing from the race in June, Senator Clinton enthusiastically endorsed Senator Barack Obama, now the presumptive Democratic nominee, and is working diligently to assist his campaign.

Do you think that he genuinely wants to atone for his bad behavior? Or contribute to party unity?

Or do you think he wants to reduce the animosity with Senator Clinton to make himself less radioactive as a nominee for a position in an Obama cabinet?

Leave Barack Alone!

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

John McCain has a new ad out that criticizes Barack Obama for not visiting wounded American soldiers in his recent trip to Germany. You can watch the ad here:

Though the ad says Barack Obama did not visit the soldiers because he couldn't get cameras in to film the event, the truth is that the Pentagon thought that since the campaign was paying for Obama's trip to Germany, a visit to the soldiers was not appropriate.

Now comes this from David Kiley at Business Week:
What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

Going Our Way: Two More State Polls

Strategic Vision, a Republican polling firm, confirms the findings released this morning from Quinnipiac that Obama is up over McCain in Pennsylvania. As you can see below, given the margin of error, the findings of Strategic Vision and Quinnipiac are quite similar:

(1,200 LV, 3%)
Obama 49
McCain 40

(Notably, in April, Strategic Vision had McCain at 48 over Obama at 40.)

The other poll to come out of Strategic Vision today is for Washington State, which has been trending Obama's way for some time:

(800 LV, 3%)
Obama 48
McCain 37

Going Our Way: Three New Swing State Polls

Quinnipiac University has released new polling results for Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania:

Obama 46
McCain 44

Obama 46
McCain 44


Obama 49
McCain 42

From July 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed:

1,248 Florida likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent;
1,229 Ohio likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent;
1,317 Pennsylvania likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.7 percent.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The reason we care...

Cross-Posted to MyDD

This diary entry is going to be a little more personal than I normally do; some may even question if it's topical to a politically related website, but I think one of the main reasons we all care about politics is because of how it affects us, our family, etc. Given the special significance of today for myself, I felt pressed to write this diary.

Exactly one year ago today, July 30th, 2007, my mother passed away at 49. We never felt pressed to find the exact reason of death; but she suffered from extreme cases of lupus and fibro, which caused her pain beyond what most of us could never imagine physically.

I like to think of my close family and friends as the reason I care about politics; because it can affect many of us in every facet of our lives.

With my mother, she lived on government provided benefits for the most part since the lupus took affect; it left her disabeled and move around the house; let alone to work. Welfare; early reception of SSI benefits, and government subsidized health insurance are many things that Republicans demonize on a daily basis; but are things that I fully believe assisted me in enjoying the last few years with my mother that I did.

Recently we've seen alot of bickering on the "blogosphere" at least here at MyDD. I've been involved in it too, and we all get carried away. But I think we all need to remember what draws us back into the process; the reason why we cared in the first place and the reason why we put up with the bullshit that we do in being politically minded: it's because we care about people.

When I lost my mother today last year; one of the things that has helped me through the last 365 days is immersing myself in something that is bigger than all of us in a sometime futile attempt to create change in our country for the better.

So the next time you curse out a PUMA, call a purity troll "worthless", or get involved in a flame war over primary loyalities, remember what draws us back into the process, and what you have in common with that person on the other side of the computer screen: we want what is best for all people. That's why we're Democrats. Flame wars are unavoidable, we'll all be there, but I think what MyDD is losing on both sides of the battle is a sense of the humanity of the person on the other side of the keyboard, and the common goals we are fighting for.

My mother was my inspiration for my life and she taught me the values that I hold today, the biggest one being to love one another, and act like it too. Sometimes I don't live up to that, but I like to hope that we all can try, in our own little way.

Late Nite Open Thread

Wazzup? I feel the need to decompress after a wild & crazy day. Do you? OK, let's forget our worries & chat away! ;-)

The Case Against Obama/Clinton

Cross-posted at Taylor Marsh.

For many a Clintonista, the headline in yesterday's New York Times was disturbing:  Chance of an Obama-Clinton Ticket is Seen as Increasingly Unlikely.  But for this Clintonista, it was a relief.  An Obama-Clinton presidency would be a setback for Hillary, her supporters, and her agenda for changing America.

Diminishing Her Power

In the Democratic Party, save for the nominee, there is no politician more popular than Hillary Clinton.  Her primary fight not only expanded her support among Democrats, but it further endeared her to her loyal supporters.

She began the campaign as a second term senator and, let's face it, a former First Lady.  Democrats who knew her for nothing other than being a Clinton became enthusiastic supporters of Hillary.  She reached out to blue-collar Democrats, people long ignored by the "Let Them Eat Arugala" wing of the party. And she inspired millions of women.

Now Hillary is certainly not the only Democrat on Capital Hill with a large base of support.  Senator Kerry must certainly have a large database after his 2004 presidential bid, but how many of those people will pick up the phone or write emails for him?  The 3% who wanted him to run for the presidency in 2008?  The other 97% have moved on.  But for Hillary, the long primary battle only intensified the loyalty of her supporters.  How many people do you know who began the campaign fond of Hillary and by the end had become a passionate admirer?  The depth of Hillary's support--as demonstrated by the PUMA movement, if nothing else--is unrivaled.

What happens to this political capital if she would become vice-president?  It goes to waste.  A President Obama would not tolerate a second major power base in the West Wing.  HillPAC will fold, and she will be expected to use her database to further the goals of the administration (read:  President Obama).  How many of you are looking forward to the Action Alert email asking us to call our representatives and senators to urge them to support a President Obama's not-so universal health care bill?

Sacraficing Her Agenda

We all know Hillary's signature issue--universal health care.  It is the cause of her life.  Her work on health care dates back to her time as First Lady of Arkansas, when her husband asked her to chair a healthcare reform panel.  Even after the failure of the health care reform in 1993, she played a key role in the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.  And who can forget the primary, when she was attacked by her opponent using right-wing talking points.

What happens to universal health care if Hillary is vice-president?  When Hillary runs for the presidency in 2016, her signature issue will again be universal health care.

If Senator Obama hasn't made it clear, allow me.  This is his party.  It's going to be his presidency.  It's going to be his agenda.  He made that very clear on May 31st when he stole four of Hillary's Michigan delegates at the meeting of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.  He talks a great game about being inclusive and party unity, but we've seen little more than "get over it" and running in "heels."

Hillary will be expected to adopt his agenda, including his plans for nearly universal health care.  If she were put in charge of health care--and as the foremost senate expert, she should be--and she pursued her own health care agenda, Senator Obama would be overshadowed.  The stories would be about the experienced Hillary Clinton's influence over the rookie Senator Obama.  And Senator Obama's ego could not take that.  She would have to pursue his agenda of universal health care lite.

Without Hillary, who will fight for universal health care?  From the Senate--and only from the Senate--Hillary Clinton can hold Obama's feet to the fire and push for truly universal health care.  Only a senator of her stature, with her base of support, can do that.

A Future Presidential Bid at Risk

Early in the campaign, Hillary Clinton was seen more as Clinton and less as Hillary.  Remember Obama's line from the South Carolina debate? "Well I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes." She didn't fully shed Hillary the Clinton until the run-up to the Texas and Ohio primaries when Hillary the Populist Warrior finally emerged.  I am fond of Bill Clinton, but let's face it.  He was a drag on her campaign and he will ultimately be part of the reason that Senator Obama does not offer the vice-presidency to Hillary.  Her opponents tied her to the less popular elements of Bill's legacy--such as NAFTA--and dismissed the role she played in its successes.

If Hillary becomes vice-president, Barack Obama will become her new Bill Clinton.  In 2016, she will be running as Barack Obama's vice-president.  Because she spent eight years championing his agenda, she won't be able to escape it.  Unless Senator Obama is wildly popular in 2016, she will be dogged by the mistakes of another president. 

In the Senate, Hillary can continue to improve her profile.  She will be the most sought-after fundraiser in the Democratic Party and co-sponsor in the Senate.  With her new base of support and public image, she can carve out her own agenda a la McCain.  In 2016, she will be ready for another run for the presidency, with a record and a public image independent of her husband and the sitting president.

This was a tough primary.  Hillary and her supporters were treated with disrespect and our support for the nominee has largely been taken for granted.  But the answer is not putting Hillary on the ticket.  Putting Hillary on the ticket will diminish her and silence her agenda.  She would make history, but for Hillary, this has never been about the history books.  This is about health care for poor families.  This is about peace in the Middle East and prosperity at home.  This is about those Americans who have been invisible to the ruling class for the last seven years.

The best scenario for all is for Senator Obama to offer Hillary the presidency and for her to respectfully decline.  This will give her the respect that she is due and Obama will be free to choose a vice-president that will shore up his foreign policy credentials (Biden), emphasizes his message of change (Kaine, Sebelius), or unites the party (Bayh). That Hillary satisfies all of these goals is not lost on me, but the best thing that we can do for Hillary--and I realize this is not easy--is rally behind the nominee and let Hillary get back to the Senate.

CNN has Obama Up by Seven

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows Barack Obama leads John McCain by seven points:

Barack Obama 51
John McCain 44

This lead is statistically identical to Obama's lead in the same poll last month, which was 50% to 45%.

Brian Schaffner from Pollster Dot Com

In case you missed it, Brian Schaffner from made this observation yesterday:
Obama has consistently led in national polls over the past two months. In fact, according to national poll results listed on, Obama had been tied or ahead in 50 consecutive national polls through Sunday. Sure, many polls may show Obama holding a lead within the statistical margin of error, but if Obama and McCain were actually tied, we'd expect as many polls showing McCain ahead as show Obama ahead. Based on some basic calculations, the probability that 50 consecutive national surveys would show Obama tied or ahead if the candidates were actually tied is .0000000000000009. In short, this race is not a "statistical tie," despite what a few scattered surveys (drawing disproportionate attention from the pundits) indicate.
I thought it was worth sharing.

Deadline: Tomorrow

Consider this a gentle reminder. We have just under 48 hours left to make a HUGE impact for July! ;-)

Dear Clintonista for Obama-

Tomorrow is the financial reporting deadline for July.

Once again, everyone will be sizing up this campaign to see if we can compete with John McCain and the Republican National Committee.

Your hard work and generosity have gotten us this far, but the fact remains, our opponents still have a big fundraising advantage. They are very good at raking in huge donations, especially from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

That's why we need to show the strength of our grassroots movement before tomorrow's deadline. Help prove that a campaign powered by people like you, giving only what they can afford, can go toe-to-toe with the Republican fundraising machine.

Make a donation of $5 or more to support this movement for change:

As you've probably heard, if you make a donation before tomorrow at midnight, you could join me at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

This year, we're opening up the convention the way supporters like you have opened up the political process all across the country. On the last day, more than 75,000 people will come together to be a part of history -- folks like you who have been building this movement from the bottom up.

It will be an incredible event, and if you make a donation in any amount before tomorrow's deadline, you and a guest could travel to Denver, spend a couple of nights at a hotel, and join me backstage before I accept the nomination.

Make a donation of $5 or more now:

I'm looking forward to seeing you soon.



Coming to a Theater Near You: W the Movie

Oliver Stone doesn't appear to paint too fawning a depiction of the 43rd president of the United States, but his film is set to open on October 17:

Seems to me a major American election will follow about two weeks later. Maybe W.'s legacy will be the major theme of the election after all?

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

While We're Talking About VP...

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

Let's not forget about those other branches of government. Yes, who Barack Obama picks as his VP is an important decision. I mean, we can ask Dick Cheney about executive power.

But still, there are things we can do now to change Congress. Come on now. Let's not forget about that branch of government Barack Obama will need on his side to get the job done as President next year.

Right now, one major reason why Bush & Cheney are still getting much of what they want is because Republicans have enough House & Senate seats to obstruct the Democratic majority. And even if Barack Obama wins this fall, Republicans can still obstruct much of his agenda if they have enough House & Senate seats. That's why we can't ignore Congress while we focus on winning back the Presidency.

Democratic Congressional candidates are bringing the message of change down to the local level. They are going out into the field and letting voters know about what Democrats want to do for them. Basically, these great candidates are doing their part to ensure a Democratic victory this fall and a progressive vision becoming reality in the near future.

These candidates are working hard for us. Will we work just as hard for them? If you can, please help your local Democrats. Check out our faves list. Give to good organizations like DFA, EmilysList, & HillPAC.

We can do it. We can win. Let's do it! :-)

Tuesday Strategy Session: Beyond VP

I know, I know... There's a whole lot of speculation going on trying to figure out who Barack Obama will pick as his VP. And you know what? I'm f***ing tired of all the idle speculation!

No really, I'm done speculating. While I have my own opinions on who I'd like to see as VP, there are far more important matters we need to deal with. That's what we'll be talking about in today's strategy session.

First off, MoveOn & VoteVets have a great new ad ready on what's wrong with McBush's plan for indefinite occupation of Iraq. I mean, isn't "Operation Iraqi Freedom" supposed to be about letting Iraqis decide their own future? Well, they now want their country back. So shouldn't we help put this ad on the air?

Secondly, we all know that "the liberal media" is nothing more than a myth. But still, the corporate media is being allowed to smear Democrats while giving Republicans like John McBush a free ride. This simply must stop. Let's help Media Matters fight the lies & spread some truth.

And finally, let's remember to show some love for the one special lady in our lives that won't stop fighting for us. Hillary has kept her promise to us, so let's keep our promise to her. Let's remember to help Hillary retire her debt & elect more Democrats to office.

Get it? Got it? Great! Now let's finalize our agneda & get it done! :-)

Act Today to Make the Dream Come True!

Check this out... And take action!

"But his associates describe [an Obama-Clinton dream ticket] as unlikely, saying that for a variety of reasons, Mr. Obama is not looking to have her as a running mate or serving with him in the White House. . . . [Obama's short list] includes Senators Evan Bayh of Indiana and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, as well as Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia..." -New York Times, 7/29/08

Dear Friend, This is it; this is the endgame. We have to act today.

Today’s newspapers tell us that Senator Obama is looking closely at some candidates for running mate, and Hillary is not on that list yet.

Obama’s team say there are “a variety of reasons” he is not yet looking to put her on the ticket.

Well, you and I are voters, and we have something to say about it, too. Let’s give Senator Obama our own “variety of reasons” to put Hillary Clinton on his short list and really consider putting her on the ticket.

Email a letter to the New York Times and Washington Post and tell what Hillary adds to Obama’s ticket.

Today may be our last chance to be heard – take a moment and help make the case for putting Hillary on the short list.

Allida Black

PS -- tell all your friends about VoteBoth by clicking here:

Mark Penn on Obama's Chances

If I were to pin the blame on anyone that I am now hoping Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton will be elected president in November, I think I might choose Mark Penn. In my own analysis, the semi-incumbent strategy that Hillary pursued in 2007 because of Penn's advice forced her to compete in Iowa, a playing field that was stacked against her. If she had been able to skip Iowa and go right to New Hampshire, it would have been hard to develop the media narrative that Obama had slayed the front runner. Anyway, good ol' Mark had more than his fair share of mistakes during the campaign.

Be that as it may be, Mark had a penchant for saying that Obama can't win the presidency. He now has written a piece in Politico that says Obama indeed can win the race. Penn urges Obama to focus on a population he calls, "active grannies": "empty-nesters who have found a new freedom in their lives after the kids have left." Seems that Mark thinks Obama has a good chance with this demographic, and he should pursue it vigorously.

Now, I can't say I disagree with the notion of a Democratic candidate chasing older female voters. But I wonder if there isn't something in my gut which says if Mark Penn advises you to go north, it's best to hightail it south. All-in-all, any political advice Mark Penn provides should be received with more than just one grain of salt.

Want to Have Dinner with Hillary?

Now's your chance. Do it for someone who's always stood up for us!

Dear Andrew,

Summer is a time for simple pleasures: family vacations, baseball games, and dinner out under the stars. At least it is if you aren't running for president!

It sure is nice having a little more time on my hands, and I'd love to spend some of it with you. Would you like to join me for dinner?

During the campaign, I had the chance a few times to grab meals with supporters, but they were always rushed thanks to the frenetic pace of the campaign. This is my first chance to sit down and spend some real one-on-one time with you. If you enter today, we could be having dinner together soon!

Join me for dinner. Make a $5 contribution today.

My staff has been calling this my "retirement dinner" -- not because I'm retiring, of course, but because we're working on retiring the debt we owe to small vendors all over the country. Everyone who acts today will have the chance to join me -- along with a guest -- for a dinner to talk about whatever you'd like.

Let's go to dinner! Every little bit helps, and even $5 can make a real difference. Contribute $5 now, and you and I could be enjoying a summer dinner together soon!

Join me for dinner. Make a $5 contribution today.

Thank you so much for all your wonderful support.

All the best,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

They Love Him

(via Political Radar)

Media Matters pushes back against McCain's whining about media bias:

About That USA Today-Gallup Poll...

Apparently, that new poll has McBush up 4 among likely voters. This seems to fly in the face of every other reliable poll out there... Including Gallup's own Daily Tracker! So wazzup?

It looks like Gallup may have f***ed up just a little in doing this poll. So are unlikely voters really skewing 61%-7% towards Obama? And Gallup can simultaneously show Obama up 8 and down 4 among "likely voters"? I'm not buying it.

But of course, expect the corporate media to shout out this poll from every mountain top. Expect them to proclaim, "He's alive! Our beloved McBush is alive & kicking!" But hey, at least you know the bizarre facts behind this bizarre poll. ;-)

A New Gallup Shows McCain Up and Obama Down

I confess that the polls are troubling me a little. I don't like it when some polls show the race dead even, some polls show Obama way out ahead, and now one poll (Gallup-USA Today) shows McCain ahead. What that tends to suggest to me is that there is volatility in the electorate, and I would prefer for the lake to be without ripples, a little like glass, as Obama moves effortlessly to the goal line.

The result that Gallup-USA Today shows is different from the Gallup Daily, which has Obama up by eight. The Gallup-USA Today may be an outlier, but its results are these:

McCain 49, Obama 45 (LV)
Obama 47, McCain 44 (RV)

Meanwhile, Rasmussen today reports that Obama's bounce is all gone:
Obama now attracts 44% of the vote while John McCain earns 42%. When "leaners" are included, it’s Obama 47% and McCain 46%. Compared to a week ago, Obama has gained a single percentage point.
As always, like any researcher, I am screaming for, "More data!"

Monday, July 28, 2008

Monday Night Video Special!!

Watch this.

And see this.

And know that you've made the right choice. :-)

Of Tents and Partisanship.

Yesterday there was a diary posted on MyDD that made the Recommended List entitled 'What if Obama was a Republican?' In it, the diarist - a self-described Republican - outlined his/her support for Obama. But after reading the diary and following rah-rah comments, I got to thinking about the complexities of partisanship, progressivism, PUMA's and the General Election.

Seeing this diary both annoyed and perplexed me. I asked myself, is MyDD viewed by some as a personal advertisement for a particular candidate or rather a champion for progressive values? I think that it is safe to say that people who believe in liberal values and agenda to governance have very little in common with Republicans. So save for wanting the democratic nominee to win. Do we agree on much?

And while I share the 'big tent' philosophy, I also believe in liberal ideology and Obama's will to govern with these principles.

As well, I have seen PUMA's (save for the bunch that have really gone off the deep end) be criticized for not supporting Obama. Many of which are life-long Democrats and state that they aren't voting for McCain but leaving the ballot spot blank in protest.

This is the paradox.

I shared my confusion with some close friends today and got some interesting answers - but the following stands out the most to me.

I find it counter-intuitive to turn against Democrats who don't like the nominee while welcoming Republicans who are angry with their party. The former shares are values and beliefs while the latter do not. I don't see why we can't just welcome both. Why has expressing enthusiastic support (as grudging support does not seem to be enough these days) for a single candidate become a litmus test for MyDD?

So I'll throw it the following out there to the community:

If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic downticket races?

Real Democrats. Real Platform. Real Change.


(Proudly cross-posted at Democratic PartyBuilder & MyDD)

How many of you attended your local Platform for Change event(s)? I did... As well as a reporter from my own local paper and several dozen local Democrats. Oh yes, and so did one of our terrific local Democrats running for Congress.

But despite what you may think, there were no signs of "elitism" or "talking down". If anything, we were all contributing our thoughts and ideas to our final proposed platform that will be presented to the DNC. Want to take a look?


There was a genuine diversity of thought on all the issues we discussed at our platform meetings. But in the end, we all seemed to share one common progressive vision of a better & stronger America. And if anything, that helped us all forumate a strong and coherent platform.

We all agreed that the Iraq occupation must end, but we each had different proposals on what our next foreign policy priorities should include. We all agreed on the principle of universal health care, but we all had ideas to add to the table on how to get there. We all agreed on the need to solve the climate crisis, but we all had something to say on what to do to solve it. And we all agreed that our economy needs fixing, but we all had something to add on what to do make the economy work for working people.

In a very democratic way, we all contributed. And in the end, we mostly reached a consensus on what we want the Democratic Party's vision of the future should look like. I'm still amazed that our little group in Orange County, CA, came up with a strong, coherent, and smart platform advocating great policy.

I'll leave you with our group's platform in full:

Our meeting group met twice to discuss four subjects: the environment,
healthcare, the economy, and international relations. Following an open
discussion, each attendee completed a brief survey where they ranked the
importance of issues and policies.

We believe our nation does
not need a New Deal, we need a BETTER DEAL. Government waste is crippling the
fiscal budget. Test-centric and bureaucratic education systems are contributing
to a decline in innovation, the catalyst for change and a key component of
American values. Subsidies and tax breaks are no longer focused on job-producing
sectors. Bureaucracies, grant programs, and policies are not evaluated for
effectiveness. Often these programs lack specific goals from the

The Better Deal must include:

incentives and subsidies must be directed to industries that are creating jobs
and improving our environmental footprint. Tax incentives for the wealthy must
be repealed. Agricultural subsidies must be overhauled and significantly
reduced. Tax incentives for alternative energy, retrofits, and waste reduction
should be considered for both individuals and corporations.

INDEPENDENCE THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS: Now more than ever our nation needs
significant investment in our infrastructure to enable alternative energy.
Moreover, the technology now exists for high-speed long distance trains as well
as light-rail systems in suburban environments to reduce our dependency on the
automobile. Now more than ever we need decent jobs, both problems can easily be
solved with the Better Deal.

grant, program, or administration must have clear goals and objectives and be
closely evaluated against these goals to ensure effectiveness and reduce
government waste. Antiquated cash-basis accounting must be replaced with
accrual-basis accounting, and Performance Management Systems must be put in

university-level research has declined, and graduating students are facing
insurmountable debts. Our education system at all levels is not focused on
innovation: on the contrary a test-based system has taken creativity out of the
classroom. We need innovation to solve critical environmental problems and to
keep our economy moving forward.

HEALTHCARE: Healthcare must be
available, affordable, and cost-effective. Federal medical research should be
increased, with the caveat that new treatments discovered with federal funding
must have 'public domain' patents. Pharmaceutical patents must be reformed to
reduce the cost of medications. Patients must have the right of a second opinion
from a doctor for every diagnosis and procedure, or every Diagnosing doctor
should agree to not be the Treating doctor to avoid conflict-of-interest (the
surgeon has monetary incentive to perform surgery). Technology must be advanced
to eliminate the inefficiency and high cost of medical billing. Nurse
Practitioner clinics should be encouraged as a low-cost way to treat minor
ailments and injuries.

Global warming is real. The crisis in Darfur is real. Third world countries
around the world are in need of the American Peace Corps not just to aide in
economic development but to share the American spirit and restore faith in the
American people. We must be ethical Global Citizens, and we must strengthen our
relationship with the United Nations, NATO, and other international
organizations dedicated to world peace and prosperity for all.




"Liberal Media" My A**!

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

Did you all catch this in today's LA Times? If not, check it out. We actually find some real analysis of that old myth of the "liberal media" and the new rumors of a "media love affair with Barack Obama".

Here, take a look:

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

So I guess all the chatter about "liberal media bias" and "media love for Obama" is simply WRONG. Not only are they being hard on him, they're being harder on him than they are John McCain! Surprised? You shouldn't be.

I said this during the primaries when Hillary Clinton got the short end of the media stick, and I'll say it again now. The corporate media bosses aren't all that into "the liberal agenda". The only agenda they have is one to expand their profits.

And while the right-wing is in decline, they still exert plenty of control on the corpoate media. That's why we see them trying to "balance" any postitive news on Obama with negative news, even if there really isn't much negative news to report. And of course, we see how the media is still propping up the facade of "McCain the Moderate Maverick"... Even though McCain's agenda isn't all that different from George W. Bush's.

So what can we do about this real imbalance in media coverage of the election? Well, we can let folks know about the real facts on media bias like this analysis piece in today's LA Times. And of course, we can always refute the distortions with the real facts.

Knoxville Shooter Targeting Gays

cross posted at mydd and at coyotebytes

NO. The shooter at a Knoxville Church yesterday didn't open fire on a bunch of churchgoers killing two and injuring seven, because he didn't like "the liberal movement." This is inaccurate and it slides over the reality in a way that borders on falsehood.

The man who opened fire in a Tennesee church hated gays

The church had just put a sign up welcoming gays! Yeah. The shooter left a 4 page letter in his car saying he didn't like "the liberal movement," but this is often code for a social agenda which fosters equal rights for gay people and that specifically was the trigger issue.

This is the headline that is more accurate:

Several people shot at gay affirming church in Knoxville. Shooter may have targeted church because of its support for gays.

Of course, this headline only appeared in a gay newspaper Out and About

When Kitty Genovese in 1964 was stabbed to death 25 times by a man in Queens-- while 38 bystanders looked on it and did nothing-- the case was reported in the national media as the worst case of bystander apathy in American history. In all the media publicity and furor, nowhere was the fact that Kitty Genovese was a lesbian, who had been prone to loud fights with her girlfriend, ever mentioned.

The bystanders who refused to help her as she was stabbed to death refused to come to the aid of a lesbian.

Bystander apathy was a phony issue. However, it was widely believed because a) no one bothered to find out she was gay or b) if they did find out, refused to say so publicly.

As of 8 am today, two of the victims have died, two were treated and released and five remain in critical or serious condition at University of Tennessee Medical Center.

As a result of the shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church at its Sunday morning service, Linda Kraeger, 61, died last night at at UT Medical Center. Greg McKendry, 60, died when he confronted the gunman as he entered the church.

The shooter, Jim D. Adkisson 58, of Powell, Tenneessee, shot eight people with a 12 guage shotgun after firing 13 rounds. Of those shot, all were adults: four women and three men. Although at the time of the shooting a group of children were singing from a church production of "Annie."

The FBI is assisting in the investigation which is required in a hate crime.

The church is the site of gay affirming activities. A member of the congregation wrote in a national blog that the church just recently put up a sign welcoming gays. One of the goals of the church's long range plan is to:

Increase congregational participation in human rights programs forgay/lesbian/transgendered persons.
"Elrod," who posted a comment on the blog The Moderate Voice says he is a member of the church. He said he was not present on Sunday, but did add:

all we know right now is that the suspect was not connected to the church in any way. I have no idea if the man had some sort of political or cultural agenda (TVUUC had just put up a sign welcoming gays to the congregation), or if it's just some lunatic acting for no reason at all.

The church is home to Knoxville's Spectrum Café, which is an eight year old social gathering place for Knoxville area high school youth who:

support the principles of diversity, tolerance, and the worth and dignity of every human being.

Teens who come to Spectrum respect each others' ideas, religious views, race, sexual orientations, abilities, and ethnic backgrounds. The group welcomes:

self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, or who are questioning their sexual or gender identity.

The Knoxville Monday Gay Men's Group meets at the church each Monday from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.

David Massey, who is one of the coordinators of Spectrum Café, also known as "Spectrum Diversi-Tea and Coffee House," said recently in the Unitarian Universalist World Magazine:

We advertise it as a safe harbor for teens who identify as LBGTQ and their straight friends and allies, plus any other youth who are being harassed for religious beliefs, appearance, or abilities.
At least seven people were shot - Becky Thompson with UT Medical Center confirmed to NBC News that seven people were transported from the church to UTMC for medical treatment.


Hound vs PUMA: $1.2 million to $11,000

There was some grumbling earlier this month about the reluctance of Hillary Clinton's Hillraisers to donate money to the Obama campaign.

However, an analysis of fundraising reports by the Arizona Republic found some good news--the Clinton Democrats are giving more money to Barack Obama than John McCain, by a ratio of 100 to 1.
Thousands of Hillary Clinton's donors gave at least $1.2 million to Democrat Barack Obama in June, accelerating a migration from her presidential campaign that began months ago.

Republican John McCain collected about $11,000 from that group in the same period, according to an Arizona Republic analysis of Federal Election Commission records.

The numbers suggest no widespread defections from the Democratic Party after its hard-fought primary season between Clinton and Obama ended the first week of June. McCain has hoped that many of Clinton's supporters would join him in an anti-Obama backlash.

The financial reports are even more lopsided than polls that indicate few Clinton backers are crossing party lines.

Not only is Obama doing well among Clinton donors, he is raising more money than he raised from supporters of former Senator John Edwards. Since January, Obama has raised $3.6 million from the former and $1.9 million from the latter.

This month's numbers should be interesting. With the end of the month just days away, Democrats need a big push to keep the pressure on the GOP.

Help Hillary Clinton retire the debt!
Help Barack Obama take back the White House!
Help us put sixty Democrats in the Senate this fall!

And also important is empowering Hillary Clinton. If you believe in Hillary and her leadership and you want her to continue as leading voice in the Democratic Party, donate to her political action committee.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Gallup Daily Has Obama Up by Nine

Gallup now has Obama up by nine points over McCain. Today's daily tracking poll suggests:

Obama 49
McCain 40

Says Gallup:

The margin, coincident with the extensive U.S. news coverage of Obama's foreign tour, is the largest for Obama over McCain measured since Gallup began tracking the general election horserace in March.

Update: Research 2000 has released a new poll that also shows Obama with a commanding lead when the field includes four candidates:

Obama 51
McCain 39
Barr 3
Nader 2

Psychodrew in the comments points out that Rasmussen says Obama's bounce is fading, but I think it's too early to say what is happening. Generally, in my observation, when different polls begin to give wildly different results, something is happening in the electorate. We need to see where everything lands.

Poll: McCain was Right on Media

Remember this ad from the McCain campaign?

Many in the media and the blogosphere dimissed the video as a desperate attempt to grab attention from Obama's world tour overseas trip.

From the Chicago-Tribune:
Whining is not a reassuring habit in a political candidate. One thing all presidents and presidential candidates have in common is that sometimes the press coverage won't go their way. Stoic indifference is the best way to respond. If McCain gets in a snit over what The Washington Post does, how will he react when he has to deal with truly aggravating adversaries, like Kim Jong Il? 
From the NY Post:
While Obama hobnobbed with world leaders, the McCain campaign settled on a relentless whine about media bias, interspersed with flailing attacks.

Is Team McCain even playing the same game?

But as it turns out, the voters agree with Senator McCain.  Last Monday, while the three network news anchors were following Senator Obama around the Middle East like lost puppies, Rasmussen released a poll which found that 49% of voters believe that the media is trying to help Obama get elected, up from 44% one month ago. This 49% includes 27% of Democrats and 78% of Republican. Only 14% of voters believe the media is trying to help McCain (14% of Republicans and 21% of Democrats) and 23% perceive no bias at all. Among unafiliated voters, 50% believe the media is helping Obama, 21% perceive no bias, and 13% believe the media is helping McCain.

Perhaps it is sacrilegious to criticize the media for a bias that seems to clearly favor Democrats this cycle and I suppose that many reading this post will think this is more sour grapes from a bitter Clintonista. To the former, I say that the media bias swings both way. Have you forgotten the softball coverage the Bush administration received in the run-up to the war? To the latter, I say that dissent is healthy, even essential, in a democracy.