McCain Watch

The Huffington Post and Moveon.org have launched a joint project called McCain Watch. To recieve presidential news about John McCain that you won't find anyplace else, sign up at McCain Watch.

FYI, signing up for the email means that you will have to give your email address to both organizations.

More of the McSame

I'm sure we all remember this image of George W. Bush, premarturely celebrating victory in Iraq on May 1, 2003.  Today, we got a sure sign from John McCain that intends to continue this policy of politicizing military affairs.

Yesterday, Dan Balz wrote a piece for The Trail that began with this question:

Why is John McCain in Colombia?

To Dan Balz, this trip just didn't make sense:

Obama's trip makes political sense. McCain's doesn't. McCain's strongest suit already is national security. Virtually every poll shows that Americans regard him as fully experienced on those issues. Voters may disagree with McCain's policies, which means there is an opening for Obama to challenge the presumptive GOP nominee on foreign policy. But demonstrating familiarity with foreign leaders or regional issues won't do much for McCain at this point. People assume he has that.

Today, we get the reason:

Today, we learn that John McCain was briefed on the raid by Colombian officials before the raid on Tuesday evening.  If this was the free-trade trip that John McCain claims it was, why did he take time out of these important discussions for a military operation that he, as a presidential candidate, not a representative of the executive branch, was not involved in.

While McCain does not try to bask in the glory of the raid, his allies and surrogates have not shied away from tying the successful rescue to the GOP presidential candidate:

"I think it was a sign of confidence of President Uribe and the defense minister in Senator McCain — and maybe in the two of us — that they were prepared to share this information last night, which was highly classified, " Lieberman said. "They were quite detailed about what they were trying to do, and thank god they succeeded."

From the Investor's Business Daily:

It's not absurd, however, to also think that FARC let go of its hostages knowing that Colombia was getting support from a fiercely committed potential U.S. president such as McCain, one who cared enough to visit the country and who knew firsthand what it was like to be held hostage in the jungle for many years by brutal communist guerrillas? It raises questions of a McCain Effect.

While John McCain claims the timing of his visit and the raid was coincidental, we know from experience that the Republicans have no qualms about politicizing foreign policy. I think the Boston Globe captured this perfectly:

Evening Open Thread

So what's happening? What am I missing out on? Talk to me. :-)

Party Unity or Victor's Justice?

After Hillary Clinton conceded and endorsed Barack Obama last month, she held a conference call with her delegates and encouraged all of them to support Barack Obama. All but two have pledged to cast their ballots for Senator Obama in Denver next month.

But for some Obama supporters, that's not enough.

It was widely reported in the news media this spring that Hillary Clinton's prominent African-American supporters were under tremendous pressure to abandon the former First Lady and endorse Senator Obama. From Politico.com:

African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

Although none of Hillary Clinton's African-American supporters believed that Senator Obama himself was behind the intimidation, one of his biggest supporters, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), hinted that there would be a price to pay for opposing Barack Obama:

He [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-MO] said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

Jackson, an Obama supporter, confirmed the conversation, and said the dilemma may pose a career risk for some black politicians. "Many of these guys have offered their support to Mrs. Clinton, but Obama has won their districts. So you wake up without the carpet under your feet. You might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position" in the future, he added.

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) switched his support to Senator Clinton after drawing a primary opponent in February. His opponent, Rev. Markel Hutchins, claims that his refusal to get behind Obama showed that the civil rights hero was "out of touch." In yesterday's New York Times, we learned that he is not the only congressman being punished for exercising his judgment and conscience in making his endorsement.

Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY-6) has drawn a primary challenger, Ruben Wills, who supported Barack Obama. Rep. Edolphus Towns (NY-10) faces a primary challenge from Kevin Powell, a community organizer who supported Barack Obama. Rep. John Barrow (GA-12), a conservative white Democrat representing a district with a large black population, is being challenged by African American State Senator Regina Thomas. Because this is considered a swing district, Senator Obama stepped in and endorsed Rep. Barrow. Apparently, Senator Obama was not offended that Rep. Barrow waited until after the Georgia primary to endorse his candidacy.

All of the challengers have sought to make an issue of the incumbent's delayed endorsement. Markel Hutchins, the challenger to Rep. John Lewis (GA) even copied Obama's website:




This primary election battle was historic and unique for many reasons. In the end, Senator Obama won the nomination. But it bears repeating that Hillary Clinton continued to rack up victories long after the media declared her dead, including a victory in South Dakota on the final day of the campaign. This party was divided down the middle and unity cannot mean one side making an unconditional surrender to the other. Each side needs to reach across the aisle to the other.

In the interest of party unity and the best interests of our nation, the Clintonistas for Obama have embraced Senator Obama's candidacy. We did this despite our own difficult feelings about the race and the nominee and the misgivings of many of our own friends. We have not shied away from criticizing the PUMA movement and Senator McCain. Indeed, atdleft and I collaborated on a series of articles to chip away at Senator McCain's image as a maverick and moderate.

In the interest of party unity, I call upon the Obama supporters to rally behind these embattled members of Congress. They should not be punished for exercising the independent judgment they are afforded under the rules of the Democratic Party, especially after they all pledged their support to Senator Obama.

So what will it be for the Hillary Clinton superdelegates? Party unity or victor's justice?

New Group at the DNC Partybuilder Blog

If you now support Obama for 2008, there is a new group at the DNC's PartyBuilder Blog.

Check out the link!    LINK >

In Defense of General Clark, James Carville

One of my favorite Clintonistas of all time comes to the defense of another fine Clintonista and Vietnam war hero, General Wesley Clark.

At the end of clip, Carville mentions the recent discovery that McCain has been cozying up to the group behind the Swift Boat ads in 2004. According to USA Today, the "maverick" has accepted $70,000 in donations from members of the group and their relatives.

So while John McCain is manufacturing outrage about an attack on his war record that never happened, he collects donations from a group that is responsible for one of the nastiest smear campaigns, leveled against a Vietnam war hero, in the history of presidential politics.

So much for leadership you can believe in.

Tuesday Strategy Session: Defending Wes Clark, Stopping "PUMA", Saving the Constitution

(Proudly cross-posted at Democratic PartyBuilder) Hey, everyone! I'd like to start a new tradition here at C4O. I want for us to do a weekly strategy session, when we can all get together and discuss some important action items. So are you ready to join me for our important weekly strategy session? First off, I want us to talk about the new right-wing smear campaign against a promiment "Clintonista for Obama" and good friend of ours, Gen. Wesley Clark. Because Wes Clark isn't afraid to tell the truth about John McCain's dangerous plans to keep our troops mired in Iraq indefinitely, the radical right is now having its friends in the corporate media trash the General. That's why VoteVets now has a peitition up for us to support Wes Clark. But still, what else can we do? Can you help me come up with ideas? In other news, Chris Dodd is asking us to become citizen co-sponsors of his amendment to the FISA compromise bill that would strip retroactive immunity from telecom companies that aided and abetted the Bush Administration in warantless wiretapping. What else can we do to support Dodd? What can we do to save our Fourth Amendment privacy rights? There's a great group up and running on "MyBO" (the Obama campaign's online community) calling on Barack Obama to do the right thing... How can we support their efforts? And finally... We just have to figure out a smart strategy to take care of "PUMA". One of our fabulous community members informed me about Yes to Democracy, a fantastic clearinghouse site where we can get the real facts about what the "PUMA movement" is all about. So what can we do to support their efforts to actually support what Hillary Clinton is calling for us to do? We now have a wonderful group of committed Democrats that's continuing to grow and flourish... But what can we do to take that to the next level? I'd love to have your input. OK, so do you need a quick review of our agends for this week's strategy session. Well, here goes: - Defend Wes Clark Against the Right-wing Smears - Save our Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights - Stopping the "PUMA Madness" Are to ready to help me do something? :-)

PUMA Open Thread

Atdleft posted his piece on HOUND vs PUMA at Taylor Marsh's Hot Topics Diaries page and I noticed the following response that is certainly worth some discussion:

The fact that HOUND was created shows that PUMA is no fringe group like people try and downplay it as...but an actual movement.

Otherwise why create another acronym based group to combat it if it's nothing?

So what do you think? Do we take this movement seriously? Most of the Obama people I've encountered don't seem to be worried. I've been labeled a "concern troll" for pushing back against words like "dead-ender."

We're Not Afraid Anymore

Yesterday, Gary Bauer wrote a piece for Politico in which he warns the vast left-wing homosexual conspiracy not to underestimate the power of homophobia in mobilizing sheep voters to the polls. In his article, he repeats the argument that anti-gay marriage amendments helped rally evangelical conservatives to polls to vote for homophobia and fear (George Bush). The argument that fear of gay nuptials pushed President Bush over the top is not without its detractors:

Many analysts at the time credited a large turnout of social conservatives in Ohio as being responsible for Bush's razor-thin victory in the state. Kenneth Sherrill, a political science professor at Hunter College in New York, has analyzed the Ohio election returns and concluded that was not the case.

“If you look at county-level election returns, you see that Bush's improvement over his 2000 vote was greatest in the counties where the amendment didn't do well,” Sherrill said.

Building on that flawed argument, Bauer argues that the recent California Supreme Court ruling will send angry voters to the polls not just in Florida, which has its own gay marriage amendment on the ballot, but also Ohio and Pennsylvania:

Polling, however, suggests otherwise. Only two states (Florida and California) will vote on marriage protection amendments in November. But a 2007 Quinnipiac poll found that homosexuality remains important among voters in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. No candidate has won the presidency since 1960 without carrying at least two of these states. In all three, a much higher percentage of voters (34 percent to 10 percent in Ohio, 28 percent to 10 percent in Florida and 28 percent to 11 percent in Pennsylvania) said they would be “less likely,” rather than “more likely,” to vote for a candidate who received an endorsement from a gay rights group. Importantly, these margins diminished only slightly among independents in each state.

Ok, so let's get this straight (no pun intended). In 2004, when gay marriage was not on the ballot in Pennsylvania (but was next door in Ohio), John Kerry won Pennsylvania by 2.5% and lost Ohio by 2.11%. In 2008, two years after Democrats in Ohio retook the governors mansion and ousted an incumbent Republican Senator, two years after Democrats in Pennsylvania ousted an incumbent Republican Senator, in a year in which the nearest gay marriage amendment is 900 miles away, John McCain is going to outperform George Bush in Pennsylvania and Ohio? Huh?

Earth to Gary Bauer. We're not afraid anymore. No more politics of fear. In 2002, the politics of fear gave Republicans control of the Senate. In 2004, the politics of fear gave George Bush a second term. In 2006, voters repudiated the politics of fear and gave Democrats control of the Senate. In 2008, voters will again repudiate the politics of fear and keep John McCain in the Senate, where he belongs.

If you have any doubt about what we think of your agenda, allow our nominee, the next president of the United States, Senator Barack Obama to explain. From his speech at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in November 2007:

And if those Republicans come at me with the same fear-mongering and swift-boating that they usually do, then I will take them head on. Because I believe the American people are tired of fear and tired of distractions and tired of diversions. We can make this election not about fear, but about the future. And that won't just be a Democratic victory; that will be an American victory.

Mr. Bauer, read my lips: We're not afraid.

Yesterday, Barack Obama made that clear when he came out against the gay marriage amendment in California:

In a letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club read Sunday at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, the Illinois senator said he supports extending "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law."

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states," Obama wrote.

Is Florida an important battleground state? Yes. Is there a gay marriage amendment on the ballot? Yes. Are we afraid? HELL NO!

Your movement, Mr. Bauer, is on the defense. As I wrote last week, there are experts who believe that Barack Obama's appeal to younger voters could spell defeat for the anti-gay marriage movement in these states.

So Mr. Bauer, it is not us who should be afraid. It is you who should be afraid. Very afraid.

Clinton or Reagan UPDATED

Cross-posted at MyDD.

Paul Krugman has another masterpiece in the New York Times. I really have to give him credit, because was one of the very few members of the "commentariat" that was able to cover the Democratic primary without demonizing Hillary Clinton and blindly praising Barack Obama.

He repeatedly criticized Obama's position on health care and criticized him for attacking Hillary Clinton's health care plan from the right, including print and radio ads that were strikingly familiar to the right-wing's "Harry and Louise" ads that helped defeat the 1993 Clinton health care plan.

He also defended Hillary Clinton when the media and Democrats were piling on her over her comments on LBJ's role in the civil rights movement. In Hate Spring Eternal, he reminded us that Democratic candidates had often been treated this way in the past and that Senator Obama could expect similar treatment should he become the party's nominee.

In today's The Obama Agenda, Krugman compares Obama's campaign to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign and Ronald Reagan's 1980 campaign. Obama has tried to distance himself from the Clinton years and sought to compare himself to the transformational Ronald Reagan:



In his piece, Krugman compares Obama's message to Clinton's and Reagan's and comes to an interesting conclusion:

So whom does Mr. Obama resemble more? At this point, he’s definitely looking Clintonesque.

His economic plan and his message of change are very Clintonian. The similarities, he observed, are "almost scary." While Reagan ran as unabashed ideological conservative, Obama, like Clinton in 1992, is running as a candidate who can transcend the traditional partisan differences.

And what about all that DNC-style triangulation and centrism that sends liberal activists through the roof? Obama has that one down, as well:

Progressive activists, in particular, overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama during the Democratic primary even though his policy positions, particularly on health care, were often to the right of his rivals’. In effect, they convinced themselves that he was a transformational figure behind a centrist facade.

They may have had it backward.

Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination. Most notably, he has outraged many progressives by supporting a wiretapping bill that, among other things, grants immunity to telecom companies for any illegal acts they may have undertaken at the Bush administration’s behest.

In his analysis of Obama's new general election ad, Marc Ambinder touched on this as well. In this ad, among other things, Obama touts his efforts to reform welfare, citing a 1997 law he helped pass in the Illinois senate. First, the ad:



According to Marc Ambinder, that law merely brought Illinois in compliance with the new welfare reform law signed by President Clinton in August 1996, a law with Obama had apparently opposed.

So why is the Clinton-Reagan comparison so important? Obama seeks to be the transformational president that he perceives Reagan, but not Clinton, to have been. Yet, he is running a campaign that is very Clintonian in its message and policy. Well, according to Paul Krugman, historians agree with Obama's characterization of Clinton and Reagan. That his campaign is mimicking Clinton's is an ominous sign:

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Perhaps this really isn't so much about Clinton and Obama as it is about all Democrats and the progressive movement. The most ideologically liberal candidates never gets nominated by Democrats. Sometimes we flirt with them (Dean), sometimes we take them seriously (Edwards), sometimes we dismiss them (Kucinich). But we always end up nominating a candidate with an eye on the general election. Is this just the nature of our two parties? One demanding ideological perfection, the other more tolerant of straying to the center? Will we ever have a primary campaign in which our candidates argue over which is the most liberal? That might just be transformational.

[UPDATED at 11:30 pm (EST) by Psychodrew]

Marc Ambinder--and I--may have been wrong on Obama's stand on the 1996 welfare reform bill.

From the New York Times:

During the presidential campaign, she has faced little challenge on the issue, in large part because Mr. Obama has supported the 1996 law. “Before welfare reform, you had, in the minds of most Americans, a stark separation between the deserving working poor and the undeserving welfare poor,” Mr. Obama said in an interview. “What welfare reform did was desegregate those two groups. Now, everybody was poor, and everybody had to work.”

Mr. Obama called the resulting law “an imperfect reform.” Like Mrs. Clinton, he called for an expansion of government-provided health care, child care and job training to assist women making the transition from welfare to work — programs he says he helped expand in Illinois as a state senator.

Asked if he would have vetoed the 1996 law, Mr. Obama said, “I won’t second guess President Clinton for signing.”

Thanks to Lakrosse at MyDD for pointing this out.

Just Say No to PUMA, Yes to Hillary & Barack!

(Proudly cross-posted at MyDD and Democratic PartyBuilder)

OK, OK, so I've been "HOUNDing" on this for a while now. Even though Hillary Clinton herself has been calling on all Democrats to unite in support for Barack Obama, we've seen these few "PUMAs" troll around the internets. They're dishonoring Hillary, trashing barack, and doing the right wing's work in mocking Democrats.

So what can we now do to get out the real progressive message that Hillary wants us to listen to? Follow me after the flip to find out...

So what can we do? Well, all of us blogging here is a start! We're getting out the real message of Democrats working together for victory. We're fighting the smears, and we're unspinning the right-wing spin.

We're making a good start, but we can still do more. We can congregate and band together to strategize. We can spread the word about the reality of John McBush. We can tell the real truth about Barack Obama and why Hillary endorsed him.

But above all else, we can show some compassion to our pro-Hillary friends who are still hurting from the primaries. I really think PA Gov. Ed Rendell hit just the right note last week, and I think we'd be wise to follow his lead. Listen to our pro-Hillary friends, share with them your repressed frustration from the primaries... Just let it all out finally! And then, talk with them about why Hillary supports Barack and why we must elect a Democratic President and Democratic Congress to ensure the vision that Barack and Hillary both share becomes reality.

Oh yes, and let's not forget to contribute! Obama needs all the help we can give him now to ensure he has the resources necessary for victory. Oh, and don't forget to give to Hillary and to the party as well!

And finally, let's all stand together to fight the far right and take our country back! :-)

Please Join Our New Group at PartyBuilder!

Hey, everyone! I hope you're all doing great today. Oh yes, and I want to let you know that we have a new group up at DNC PartyBuilder.
Please feel free to check it out some time. And oh yes, JOIN US! The more, the merrier!

So join the fun... And consider this an open thread. :-)

LAST CALL for Q2: Help Obama & Democrats Finish Strong!

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

Hey, everyone! We have just over 24 hours left to make a HUGE impact in this election by making sure our Democrats have enough resources to kick some Rethug behind this fall. So what can we all do to help Obama win the White House and Democrats win more seats in Congress?

Follow me down below for more...

OK, so what can we do? How 'bout donating?! After all, Barack Obama still needs some help so that he can shatter some more fundraising records and prove to the corporate media naysayers that he did the right thing by breaking free of the current broken campaign financing system and building a strong campaign in all 50 states. Go ahead and take a listen to what David Plouffe has to say.



So are you feeling excited now? That's good. Just remember that the only way Obama really can compete in all 50 states is by us ensuring that the campaign has the resorces to do so. So please, donate what you can to our Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

So are you also excited to finally see real bonds of unity being formed among Democrats now? I know I am!



But you know what? Hillary Clinton still has campaign debt to take care of. And the more time she has to spend dealing with her debt, the less time she can spen campaigning for Obama and other Democrats nationwide. That's why it's critical that we help her retire this debt once and for all! If you can spare a little extra for Hillary, please do so.

OK, and let's not forget about our important downticket races! If we want President Obama to really hit the ground running, let's make sure he has a strong Democratic Congress that will help him implement a truly progressive agenda. Donate at MyDD's "Road to 60" ActBlue page so we can have a more Democratic Senate. Donate at BlueAmerica's ActBlue page to support strong progressive Democrats running for the House (and Senate, too). Oh yes, and don't forget to help out the Democratic Party so we can have a strong presence for Democrats in all 50 states!

And finally, will you please help some good friends of ours here in Southern California? My wonderful Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Orange County, CA) is is working hard for not just herself, but for a fantastic Democrat named Debbie Cook running to replace a complete Rethug nutjob. Debbie Cook is currently the mayor of Huntington Beach, and she's a popular local elected leader who has what it takes to win this race and help President Obama implement a strong progressive agenda in Congress. All we need to do now is make sure she has all the resources to "ride the Obama coattails" to victory this fall.

OK, I know I told you a lot. So would you like a quick refresher on your options?

- Donate to Help Democrats Win in Southern California

- Donate to Help Barack Obama Win

- Donate to Help Democrats Win Nationwide

- Donate to Make Congress Bluer & Better

- Donate to Help Hillary Retire the Debt

Get it? Got it? Great! Now let's go out and make sure Democrats win! :-)

HOUND v. PUMA: What Would Hillary Do?

(Cross-posted at Hillary Feminists for Obama and MyDD)

Apparently, we have a new round of fighting occurring here at MyDD over "PUMA". Now I know it's easy to just become angry and scream about it... However, I'd like for us to all calm down and really think about what this "PUMA" phenomenon is supposed to be all about. Oh yes, and why don't we think about WHO this is supposed to be all about?


So what does Hillary think about this "movement" being built in her name to slash and burn the Democratic Party? Well, I think we now know what the answer is. Hillary couldn't have been clearer in asking us who've supported her all the way to do what she's doing now.





And yes, I really do believe Hillary is 120% genuine now in her support for Barack Obama. Frankly, I think the "PUMAs" who are running around saying that Hillary is being "forced" to do this are onlt reinforcing the negative stereotypes of Hillary being the "conniving, power-hungry witch willing to do anything to mnake it to the top". I really think these "Hillary really doesn't support Barack" rumors are a grave dishonor to both of these wonderful Democratic leaders and everything they stand for.

OK, OK, so some of these "PUMAs" acknowledge that Hillary truly does care about the Democratic Party. So now they ask: Why should we? Aren't they throwing Hillary Clinton Democrats under the bus now? And if we don't "punish" them now, how will they ever learn their lesson?

Well, I'd rather not rehash old battles from the "primary wars". But still, even I must admit that I still have raw feelings over the much of the party staying silent while Hillary and her supporters were being viciously attacked. And yes, as a volunteers who traveled to Nevada for the Caucus there I saw for myself the unsavory lowlights of the caucus system. But hold on, how is electing John McBush an appropriate response to what happened to Hillary?

This is why my heart warmed up when I saw this from PA. Gov. Ed Rendell:

PUMA advocated that Hillary Clinton supporters do not vote for Barack Obama just for the sake of party unity. Even though we in HOUND are loyal Democrats, we agree that no one should cast a vote for President because of a desire to achieve party unity. We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago, the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama, whose policies are almost identical to hers.

The Clinton-Obama plans on health care, the economy, energy, education and on ending the war in Iraq represent the core values that made us all Democrats – values and positions that are light years apart from the conservative policies enunciated by Sen. McCain (e.g., voting against S-CHIP, voting against raising CAF standards, voting against equal pay for women, voting for increased tax credits for big oil and against extending the credit for the production of renewable energy, expanding an increase in the Bush tax cuts, promoting a war without end in Iraq, etc.) If you care about these things, and we believe PUMA members do, then you must support Sen. Obama.

No one worked harder than I did for Hillary and I believe no one could admire her and what she represents more that I do. But we must get over our disappointment and, as Hillary said, not waste time looking back and thinking about what might have been. Our country’s challenges must be addressed immediately, not four years from now. Our beloved country simply cannot afford four more years of Republican do-nothing-for-people government. PUMA members risk just that – it could be a Ralph Nader 2000 redux. Don’t let that happen. Close your eyes and think about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton standing together united at a ceremony for the bill signing of legislation that guarantees every American affordable, effective healthcare.

Now yes, both Gov. Rendell and I may have complaints about certain aspects of this last primary season. And yes, there are ways for us to fix these problems within the party. However, we must not let our anger from the primaries lead us to making the fatal flaw of allowing McCain to make the nightmare of a thrid Bush-Cheney term into reality. Or as Hillary said it on Friday, we have a unique opportunity to make change happen now and "we can not let this moment slip away".

So if you agree with me and you agree with Gov. Rendell and with Hillary Clinton herself, I urge you to look beyond the misplaced anger of the "PUMAs" and take real action to take back our country. Support Barack Obama. Support Hillary Clinton. Ensure that Democrats will be able to compete and win in all 50 states. Oh yes, and why not be a HOUND for Hillary and Barack?

Over 1.2 Million Reasons To Vote For Obama

(Cross-posted at MyDD)

This diary is not a guilt trip, though some will perceive it as such. This is just a quick reminder, and it serves to demonstrate why this Clinton supporter will be voting for Barack Obama in November. There are numerous reasons, but these are the ones which are on my mind today:

I'm voting for Obama in memory of over 4000 of our young men and women who have died in uniform.

And I'm not just voting for US troops.

I'm voting for Obama for the Iraqis who carry coffins and pictures of their fallen through the streets.

My vote for Obama is a vote against violence.

My vote for Obama is a vote against suffering.

My vote for Obama is a vote against death.

 

I'm voting for Obama for their fallen sons, daughters and husbands. . .

. . .and for ours.

As our soldiers die, the unrepentant chimp who fancies himself a king tap dances for reporters. Nothing could stop me from opposing the Party which chose him.

I will not stand idly by while a man who jokes about war seeks the White House.

I forgave Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for their AUMF votes, but part of me is happy to see John McCain facing a young man who spoke out against the war from the very beginning. It will create sharper contrast, and I will be happy to put a man with that sort of wisdom, judgment, and foresight into office. The Iraq war is just one reason to vote for him, but it's been weighing heavily on my mind in recent weeks, as fall approaches. I'm voting for Barack Obama for one of my best friends - a woman I've known since I was 9 and she was 10 years old - and for her brother, who won't be with us at her wedding in September, because George W. Bush sent him to die. I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, even though he wasn't my first choice, to end a failed war - one which "should never have been authorized, and should never have been waged."