Obama’s a better choice

Thu 01/31/08 at 12:25 pm

Editorial: Our nation needs a Democrat; Obama’s a better choice - SantaFeNewMexican.com

The nation needs a Democratic president — mostly for the sake of the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal judiciary, but also because our government’s policies, foreign and domestic, are badly out of kilter.

There are many good Republicans embarrassed to tears by the Bush-Cheney administration — and they’ll be quick to remind their fellow Americans that, come January, those two are outtahere. So elect John McCain or Mitt Romney, and things will be fine; at least finer than they are now …

Not good enough; eight years of the best that party could offer us is plenty for now. Despite our high personal regard for Sen. McCain, we think it will take Democratic leadership to undo past wrongs, recover the reputation of our globally humiliated country and restore economic and social justice.

But the same operatives who fooled our nation not once, but twice, into Bush-Cheney already are plotting another puppet regime controlled by corporate scoundrels. They’d be ecstatic at the prospect of Democrats floating a Clinton co-presidency, and they’ve been rubbing their hands with glee during recent weeks as the former president mounted the stage on behalf of his wife, one of the two remaining candidates. …

Hillary Clinton is only one of two outstanding candidates for the Democratic nomination, and The New Mexican endorses the other: Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Shorter on experience, he also is unsullied by the quid-pro-quo world of Washington. That puts him in excellent position:

* To lead a long-overdue initiative toward universal health care;

* To lead another overdue initiative, on a new nationwide energy source;

* To lead our public schools out of the doldrums;

* To lead the country back to financial solvency and economic independence.

To lead, indeed. Sen. Obama is someone Americans can rally ’round.

His honesty will confound those trying to twist voters’ perception of him and the working-people’s party; his genuineness will disarm critics jaded over politics-by-rote; his academic brilliance and organizing skills will allow him to handle the complexities of the presidency; and his oratorical skills and compelling personality will inspire a long-lax nation to get off its collective butt and achieve what we’re capable of.

New Mexico Democrats can catch an exciting new wave with votes for Barack Obama on Tuesday.

[hat tip to www.dangerousmeta.com]


‘Old Politics Just Won’t Do’

Wed 01/30/08 at 9:03 pm

ABC News: Obama: ‘Old Politics Just Won’t Do’

“The way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq, who agreed with him in voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran, who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like, and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed,” Obama said. …

In his speech, Obama argued against the politics of divide and conquer, without pointing the finger directly at the Clintons. [mjh: The following points a finger at Rove, not the Clintons.]

“We’ve faced forces that are not the fault of any one campaign — forces that open American wounds,” Obama said. “The politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us what we have to think and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us.”

abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4215588&page=2

I’m especially tired of George Stephanopolus spinning things Clinton’s way while masquerading as a ‘journalist.’ He was Clinton’s communications guy — and it seems he still is. Read this speech. mjh

Transcript of Obama’s Speech Wednesday in Denver, Colorado
The Past Versus the Future, January 30th, 2008


“The world as it is, is not the world as it has to be.”

Wed 01/30/08 at 12:14 pm

I was stunned by this Obama campaign ad. It makes me want to cry. It has a Sixties vibe that surely enrages some, but it seems to reach the very young and Boomers simultaneously. (Though I can’t really speak for either group — or any group.) mjh

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME
“Script for Obama Ad “Join”

“I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message. We want an end to this war and we want diplomacy and peace. Not only can we save the environment, we can create jobs and opportunity. We’re tired of fear; we’re tired of division. We want something new. We want to turn the page. The world as it is is not the world as it has to be.””

thepage.time.com/script-for-obama-ad-join/

my.barackobama.com | “Join” - On the Air in New Mexico
my.barackobama.com/page/content/nm_join_ad

link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1386357098/bctid1387918194


Battle for Superdelegates

Wed 01/30/08 at 10:56 am

In Background, a Battle for Superdelegates - washingtonpost.com, By Shailagh Murray and Paul Kane

Of the nearly 300 superdelegates who have committed to a candidate, out of a total of 796, Clinton leads Obama roughly by a 2-to-1 ratio, according to numerous counts. The lead is so substantial, her campaign asserts, that even if Obama pulls ahead in pledged delegates after Feb. 5, Clinton will probably retain a modest edge in the overall delegate tally.

But there is a catch. While delegates chosen in a primary or caucus are technically committed to a candidate, superdelegates can change their allegiance at any time. …

While many superdelegates are prominent names in political circles — including Clinton aides Harold Ickes and Minyon Moore — the largest number, a total of 411, are rank-and-file members of the Democratic National Committee — such as local party activists who work in manufacturing and teachers unions — many of whom rose to power during the Clinton administration. These local activists may not bring the same symbolic freight a Kennedy does, but they count equally as superdelegates and are overwhelmingly allied with Clinton.

In the event that Clinton and Obama arrive in Denver for the party’s nominating convention with roughly equal numbers of pledged delegates, superdelegates could make the difference.


character

Tue 01/29/08 at 5:46 pm

Richardson’s Choice | The Trail | washingtonpost.com, by By Jose Antonio Vargas

“I had just been asked a question — I don’t remember which one — and Obama was sitting right next to me. Then the moderator went across the room, I think to Chris Dodd, so I thought I was home free for a while. I wasn’t going to listen to the next question. I was about to say something to Obama when the moderator turned to me and said, ‘So, Gov. Richardson, what do you think of that?’ But I wasn’t paying any attention! I was about to say, ‘Could you repeat the question? I wasn’t listening.’ But I wasn’t about to say I wasn’t listening. I looked at Obama. I was just horrified. And Obama whispered, ‘Katrina. Katrina.’ The question was on Katrina! So I said, ‘On Katrina, my policy . . .’ Obama could have just thrown me under the bus. So I said, ‘Obama, that was good of you to do that.’”

[hat tip to newmexiken.com]


ending a war

Tue 01/29/08 at 5:37 pm

Web exclusive: ‘Obama the conservative’ by Johan Wennström | Prospect Magazine

Right speech, wrong party.” That was the conclusion of a number of conservative commentators after Barack Obama’s celebrated performance at the Democratic national convention in 2004. This speech was very different from anything else delivered that night. Unlike many other Democrats, Obama used his moment in the limelight to send out a positive and constructive message about an end to the bickering of partisan politics; to the spin and cynicism that has defined political life in America since the 1990s. This is a message Obama has continued to spread in the run for his party’s nomination for president.

Obama’s hopeful non-partisan tone appeals to those conservatives who have been disillusioned by the polarising George W Bush presidency. After eight years with a leadership that has deepened the political divide in America, they long for a president capable of rising above the standard ideological fray.

The conservative blogosphere is currently flowing over with such comments, uttered by people who are tired of seeing their country torn apart by fierce arguments between the Bush and Clinton camps, and the cultural wars fought by the Christian right and die-hard secularists. These sentiments were recently summed up in an excellent essay in the Atlantic magazine by the conservative journalist and commentator Andrew Sullivan (known in Britain through his columns for the Sunday Times), where he came out as a passionate supporter of Obama.

The attraction of Obama to Sullivan and other conservatives is not surprising. In fact, their support is consistent with the constructive wing of the philosophy of conservatism. Those stuck in the world of divisional politics can be baffled by this. How, they ask, can people who admire Reagan and Thatcher also have time for Obama?

www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9988
- - - - -

Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters, by Andrew Sullivan

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war—not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a mo­mentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade—but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war—and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama—and Obama alone—offers the possibility of a truce. …

Of the viable national candidates, only Obama and possibly McCain have the potential to bridge this widening partisan gulf. Polling reveals Obama to be the favored Democrat among Republicans. McCain’s bipartisan appeal has receded in recent years, especially with his enthusiastic embrace of the latest phase of the Iraq War. And his personal history can only reinforce the Vietnam divide. But Obama’s reach outside his own ranks remains striking. Why? It’s a good question: How has a black, urban liberal gained far stronger support among Republicans than the made-over moderate Clinton or the southern charmer Edwards? Perhaps because the Republicans and independents who are open to an Obama candidacy see his primary advantage in prosecuting the war on Islamist terrorism. It isn’t about his policies as such; it is about his person. They are prepared to set their own ideological preferences to one side in favor of what Obama offers America in a critical moment in our dealings with the rest of the world. The war today matters enormously. The war of the last generation? Not so much. If you are an American who yearns to finally get beyond the symbolic battles of the Boomer generation and face today’s actual problems, Obama may be your man. …

It is worth recalling the key passages of the speech Obama gave in Chicago on October 2, 2002, five months before the war:

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war … I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

The man who opposed the war for the right reasons is for that reason the potential president with the most flexibility in dealing with it.

www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama


Good-bye, Duhbya — Good riddance

Tue 01/29/08 at 3:14 pm

smirk

TheHill.com - Clinton, Obama steal Bush’s final show

“After his speech, Bush sought out Kennedy, his former partner in education reform, to exchange greetings. He also shook Obama’s hand and said hello in typical Bush fashion: “Hey buddy, how’s it going,” he said, according to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who also sat next to Obama for the speech.”
- - - - -

ConservativesBetrayed.com: Let the lame duck fly! By Jeffrey A. Rendall

A seemingly calm and relieved George W. Bush made his final trip down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol to deliver his final State of the Union speech on Monday night, and there was one thing that everyone in the House chamber could probably agree upon – they were glad this was the last one.

There was no sentiment, no long, drawn out ovations, no calls of ‘four more years,’ no urgent push to amend the Constitution to somehow keep this man in power.

George W. Bush has exhausted the nation with his presence. He’s alienated his conservative base, isolated the executive branch from the rest of government, wore out his welcome with the citizenry and made a mockery of the constitution’s separation of powers.

Bush came to Washington on a set of assumptions, few of which ever came true – he was supposed to fight for a more Reagan-esque conservative set of ideals, and instead we got warmed over cooperation with Democrats in expanding the welfare state, a war that we started (Iraq) and can’t seem to end, and a conservative movement that’s so fractured that we’re having a difficult time selecting a successor to Bush.

No wonder there’s such Bush fatigue – and it’s not just on the faces of the Democrats.
- - - - -

Richard A. Viguerie, issued the following statement regarding President Bush’s policy announced in the State of the Union address regarding earmarks in appropriations bills:

“Instead of killing the earmarks in last year’s huge omnibus appropriations bill, President Bush will leave in place all of the 11,735 earmarks, totaling $16.9 billion.

“And instead of saying that he would veto any bill containing earmarks, Bush said he would veto legislation that did not reduce the earmarks by 50 percent.

“Whoop-de-doo.

“President Reagan vetoed the Highway Bill in 1987 because it contained 121 earmarks. But President Bush has given the go-ahead to 5,867 earmarks–half the current number. Obviously, the Republican team in the White House and Congress has abandoned all pretense of governing as fiscal conservatives.

“President Bush came into office sounding like a conservative Republican. He is leaving sounding like a liberal Democrat. Bush seems disinterested in the future of the GOP, as it drifts without leadership and is in danger of imploding. [mjh: Damn, Duhbya did one good thing, after all!]


Saddam viewed bin Laden “as a threat to him and his regime.”

Mon 01/28/08 at 1:18 pm

Think Progress » FBI agent: Saddam viewed bin Laden as a threat.

Last night, CBS’ 60 Minutes aired an interview with FBI agent George Piro, the man who was charged with interrogating Saddam Hussein over the course of seven months. Piro reported that he asked Saddam whether he had any relationship to Osama bin Laden. Saddam responded by saying he was “wary” of the 9/11 mastermind and “didn’t want associate” with him. Moreover, Saddam viewed bin Laden “as a threat to him and his regime.”

PELLEY: Among the most important questions for U.S. intelligence was whether Saddam was supporting al Qaeda as had been claimed by some in the Bush administration.

PELLEY: What was his opinion of Osama Bin Laden?

PIRO: He considered him to be a fanatic. And as such was very wary of him. He told me, “You can’t really trust fanatics.”

PELLEY: Didn’t think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?

PIRO: He didn’t wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn’t want to associate with Bin Laden.

PELLEY: Did he think bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime?

PIRO: Yes.

thinkprogress.org/2008/01/28/fbi-agent-saddam-viewed-bin-laden-as-a-threat/


Who profits for your fear?

Mon 01/28/08 at 1:16 pm

Think Progress » Bush, Congressional Conservatives Fearmonger On FISA: ‘The American People Should Be Frightened’

In his weekly radio address this weekend, Bush ominously threatened that “we cannot afford to wait until after an attack.” Speaking to NPR today, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell bellowed that “the American people should be frightened”:

“It’s not about frightening the American people. The American people should be frightened and remember full well what happened on 9/11. They also remember with gratitude that this has not happened again for six years.”

thinkprogress.org/2008/01/28/bush-gop-fisa-fearmonger/


Toni Morrison Endorses Obama

Mon 01/28/08 at 1:12 pm

The Associated Press: Morrison Endorses Obama for President By NEDRA PICKLER

“In addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don’t see in other candidates,” Morrison wrote. “That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it.

“Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom,” Morrison wrote.

In 1998, Morrison wrote a column for the New Yorker magazine in which she wrote of Bill Clinton: “White skin notwithstanding, this is our first black president. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald’s-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.”

Obama responded to Morrison’s endorsement with a written statement: “Toni Morrison has touched a nation with the grace and beauty of her words, and I was deeply moved and honored by the letter she wrote and the support she is giving our campaign.”


the Kennedy Endorsement

Mon 01/28/08 at 1:07 pm

The Page - by Mark Halperin - TIME
HALPERIN’S TAKE: Six Reasons Why the Kennedy Endorsement is a Big Deal

While endorsements don’t usually matter much, Edward Kennedy’s does because:

1. He has a huge following with Hispanics, a big deal in California and other Super Tuesday states, and one of Obama’s weaknesses.

2. The symbolic Kennedy family thing — the ultimate message of change, viability, Democratic legitimacy, and youthful excitement.

3. The national press will be obsessed with the story for days and days to come, with no downside for Obama; the local press coverage when Kennedy travels for Obama will be ginormous.

4. It sends a message to other senators and superdelegates that it is OK to be for Obama — they don’t have to be afraid of the Clintons.

5. He has a huge following among working-class, traditional Democrats, one of Obama’s weaknesses.

6. He has a huge following among union households, another of Obama’s weaknesses.

thepage.time.com/halperins-take-five-reasons-why-the-kennedy-endorsement-is-a-big-deal/

Ted Kennedy and the Hierarchy of Endorsements - The Fix, By Chris Cillizza

In the hierarchy of endorsements, Kennedy coming out for Obama falls into the category of “symbolic endorsement,” the most coveted of all because it is not simply the typical pat on the back and photo-op, but rather it signifies something larger about a candidate.

Kennedy, after all, is not simply the senior senator from Massachusetts. He’s Ted Kennedy — last of the brothers of the original first family in American politics (sorry Bill and Hillary) and standardbearer for liberals everywhere. For people of a certain vintage, Ted Kennedy serves as the embodiment of what it means to be a Democrat.

Winning Kennedy’s endorsement then, is important for Obama in a number of ways. It — coupled with the endorsement by John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline Kennedy over the weekend — makes a tangible connection in voters’ mind between JFK, Robert F. Kennedy and Obama. That is a crucial connection as Obama seeks to continue to transform himself from a candidate into a movement on Feb. 5 and beyond. Kennedy’s endorsement also gives Obama some opening to approach a group of rank-and-file Democrats — union households, middle class whites — who will be two of the crucial groups up for grabs on Feb. 5.

blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/ted_kennedy_and_the_hierarchy.html


another thing to like about Obama

Mon 01/28/08 at 12:36 pm

Team Obama Is Courting Everybody But the Press - washingtonpost.com, By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post Staff Writer

GREENVILLE, S.C. — When reporters filed onto Barack Obama’s press plane after his acrimonious debate with Hillary Rodham Clinton last week, one thing was noticeably missing amid the wine and snacks on the Boeing 737.

There was no high-level campaign spinner to argue that Obama had gotten the better of the exchanges or that the verbal fisticuffs were part of some precisely calculated strategy. On the press bus the next day, mid-level aides dealt with travel logistics but made no attempt to shape the coverage. [mjh: gasp!]

In an age of all-out political warfare, the Obama campaign is a bit of an odd duck: It is not obsessed with winning each news cycle. The Illinois senator remains a remote figure to those covering him, and his team, while competent and professional, makes only spotty attempts to drive its preferred story lines in the press.


McCain: “there’s going to be other wars”

Mon 01/28/08 at 12:27 pm

McCain Warns: “There Will Be Other Wars” - Politics on The Huffington Post, by Sam Stein

The presidential candidate who sang “Bomb bomb Iran” is already looking towards the war after the war in Iraq.

Sen. John McCain told a crowd of supporters on Sunday, “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars.” Offering more of his increasingly bleak “straight talk,” he repeated the claim: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/27/mccain-warns-there-will_n_83459.html

One thing that *sickened* me during DUHbya’s first speech after 9/11 was him saying we had entered the *first* war of the 21st Century. Republicans may call that realistic, but it didn’t have to become a war and human beings NEVER, EVER need to WAR again. (Sigh, though we will, idiots that we are.) mjh


a firehouse caucus

Mon 01/28/08 at 12:21 pm

Breaking down the caucus by Damian Garde, Daily Lobo

The state has 38 delegates - 26 who are pledged to vote for specific candidates and 12 “super delegates” who vote on their own accord, said Laura E. Sanchez, executive director of the New Mexico Democratic Party.

The pledged delegates are divided up by what percentage of the popular vote a candidate receives. For example, if Sen. Hillary Clinton gets 27 percent of the popular vote, she will earn seven delegates.

However, candidates must garner at least 15 percent of voters in order to get any delegates.

The “super delegates” are high-ranking Democrats from around the state, including Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Jeff Bingaman and Rep. Tom Udall. They can vote for any candidate they choose.

Voting in the caucus will be done privately, unlike in Iowa and Nevada, where supporters gather in a public place for a head count.

“The New Mexico Caucus is more of a primary,” Sanchez said. “It’s called a firehouse caucus - voters will go in, get a ballot and mark it in a booth.”

On the ballot will be Sens. Clinton and Barack Obama and former Sens. John Edwards and Mike Gravel.

Voters can also choose Richardson, Rep. Dennis Kucinich and Sens. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd, all of whom dropped out of the race before the ballot was finalized.

In August, delegates from around the country will gather in Denver for the Democratic National Convention to name the party’s presidential nominee.

For information on absentee ballots and polling locations, visit NmDemocrats.org.

New Mexico is hardly the only state going to the polls Feb. 5.

On Super Tuesday, there will be 24 elections - 19 two-party primaries, three Democratic caucuses and two Republican caucuses.


#
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. 49 queries. 1.126 seconds. Back to Top