"We have seen Mr. Obama's ayatollah-like arrogance before: Peron/Argentina, Mussolini/ Italy, Mugabwe/ Zimbabwe, and elsewhere historically. "Hope and Change" can become seductive temptations for an adorative addiction of emotionalism over rationalism. That we don't need."
This is what Barack is up against! Go to BarackObama.com, click on Action Center, and start Phonebanking from Home!
read more | digg story
Read more!
Dennis Kucinich gave his Iowa supporters his preference for their second choice if he doesn't reach 15% of the caucus-goers. He chose Barack Obama, the candidate who doesn't have to apologize for supporting the Bush/Cheney assault on Iraq for oil.
"Progressives" like to forget that Edwards didn't just vote for the Iraq War; he co-sponsored it.
Environmentalists like to forget Edwards had a 32% rating from the League of Conservation Voters - Obama has 100%.
Living Wage supporters like to ignore that Obama is committed to raising the minimum wage with the cost of living, not leaving it out as a political football while workers’ literally go hungry if they don’t over-produce for investors in two jobs instead of only one.
Open Government supporters, Net Neutrality supporters and Corporate Media Monopoly opposers like to forget Obama's plan for technology opens the airwaves to communities, ends paid campaign ads thereby eliminating millions in campaign costs, and guarantees equal time to all candidates. It also makes all donations to all government officials and all earmarks traceable, online, for everyone to see. It also ensures net neutrality, but also will wire the most poor and rural areas cheaply or for free, to connect everyone.
Oh, and let's just all pretend we didn't notice when Obama promised to never sign a non-emergency bill without presenting it to viewers first, online and on C-SPAN (which streams live online so it’s not a gift to cable companies) with days to actually comment on the bill - and he's already set up to read and incorporate suggestions on his website, and he's done it.
I supported Dennis as 1st choice in 2004 for his anti-Iraq War stand, so did Alice Walker, I recall. I've supported Obama from the start this time, so has Alice Walker. So should any true Progressive Voter, from any party or Independent/Unaffiliated.
It's time to stop dividing because some of us have such a self-righteous but rather faulty view of America as a pack of racists who can't possibly recognize a great candidate because he's black. We’re better than that. Let's not even pretend we're still in the 80s or even 90s.
Progressives like to forget that Edwards, like Gore, Clinton I and want-to-be Clinton II, as well as Biden, Richardson, and Dodd, and Lieberman of Connecticut, were all DLC members, some very active, some former Chairs; none have renounced the most anti-progressive group among Democrats.
Progressives like to forget Obama's work for the poor, the unemployed, seniors, the working poor, the uninsured, the veterans, the single parents, the innocent on Illinois' Death Row, the thousands who, when not if they are race-profiled, will have it fully documented - by police themselves. They like to forget Obama is a constitutional law lecturer who registered 150,000 new, poor voters and defended their right to vote and be counted.
It's time we stop complaining and use some sense. Obama can and will win. Just use your head and your feet. America's ready to judge the man's record, character, advisers and supporters and say Yes! Are you?
Read more!
CONCORD, N.H. - The Boston Globe reports from NH, with interviews from intellectuals from both sides of the aisle, all but one of whom admire Barack's intellect, common sense, honesty, and most are admiring of his activism as well. The one [Epstein] who says Obama is not an intellectual because he is an activist, shows he is still living in an ivy-league dichotomous-either/or world. In the real world, people are more complicated than that. How refreshing that we'll have an intellectual activist in the West Wing - and a sharp, pragmatic one at that, who knows how to get laws passed!
read more | digg story
Read more!
Barack Obama addresses an Iowa voter's healthcare question at length: "She [HRC] has a mandate. And John Edwards has a mandate. Where the only way to get 100% coverage is if you pass a law where government forces everybody to buy insurance." Barack shows why it's a "phony argument" to claim 15 million won't buy insurance because they are young and don't want to pay premiums. Obama shows his plan mandates insurance companies to cover youth until age 25 under their parents' health insurance, whether the youth are in college or not (right now, health insurance corporations drop youths 18-25 as soon as they graduate or drop/stop out of college!). As Obama says, and I agree, people don't refuse to buy health insurance because they are lazy or irresponsible and need to be forced to (with what penalties, Hillary and John?). People want health insurance, as good as the Senators get, only affordably and to get full coverage, pre-existing condition or not, job or not. Right now inflation is in the high-double digits on insurance premiums, you don't know what or if you'll be covered after you pay a fortune, and you can get dropped for using it - just like an auto insurance corporation manages claims! We are more than vehicles, I would hope we get better insurance prices and policies without the mandates put on vehicles. And, btw, have you bought Uninsured Motorist Liability Coverage for your vehicle lately, even with those mandatory laws and penalties? So, mandates with penalties don't guarantee 100% coverage either, do they?
read more | digg story
Read more!
All presidential choices come with risk. "Do you match up with the times?" Obama has said about an intangible ingredient necessary for the next president. We believe that Obama is like another candidate, a lightly experienced man from Illinois who burst upon the national scene in the midst of the country's greatest crisis in 1860. Abraham Lincoln matched up with his times. We believe the same of Barack Obama, and encourage voters to support him in the Democratic primary
read more | digg story
Read more!
PORTSMOUTH — It all came full circle Thursday night as Illinois Sen. and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama returned to the Frank Jones Center.
read more | digg story
Read more!
Thanks to SF Bay View - unlike most coverage of the protests of the demolition of New Orleans public housing tenements, which took developers' side in this fight, just as the NO City Council and infamous Mayor Nagin did. As Obama points out, there are 12,000 homeless in NO after the flood. There are also Bush appointees/contractors under investigation for kickbacks involved in these very demolitions! Obama could've stayed silent; the media's full of stories embedded in the protest "reports" claiming the poor are living large on public assistance in gentrified New Orleans (where the cost of living has gone up 45% since the flood). Barack 08 for Compassion With Common Sense
read more | digg story
Read more!
Clinton's surrogates keep spreading the neo-con smear that Obama went to a radical Islamic school, which is why I will not vote for her, even though I'm a Green Democrat, if she gets the nomination. In a nutshell, I'm sick of bigotry as a tactic - divided we fall, and that's that! If Dixiecrat tactics are all the Democrats have to offer, my party deserves a fall - it can't survive that way, anyway. With Obama and the volunteers from all political parties and walks of life, I've learned my diversity is an asset to unite us. Continually raising a specter of Obama as an Islamic fundamentalist is as ludicrous as casting him as a Christian fundamentalist. He was taught in an Islamic, not Arab, school in Indonesia, not the Middle East or Iran, for 2 elementary-school years - he was also taught in a Catholic elementary school for 2 years. Obama is no more Islamic than he is Catholic! This non-issue has been debunked repeatedly, but here it is again, in case you think Hillary and her puppets (Bob Kerrey, anyone?) wouldn't lie: Describing attacks on Obama's elementary school, Klein wrote [in Jan. 07!], "Now, this is nonsense of course. Obama's stepfather was not a Muslim extremist (among other things, he worked for Shell Oil). Obama attended public school for two years in Indonesia, in addition to the two years he spent in Catholic schools--although, as Obama's staff points out, Indonesia is a Muslim country, so the public schools undoubtedly reflect the dominant religious culture. The notion that the Obama's school was a Wahabi madrasa is laughable, given the moderate form of Islam practiced in Indonesia, especially in those days." [Time Blog, 1/22/07]
read more | digg story
Read more!
A great 3-page article: While a respected figure in Democratic circles, Paul Krugman's recent attacks on Barack Obama are wrong on history, wrong on politics, and wrong on what the future holds for Obama's "big table" idea. Krugman, a John Edwards supporter, has been drawing historical parallels which are "facile and ahistorical" when scrutinized. (by ShemDaimwood). My note: I've got to say that yes, Krugman's wrong, Obama's right, and I'm glad a great rebuttal came out. But notice how different attacks from Edwards' supporters are from Clinton-supporters'. Edwards just isn't honest - his voting record in one senate term was more conservative than any other Dem candidates' - but Hillary's team is malicious in the extreme. I lost some respect for Krugman's honesty, but he certainly hasn't raised my ire and disgust like Clinton's surrogates, with their covert ethnic smears that remind me more of neo-con Willie Horton tactics than any Democrat I'd be associated with!
read more | digg story
Read more!
Clinton dissed youth! I register and recruit young first-time voters for Obama, and they don't just vote, they organize! They're a shot in the arm at all events, the steam that keeps the engines purring with outreach, including canvassing, the all-important face-to-face contact that brings people of all ages to caucuses and primary elections.
read more | digg story
Read more!
In the writer's own description of the plan: "Here’s what I concluded. First, the plan represent[s] the most comprehensive set of policies for open government I’ve seen." If that's not enough, it includes expanding broadband access, increasing access to the public airwaves, training Americans for tech jobs, and easily enforced network neutrality.
Second, Obama makes new stances on several other areas of technology of interest to Silicon Valley’s tech community. He calls more aggressive government support of broadband access. Specifically, he calls for subsidies for phone carriers to be given to only those carriers offering both regular phone service and Internet broadband to rural areas. To date, carriers offering merely phone service have been able to claim subsidies from the so-called Universal Service Fund, giving them little incentive to roll out out broadband. This is also new, in that he hasn’t proposed this before.
Obama’s plan also calls for reviewing the decision by the Federal Communications Commission to open the wireless spectrum for competition. Specifically, Obama feels the FCC may not have gone far enough with its recent ruling. He wants to conduct a multi-year review, but is strongly considering support to open up valuable spectrum on the 700 MHz band so that third parties can lease it on a wholesale basis. This is to ensure that the winners of a pending auction for the spectrum — expected to be large phone carriers like Verizon — don’t just sit on the spectrum and not use it. They may do that to avoid other entrants from competing with them. He’s also leaning toward support for the for service providers to interconnect a licensee’s wireless network. Google is expected to bid on the wireless spectrum.
Obama also is supporting network neutrality, a policy that would ensure Google wouldn’t be forced to pay an Internet service provider extra to ensure the speedy transfer of its data over the Internet. Stanford legal expert, Larry Lessig, called me up this afternoon (apparently under recommendation from the campaign) saying Obama has the most nicely balanced policy among the democrats. Obama’s plan, he says, imposes minimal regulatory burden. So: Unlike John Edwards who, proposes to “enforce net neutrality ensuring no degradation or blocking of access to websites,” Obama would not ban differential service. He would simply require that the terms offered one website or company are no better or worse than those offered anyone else. This is a kind of “most favored nations” network neutrality, much simpler to enforce than one that looks to technical factors to determine whether the regulation is obeyed. Venture people should be very interested in this, Lessig says, because “if network neutrality regulation is going to be passed (as it will if a Dem is president) this imposes a very minimal (and relatively easy to monitor) burden on network owner.”
Obama’s plan calls for a review of the H1-B visa program. First, the plan calls for ways increased training of Americans so that they can fill the technology jobs requiring a Bachelor’s degree — thus minimizing the demand by companies for immigrants to fill those jobs.
At the same time, Obama’ plan seeks to address another shortcoming of the H1-B program, which is that immigrants with short-term visas find it difficult to stay because of country-specific caps on permanent visas. A large number of short-term visa new arrivals are from China and India, but the country-specific cap on permanent visas means many Chinese and Indians are held in limbo for years. All the while, they’re unable to move freely between jobs — leaving them vulnerable to exploration by employers.
On privacy, Obama will call for the creation of what he calls “Public Media 2.0.” While vague on details, campaign managers said Obama hopes to bring Tivo-like technologies so parents can ensure safe TV viewing. Obama also wants to raise sanctions against companies offering indecent – violent or sexually explicit – content.
Also tomorrow, several well-known local players are expected to announce their support for Obama’s plan, including two former FCC Chairmen under President Clinton, Lessig and John Roos, chief executive of Silicon Valley’s respected law firm, Wilson Sonsini. In fact, Roos also called me earlier today. Roos said Obama’s proposal a few days ago for a clean technology venture capital fund, to be backed by a whopping $50 billion in federal funding for five years, is particularly encouraging.
Finally, Lessig pointed out another issue no one is talking about — though related to the issue of open government I talked about above. All sorts of amazing innovations like Maplight.org and Sunlight.org are building new tools to monitor government — to track influence, identify corruption, etc. They’ve all been hampered by the fact that government data (by design or accident) is impossibly difficult to get access to. Obama wans to make the raw data available: “So think about all the value that gets added to the free weather data given away by the government. This is the same idea in the context of data to make government more transparent, and less corrupt.”
Read more!
I am done with Sen. Feinstein, and, by proxy, with Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom Sen. Feinstein has endorsed.
I will not accept, as her constituent, Sen. Feinstein's approval of torture-boy Mukasey for Attorney General of the United States. I will not accept a legal officer of the U.S. government, a Senator, who provides cover for past and present crimes of a U.S. Justice System that condones torture.
I will work and vote for Sen. Obama, who stands unabashedly against torture. I will also work for Sen. Feinstein's recall, as this is her third strike: She voted against the Dream Act, for the Iran resolution, and now for "Simulated Drowning Isn't Torture (Maybe?)" Mukasey.
All DLC Democrats need to be expunged from the Senate and House of Representatives. They are the wing of the Democratic Party that has been so spineless, so Republican-lite as to provide real Democratic constituents no alternative at all.
I called Sen. Clinton's campaign office at (703) 469-2008 and advised them that I will be voting for Sen. Obama because he does not spew justifications and rationalizations for torture. In Barack's words "This is not who we are"!
I voted for Rep. Pelosi, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Boxer when all three got into office. I am Latina and female and will not vote for any other candidate on the basis of being female. Two of the three I helped vote in have disappointed me beyond redemption, only Sen. Boxer has not given me major cause for regret.
Thus a vote for a woman is not a vote for all women, and any obligation I felt for voting for Clinton because she's a female is gone. Even if she gets the nomination, I will not vote for her. I will write in "Barack Obama", who I know is a staunch defender of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Dianne Feinstein should be recalled, or forced to join Sen. Joe Lieberman's Independent Pro-War Pro-Torture Party.
Type rest of the post here
Read more!
As always, categories are generalizations, but the pundits' unending armchair quarterbacking of Obama and his campaign have snapped my last nerve. I literally groan when political reports sound, not even like sports casts – at this point racing analogies would be a relief! – but like boxing match pre-game hype: “He’s gotta move in, really let her have it!”
Even liberal talk show hosts I used to love to hear and join in the "amen" choir have picked up the same blood-lust, gladiator-arena political style that they used to criticize when it was all we saw/heard from FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
Look, entertainment choices are one thing, I love to be entertained, but when it comes to who will lead this nation and represent us here and to the world, I'm not looking for entertainment. I'm looking for a statesman or woman. Unfortunately (since I’m a woman wanting that ceiling broken through, too), the woman the Democrats gave me does not meet my standards in any way, so this term, I found my statesman, thankfully and amen!
Did any pundits mention Barack Obama was the most presidential, statesman-like candidate at the Democratic Debate? No. Was he? Yes, if "statesman" means the most rational, the one least easily flustered, the least incendiary, the most well-informed and prepared with details, facts, and real contrasts in the most important areas of all - character and judgment.
Do debates allow candidates to present detailed facts? What do they tell us about policies, plans, advisers? What do they tell us about who is behind our candidates, funding them, getting earmarks from them, getting donations to their favorite organizations? Why do these moderators act like we don't pass that very information around among ourselves from everywhere we can get it, because they won't?
Do debate moderators want the debates to be contentious and full of arguments and even anger? Yes, it keeps people from changing the channel and justifies their absurd advertisement rates. Does a contentious, in-your-face President help or hurt the U.S.? We've got one right now, it isn't hard to answer that one: It hurts us!
The reason for liberal talk radio was originally (or so I heard) to provide real balance, real coverage of the issues and the background players usually not exposed or analyzed in mainstream media. So how are we doing?
I just watched/heard a Young Turks clip (Air America regular program), just aired Nov. 1st, hosted by Cenk. Cenk reminds me more of Chris Matthews than Amy Goodman, not that Amy walks on water for me; she's better than most and certainly not as confrontational and pugnacious as Matthews. Perhaps that's Cenk, the host's, intention. Cenk phone-interviewed Mr. James Traub of the NY Times and nicely and quickly covered Obama's positive aspects from Traub’s article on Obama:
1. Foreign Policy - distinctly different philosophy, different from Hillary on policies and plans that favor containment and multilateral as well as face-to-face diplomacy and negotiations without preconditions, and Obama serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gives him standing.
2. Foreign and Domestic Policy Advisors - a Who's Who of the most widely read and respected experts on all matters of foreign relations, and national security - not to mention on disarmament of both conventional and nuclear weapons, and on preventing and reversing genocide, which Cenk and Mr. Traub did not mention! That little oversight is chronic in left, right and center media, and it irks me no end, as you can probably tell. If I ever hear Obama's policy experts listed again without including Stephanie Power, Pulitzer-Prize winning author of The Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide, I might start pulling out my overabundant hair!
3. Judgment: Obama has the experience, not to play insider-politics, but to use good judgment in the most important decisions facing us.
Right after listing all that, Cenk launches into a [planned] longer segment yelling at Mr. Traub that Obama has to fight, fight, fight! Cenk says Obama should be leading the charge to impeach Bush and Cheney! Cenk says Obama should have led the charge to impeach the Attorney General! Cenk says even though he would lose those fights! And, get this - Cenk says Obama has to keep saying Hillary's Republican Lite. Of course, Obama did, but not lately, because is that really smart when so many moderate Republicans and Independents are leaning toward him, even changing their registration where needed to vote for him in the Democratic Primary?!? And when both Republicans and Democrats are sick of their parties?)
At this point, Cenk roars at Mr. Traub that Obama must keep saying he has the best judgment! Oh yes, I know, you're laughing hysterically by now, because how often have we devotees who read/watch and listen to everything Obama says heard him say just that?
Mr. James Traub, you did a magnificent job pointing out exactly what Obama has done right, including what Cenk was roaring he should, and you kept your cool despite some no-doubt irritating moments. Traub led discussion back to audience perception; he could've analyzed his own media peers more to be more informative, imho, but he's the smart one who sees Obama's approach may be the most appealing to voters in the end.
There are two general reactions we - the people who know the difference between the candidates and choose Obama - have to the unending and often baseless criticisms from the left, right and center pundits (not many analysts, unfortunately - more pundits, horse-race announcers, armchair quarterbacks):
1. disgust with the entire process, and/or
2. a rush of energy to pick up the phone, help organize another phonebank, another canvass, another event, and shut them all up with our latest Committed Voters for Obama tally from our precinct, city, district and neighboring early voting states!
I will continue to work to help organize all of the above here in Northern California, and help with phonebanking for rallies around the country for Obama. Before I do that, let me share why the pundits are dead wrong, imho:
* We will register many new voters; already have, and we've only just begun.
Even with all the new voters, if we raise voting by a whopping 10% in the primaries nationally, we would still only have about 28% of the eligible voters actually casting a ballot to choose the Democratic Party candidate. The dismal voter numbers are a major reason we want BO to win – he inspires civic action!
Of those primary voters, how many are party loyalists, how many are candidate-loyalists, how many are there for self-interest (read: to protect their beliefs and/or investments), and how many are there out of real love, respect for, defense of the democratic process?
* Of party loyalists, there are less every day. The percentage of Undeclared/Independent voters has skyrocketed - no surprise, given the frustration on both sides. Of all the Democrats, Obama draws the most Independent voters. Would coming out rabid against Republicans help or hurt him with Independents? Hurt, most likely. Lots of Independents were Republicans once, and they're often fiscal conservatives. Demonizing Republicans loses that growing segment of Democratic primary (not just general election) voters.
* Obama has the most loyal supporters. Sure, some fell off based on one issue, or simply on pollster/pundit negative messages - there are more than enough hot-button issues and negative messages to discourage all but the most determined civic-minded or devoted-to-a-candidate voters. Still, compare Obama's polls to Edwards, and he's holding or gaining ground the better people know him, not losing ground.
What's kept so many original supporters still on the bandwagon, after all that negativity? Obama's character, his refusal to pander, his refusal to straddle the fence, his insistence on giving us complete answers, even when he has to say:
[paraphrasing BO] Conditions might change, we may have to re-think this later, but you will always know what I'm thinking. You will always be informed of the options. You will always come before the lobbyists and political profiteers as a reward for wresting our democracy back, back for the civic participants, back for the people who've been slowly added to the list of "citizens" with full voting rights, back for the people who always had those rights but no longer felt their votes mattered.
See, Obama's made many more of us members of the last category I listed above: those here out of real love, real respect for democracy. With that and BO to work and vote for, it's become a serious not just willingness but burning desire to work for the democratic process. It turns out it's a joyful process, for all the hard work it is. It's a social process, and there's no way to do it without making new friends, learning new things.
We know the alternative to democracy and we reject it absolutely. We know we're at a crossroads and we will not be seduced again to hand over our authority to people who treat this like a game for personal profit.
Obama's not a savior; he's not going to end our (sometimes fatal) self-interest completely. He's only human and so are we. But as much as pundits want to belittle that sentiment, that love for democracy that's made so many of us hard-core cynics so starry-eyed again, it's that very aspect of Obama we see, feel and hear that inspires us to keep on keepin' on. Primaries are marathons. We're here 'til the Finish and we're here to Win!
It's not Obama's debating style that makes him the candidate with the highest "favorable" rating of any candidate, Democrat or Republican (a little publicized but consistent polling fact) - at least not in those moderator and advertiser gladiator-fests they call "debates".
It's Obama communication style when he has the podium or the stage, when he's got a microphone but also provides one for participants to ask him hard questions, in those hundreds of homes, back yards, meeting halls, and school auditoriums. Obama connects to everyone from there, and it is from the podium and the world stage, and always with hundreds of microphones trained on him, that Obama will lead us as President.
In the end, when we're alone with that ballot and these choices before us, we are self-interested, we want to vote for a “probable” winner, but we are also more conscious than ever before that the world waits to see how we choose.
Will we give ourselves and the world the most serious, most genuine, most intelligent, collaborative and open leader, with the seriousness and character and advisors the office merits, and with the most all-embracing and genuine smile presented from our shores in too, too long - or more of the same old plastic politics?
Read more!
In an interview, Senator Barack Obama said that forging a new relationship with Iran would be part of his effort to stabilize Iraq. How novel! A comprehensive approach, thank you Obama! He refuses to engage in further threats to Iran and preconditions to negotiations, and actually offers rewards to Iran for complying with U.S. and international requests. Kindly note Obama is the only true leader and statesman who considers the fate of the Iraqis in determining what our future role will be in Iraq, as well as in Iran. His principle goal in having any U.S. troops even in neighboring countries is to prevent genocide in Iraq, stabilize the region and to train Iraqi police and army staff, not support them in daily incursions, and only if they end sectarian divisions and work together on political solutions. Obama is the only one proposing an increase in humanitarian aid and America Centers where people can learn more about our country and democracy than the current propaganda. His entire approach is: what will increase stability in the Middle East, and what best serves our overall interests.
read more | digg story
Read more!
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are statistically tied in Iowa. Edwards is losing steam.
read more | digg story
Read more!
In the light of last night's debate and Hillary Clinton's refusal to answer one single question, here are a list of her flip-flops from this campaign season alone.
read more | digg story
Read more!
Senator Obama comes out strongly in this policy statement against violence against women, here in the U.S. as well as overseas where rape and battery of women is being used as a weapon. I hope more media picks up on this story. I think this issue will receive long overdue attention when he and Michelle move into the West Wing. I, for one, deeply appreciate Obama for bringing this issue to the forefront. There's no doubt in my mind Barack Obama cares about women's and girls' safety and equal rights - it's so obvious he's genuine when you see him with the three females that are the center of his world: Michelle, Malia and Sasha.
read more | digg story
Read more!
Oprah interviews Barack Obama's wife, Michelle Obama. Michelle is amazing. She's smart and grounded, her family and community are her top priorities. She worshiped her father, who lived with MS until he passed barely two years before she married Barack. She's extraordinary in her focus and ability to take on anyone and anything that challenges her. She's joyful, too! Her mother, who lives 15 minutes from their home, helps care for the girls and keeps her rooted to the neighborhood she grew up in, working-class and, until Michelle intervened, totally separated from the university five minutes away.
read more | digg story
Read more!
"Senator Barack Obama has quickly caught Senator Hillary Clinton in the presidential election fundraising race, adding $2.1 million via an email campaign in just four days." Nice work from the grassroots and the campaign! Take that, PACs, federal lobbyists, investment banks and military contractors allied with Sen. Clinton! She should have gone with public campaign financing for the primaries against other Democrats. She created the money race to win it decisively; instead, it's one of the starkest contrasts in the race: her insider-funded campaign, even by Rupert Murdoch, against Obama's grassroots campaign. And don't start with bankers and contractors donate to him too. The media does no better job than blogs to differentiate between a company low-level worker and a CEO when it comes to donations, it's the bundlers' donations that tell the true story, and Obama's the only candidate to write and push and pass legislation to expose the bundled donations clearly and put all donation information, to candidates and their pet projects, online. It's up to us to push to see the ethics legislation all funded and implemented.
read more | digg story
Read more!
New Latino group for Obama in Nevada is launched by former Clinton-appointee Federico Pena, also the former mayor of Denver, Colorado. Mr. Pena has already vastly improved the Latinos for Obama site, both the English:http://barackobama.com/page/content/latinoshome/and the Spanish/Espanol:http://www.barackobama.com/espanol/
read more | digg story
Read more!
