I am voting for Barack Obama. It will be the first vote I ever cast as an American citizen and it will be done so with all the pride and honor a human being could possibly feel. This entry is my story. It represents what is most beautiful about this country, and the supreme importance of not taking that beauty for granted. I hope that by telling it, I can inspire you to be a better American.
Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a white issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in - Barack Obama
Contrary to reports of my untimely demise I am still here I just have been having problems coming up with stuff to write about. I've written a lot of diaries on Obama's platform but there is one issue that I have not written about much. And it's a very, very important issue. A little something called our environment. Barack Obama has been a champion of the environment for a long time. In this diary I will take a look at his background on this issue and plans for moving our country and environment forward.
Welcome back for more veep speculation! Last thread we considered the top military veteran candidates to be Obama's v.p. Averaging in those votes yielded the same top 14 average vote-getters overall as the thread before that, so we'll consider them again in today's poll.
I'm still alternating "break-out" polls with the top 14 average vote-getting candidates in these threads' polls, averaging in each day's votes as we go. I'm going to do the top possibilities experienced with foreign policy/national security issues and governors/former governors before cutting 14 names to narrow the field to just two tiers--that's if Obama hasn't decided by then, of course. I'll reset the averages then, too. So that would be three or four more threads away from today.
Please discuss any v.p. candidates in the comments. The correct format would be to simply state their name, unless you have further comments, in which case, "I believe ___ ___ should be Obama's v.p. running mate because..." "Oh my God, where's Johnny/Jane Politician?!" would be a bit alarmist, don't you think? I'm sure they're fine. I'm happy to hear all ideas, and of course I'm no official gatekeeper, so play nice.
AL-03, Mike Rogers
CA-46, Dana Rohrabacher
FL-09, Gus Bilirakis
FL-18, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
ID-01, Bill Sali
IN-03, Mark Souder
IA-04, Tom Latham
KY-02, Ron Lewis (open seat)
MN-02, John Kline
NE-02, Lee Terry
NV-02, Dean Heller
NJ-05, Scott Garrett
NC-10, Patrick McHenry
OH-07, Dave Hobson (open seat)
PA-05, John Peterson (open seat
PA-15, Charlie Dent
TX-07, John Culberson
TX-10, Michael McCaul
VA-05, Virgil Goode
VA-10, Frank Wolf
WY-AL, Barbara Cubin (open seat)
From Likely Republican to Lean Republican:
FL-08, Ric Keller
FL-21, Lincoln Diaz-Balart
PA-03, Phil English
WV-02, Shelley Moore Capito
From Toss Up to Lean Democratic:
NY-13, Vito Fossella (open seat)
NY-25, Jim Walsh (open seat)
From Likely Democratic to Lean Democratic:
PA-11, Paul Kanjorski
Wow.
That's an astonishing number of changes, first of all, but I'm equally amazed by the particular districts on this list. Most of the rating changes involve long-shot flanking races, the kind of races that would never be competitive in normal years, but happen to have unusually strong Democrats running this year, in an unusually favorable climate for Democrats. Some of these districts - like ID-01, IN-03, KY-02, NC-10, and TX-07 - are just wildly Republican, and many of them didn't even feature competitive races in 2006.
Many of those races added to the "Likely Republican" category won't be especially competitive this fall. But some of them will, and a few might even be Democratic pickups.
Even if it's just for this cycle, in the perfect storm of 2008, Democrats are making inroads into areas they have written off for years. The world is grown so good, it seems, that we are making prey where angels have long feared to tread.
This was not an easy call for me... It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
Bottom line is that Obama wants to cave on FISA not because of "moving to the center" concerns, but because they are afraid of television ads claiming Obama is inviting terrorists over for BBQ.
Really, did he email you that, because he did send us a message you know...
Here we go again. It is not sufficient that the Enviro-types sabotaged Gore in Florida because on one single issue (something to do with an air-strip) he fudged a bit. Now the so-called liberal blogosphere must brand and tag Obama with the same right-wing talking points that the corporate media is gleefully using against him, because he weighs things differently on one single piece of legislation. All because a couple of telecom companies might get away with cooperating with the heavy hand of the Government, at a time when even otherwise intrepid journalists such as Dan Rather confess to feeling overcome by both a misplaced sense of patriotism and fear.
Will we ever learn? Do the purity hounds on the left actually care about the people we are supposed to be looking out for? (Helpful hint: people whose wages have not risen in decades and people who do not even have that luxury of non-increasing wages.)
After listening to a 10 minute rant on MSNBC where they basically played two obama quotes back to back that said the exact same thing in different words and them have them characterize it as a flip-flop, I figured I'd come here to see them getting chewed out...but no.
I've gotten a million media requests lately to talk about Obama's "move to the center". Exhibit A for that conventional wisdom is Obama's capitulation on FISA.
As I've made clear to those reporters, there's nothing "centrist" about the FISA vote. There's nothing liberal or conservative about protecting the constitution. And given libertarians and liberals are both for keeping the Constitution out of the shredder, it's hard to pretend the issue sits on the simplistic left-right axis.
Bottom line is that Obama wants to cave on FISA not because of "moving to the center" concerns, but because they are afraid of television ads claiming Obama is inviting terrorists over for BBQ. It's the same crappy-style ads that failed miserably in the IL-14 special election (and Foster went on to vote against the FISA capitulation) and have gotten little traction this year. But the Obama campaign thinks that by capitulating, it'll "take the issue off the table", as if Republicans need any excuse to accuse Democrats of being weak on terror.
"Taking the issue off the table" led Democrats to vote for Bush's disastrous tax cuts, and most still lost that year (like Jean Carnahan and Max Cleland). It led them to vote for Bush's disastrous war, yet that didn't stop Republicans from morphing Cleland into Osama Bin Laden. And of course, no matter how they vote on FISA, Republicans will still accuse Democrats of being weak on terror. It's pretty much the only thing they've got left in their toolbox, no matter how ineffective it has become.
But in any case, Obama's FISA capitulation has nothing to do with "moving to the center", and everything with being afraid of the ads Republicans will run.
But don't expect the media to care. Their media narrative has been set. It ain't going anywhere.
"In addition, for the next 30 minutes or so, three members of our policy staff will be in the comments on this post to respond to any questions you have. Danielle Gray is our Deputy National Policy Director, Denis McDonough is a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, and Ben Rhodes is Foreign Policy Advisor and Senior Speechwriter."
UPDATE: Seems like the chat time is over with the Obama campaign. I'm impressed with the responsiveness of the campaign, though they didn't answer anywhere near all the questions that remain out there.
Feel free to continue the discussion below. I'm out. Happy 4th.
UPDATE: I know obama.com is not the real website...I just didn't type the long real one in the title.
This will be short as I'm at work and there really isn't much to say. Up until today I was always able to go to the campaign website, to check on news, how many had registered their independence, etc.
Until today. Today, when I go on there it is blocked because it is labeled as a "sex" site according to our blocking software. This strikes me as odd. Could someone have maliciously done something to the site?
I'm not sure who to tell on Team Obama, or whether i'm just crazy, but I thought it was something that should be known as it could result in lots of software blockers keeping young people or people on public computers from viewing the campaign site.
Unfortunately, I can still access the painful John McBush site.
Mr. Obama may be overreaching by running ads in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Nebraska, Montana, Alaska and North Dakota – states Republicans won by comfortable margins in recent years. It would require a shift of between one-sixth and over one-quarter of the vote to win any of them. Shifts that large rarely happen.
Big shifts do occur – witness West Virginia in 2000, which swung more than 20 points between 1996 (when Bill Clinton carried the state) and 2000 (when George W. Bush did) – but these require sharp contrasts on big issues, not just money. Money may be the mother's milk of politics, in Jesse Unruh's famous phrase, but when running for president, money alone can't buy a candidate love. Cash matters, but being a good candidate and right on the issues matters even more.
There still aren't enough polls in Montana to generate a Pollster.com composite score, but it's tight. Montana is a changing state, and with a popular Democratic governor who will romp to re-election, a state legislative body that has been adding Democrats, and two Democratic senators, including one who will also romp to reelection this year, this isn't the crimson Red state of Karl Rove's dreams. Perhaps that's why Obama will actually spend 4th of July in the state.
Butte, MT: THE OBAMA FAMILY ATTENDS FREEDOM FEST INDEPENDENCE DAY PARADE IN BUTTE
Reason's Dave Weigel speculates as to why Montana is suddenly in play:
Montana's libertarian streak makes it, I think, rocky territory for McCain. This is a state that elected a Democratic senator in 2006 who told voters "I want to repeal the PATRIOT Act." This is a state whose governor gave Homeland Security Michael Chertoff a rhetorical kick in the teeth when he opted out of REAL ID. This is, finally, a state whose Republicans gave Ron Paul a quarter of their primary and caucus votes, and where the balance of power in the state House is held by the Constitution Party. Voila: Another state falls off the Republican map, and McCain will have to scramble and spend money to save it.
And there you have Rove's "sharp contrasts on big issues". Few issues are bigger than freedom, and Democrats are (mostly, when not cowering from fear and capitulating) on the right side of the issue of "freedom".
The new Rasmussen poll shows what I've been feeling for a long time now -- the race in Texas between Barack Obama and John McCain is tightening. McCain can't assume that the Lone Star State will love him with votes like they did Bush, even though McCain seems to love him some George W. Bush.
It's so exciting to be on the ground here in Texas helping in this historic election. Obama's rising support is also a great boon for Senate candidate Lt. Col. Rick Noriega. Plus, the Obama campaign has committed tremendous resources to Texas -- a reported 15 staffers, a good number of Obama Organizing Fellows, and even assistance building the infrastructure to help recapture the Texas House of Representatives. It's not just a 50-state-strategy any more. In these parts, it's a 254-county strategy.
But wait, there's more! Best of all, it's how YOU can help Obama close that gap in Texas. Dig your spurs into the flanks of the Republican party, and send them running once and for all.
MN-Sen: So, Norm Coleman is having a mini-scandal, apparently, involving a sweetheart deal he supposedly got on his Washington apartment.
Long story short: Coleman rents a basement apartment from a friend and Republican operative, Jeff Larson, who owns a townhouse on Capitol Hill, just four short blocks from the Capitol Building. The two of them have a longstanding relationship: Larson's wife works in Coleman's St. Paul office, and Larson's company has done a great deal of work on Coleman's Senate campaigns (earning more than $1.6 million in fees and expenses).
Coleman pays $600 a month in rent, which appears to be almost a nominal agreement. On one occasion, he missed rent payments for two successive months until reporters asked him about it. On another occasion, Larson failed to cash his rent check for three months until reporters asked him about it. Now, this appears to be quite a nice apartment; not only is it a stone's throw from the Capitol, but it's described as being quite lovely inside:
Downstairs, a huge English basement with a media center, office space, gorgeous custom marble and oak bar, plus an airy guest bedroom and bath. (A C of O allows you the flexibility of an income unit).
Simply divine!
Coleman's people claim he is paying market value for the apartment. The Minnesota DFL, however, has looked into the issues, and disagrees.
They note that similar apartments in the neighborhood can rent for nearly three times as much (see here).
English-basement apartments and studios on Capitol Hill comparable to
Coleman's for rent at amounts far in excess of $600 per month. In
addition to the research that it released last Monday, the DFL Party
today released more research showing that rentals of English basements
and small apartments comparable in location, safety and amenity to
Coleman's run from $1,100 to $1,800 per month. One Capitol Hill
one-bedroom English basement is nearly identical to Coleman's in
location and safety, for $1,700; another at $1,475 per month sits on a
block with five times the number of crimes committed in the last year,
including 12 times the number of violent crimes; and another at $1,350 a
month is a mere 625 square feet in size.
As a result, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed an ethics complaint against Coleman:
CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan stated, "Few Americans have landlords who sometimes fail to cash their rent checks, ignore unpaid rent, or accept furniture in lieu of rent. That Sen. Coleman has just such a landlord, who also happens to financially benefit from his relationship with the senator creates exactly the sort of appearance of impropriety that undermines the public’s faith in government." Sloan continued, "Senators must abide by the ethics rules at all times, not just when they get caught flouting them."
AK-Sen: Ted Stevens really is losing it. His latest nugget of wisdom: "Chuck Schumer runs the Alaska Democratic Party".
I am not making this up.
The fellow is getting a mite paranoid, methinks.
ID-Sen: Polling for Idaho Senate candidate Larry LaRocco shows his Republican opponent, former Governor and current Lieutenant Governor Jim Risch, under 50% in a matchup against LaRocco and indie Rex Rammell.
Risch (R) 43
LaRocco (D) 28
Rammell (I) 6
Not a terrific poll for LaRocco, but not that bad, either. The poll also indicates that when given basic background information about the candidates on the issues, LaRocco rated a slight edge:
But LaRocco took the lead when respondents heard about Risch and LaRocco's stances the issues and were asked to vote again: LaRocco had 40%, Risch 37%, Rammell 5%, Other 5% and Undecideds dropped to 13%.
I'm unsure LaRocco will actually have the resources to get his message out, but one never knows.
ME-Sen: I'm a native New Englander, and as such, I love nothing so much as eating food from the ocean. So this DSCC Road to Victory video about the plight of Maine lobstermen (due to astronomical fuel prices) makes me cry.
NH-Sen: I wrote yesterday about how medical associations were targeting John Sununu for his vote on the Medicare bill. Well, it seems that one of his staffers actually informed doctors that Sununu would support the bill:
Dr. James Fieseher, a primary care physician in Portsmouth, traveled to Washington, D.C., in May to personally lobby Sununu and Sen. Judd Gregg for support to stop the cut and said a staff member for Sununu said he would support the bill.
"I'm concerned and disappointed," said Fieseher, who added that as Medicare providers keep getting squeezed, it's likely that fewer younger doctors will be able to afford to become primary care physicians like him. "We (doctors) are being hurt really bad by this. ... Our profit margins are already narrow. It won't do anyone any good if we are run out of business."
Also, Sununu was one of those shiny happy people who repeated the GOP myth about Big Bad China drilling off the coast of Florida. Thing is, someone bothered to tell him it was a myth.
So now, Sununu has neatly changed Big Bad China to Big Bad Cuba, and is back to spreading the Great White Lie:
Sigh. Sigh. Double sigh.
House Races
AK-AL: As a 36-year incumbent and former chair of the House Transportation Committee, Don Young has built quite a network of power - and a formidable campaign warchest - over the years.
This is very fortunate, as his legal troubles - and those of his cronies - are mounting, to the point where he is not only forced to lawyer up, but to obtain legal representation for his campaign manager as well. More on this later.
Somewhat fortunately for Young, he picked up the endorsements of the NRA and Mike Huckabee today. In other news, it appears that his primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, has his own problems to worry about. Parnell has been criticized for not issuing a public release on the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision, and it's been murmured that this may be because his firm, Patton Boggs, defended Exxon in the proceedings.
When the Supreme Court’s decision on the Exxon Valdez litigation came out last week—slashing Exxon’s punitive damages to a tenth of the original $5 billion ruling—Alaskan pols were ultra-swift with their press releases condemning the court’s decision. Reporters’ email inboxes were flooded with indignant missives (Mayor Begich’s was titled, "Begich Angered by Exxon Valdez Ruling") from sitting officials, including Alaska’s entire congressional delegation, the governor, and also from the aspiring candidates who are in the thick of their respective campaigns.
The candidates for Alaska’s U.S. House seat were particularly vocal: Democrats Diane Benson and Ethan Berkowitz and Republican Gabrielle LeDoux (as well as Don Young, as part of the delegation’s statement) all denounced the decision (a compilation of the statements is available online at the Daily News’s website at http://community.adn.com/... Conspicuously absent from our inboxes, though, was any sort of message from Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell, also running for the House seat.
Not that Parnell didn’t rebuke the decision as well, but his statement only appeared on his website (www.parnellforcongress.com), and there were subsequent whispers that Parnell was keeping his opinion on the Exxon decision on the down low, since in 2005 and 2006 Parnell was a partner at Patton Boggs, the international law firm that was representing Exxon in the litigation.
NE-02: I wrote recently on New Nebraska Network's investigation into Lee Terry's record of accomplishing nothing in Congress.
Well, it appears that the pro-Terry folks resemble their remarks, so they've been scrambling to find something, anything, constructive which Lee Terry has done in his time in Congress, and sending it all along to NNN, hoping that someone will buy it. Fortunately, the New Nebraska Network folks aren't suckers. Responding to their claim that
Under legislation introduced by Terry (HR 3117), all such centers must have at least one E85 fuel pump.
NNN does their due diligence, and reports
Terry did not "conceptualize" or "take the lead" on this issue.
The original idea was introduced in the Senate in 2006.
He did not submit it in a committee hearing as an amendment. Rather, Rep's Stupak and Inslee did that in the bill the committee submitted.
The same language was used in bills in the House and Senate, with the language eventually being pulled from a bill introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi by the House Rules Committee.
And Terry fought the legislation the entire way.
Ouch.
More bad news for Lee Terry: the Cook Political Report downgraded his race from "Solid Republican" to "Likely Republican".
Hooray for Democrat Jim Esch!
VA-05: While Democrat Tom Perriello has been doing excellent work in the fundraising race, incumbent Republican Virgil Goode has been spreading the Great White Lie.
You remember..."China, Florida, drilling, Cuba, Communists, stupid Democrats won't let us drill offshore".
Sadly, it doesn't appear to be helping him: Cook moved his race to "Likely Republican", too.
There was talk about Dems shortening the convention to three days, but now, talk is about doing "something different" on the last night. Could it be this?
What better place to accept the nomination for the most powerful job in the world? Invesco Field at Mile High, the home of the Denver Broncos, can seat 75,000 people. It's just a short walk under I-25 from the Pepsi Center and would be a part of the rumored one-mile square radius security zone.
Denver's bid would put most of the convention action at the Pepsi Center, with the final night at Invesco Field.
I am very suprised by that last one. Having the convention in two separate places makes the logistics much harder. You have to build all the infrastructure twice: podium, floor seating, and media facilities. I can't imagine the media will be happy about having to pay for two sets of anchorbooths, wiring, etc. Security is also a nightmare. You have to setup the whole security infrastructure in two separate places. Not to mention the security checkpoint system gets used and worked out the first 2 days, before the big days of Wednesday and Thursday. If you have the final night in a completely new place, it seems to me you're asking for trouble.
And:
However, a source has told me that Dean has been dropping hints that he would like some sort of "public event" to close the convention week, which could, logically, be the nominee acceptance speech. (It could also just be a big rally the next day).
In 2004, I learned about a little trick apparently done at all conventions -- a group would walk in, a single person would collect all their passes, go outside, and bring a new group of people. Lather, rinse, repeat. There were likely three times as many people inside the convention hall for Kerry's speech than at any other time.
So why restrict Obama's historic acceptance speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's "I have a dream" speech to the convention delegates and whoever they can smuggle in? Open that puppy up.
