I came across this insightful article from James Vega (http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2008/11/the_relationship_between_obama.php#more) that I wanted to share with all of you, which I think offers some useful perspective on how we could more constructively think about our role in influencing the Obama administration over the next four years.  Mr. Vega  presents two models for how progressives might relate to a Democratic President.  In Model A, the progressive citizenry is engaged in a "battle for the soul of the Democratic President."  In Model B, progressives are actively engaged in organizing independent movements around issue-specific agendas.  He explains the contrast this way:

 

Read more »

Al Giordano from The Field has posted a full article on HuffPo http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/us-secretary-of-state-a-c_b_145539.html presenting his arguments against Hillary's qualifications to serve as Secretary of State, based on his well-informed perspectives on Human Rights issues in Latin America.

His story includes the last video clip from one of his colleagues, an independent journalist from NY, who was gunned down while filming government forces attacking a citizen blockade. It's hard-watching, but powerful and I urge you to take a peek.

This particular incident happened in 2006.  Senator Clinton has been asked to assist in bringing justice in this case.  Their requests have been ignored.

This is not one unfortunate incident somewhere other than the U.S. that has nothing to do with us.  It's about our policies and how our economic interests pave the way for injustices beyond our borders.  Al puts it this way:

 

Read more »

I can't express how excited I am about this campaign and how great it's been to share this with all of you on this board.  I was hesitating to go down for the rally, making up excuses not to go - traffic, crowds, work night, etc. etc.  Then, I casually asked my son if he was interested and he said, "Definitely!"  Well, how could I refuse?  This is his chance to experience what I sense will be a really special time in our history.  So, we've packed up a picnic dinner, our camera, and warm coats, and we're heading out.  Hope we get a good spot.  Wish us luck!

 

 

Despite having less than favorable coverage of Obama since the primaries, WaPo has finally thrown in the towel and backs Obama for President.  While there are a couple of points that many of us would quibble with, overall their observations of Obama's suitability for the Office of President would earn a round of applause and hearty Huzzah from this audience.

Here's the full article:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Samples of the text after the jump.

Read more »

Found this hilarious exchange via Balloon Juice.  Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi in an Instant Message debate at nymag.com with Bryan York from the National Review are discussing, "the headwinds facing McCain, what Phil Gramm had to do with the financial crisis, and the importance of credit default swaps."  York tries to blame the Wall Street meltdown on Fannie and Freddie.  Taibbi asks York if he even knows what a CDS (credit default swap) is and how it works.  York tries to deflect the question, Taibbi comes back at him.  No answer, crickets chirping, it's all live, huge embarrassment for the conservative know-nothing journalist parroting GOP talking points without sufficient understanding to back it up when challenged.

So fun!  Here's a clip:

 

Read more »

In reading through comments over at Time's Swampland, I was directed to this article on an ABC News blog referencing a quote from Kissinger, which ended with a statement from Powell indicating that he would make up his mind about which candidate he was endorsing after the debates:

While there was little direct talk about the presidential campaign itself, Madeleine Albright reiterated her endorsement of Barak Obama. Jim Baker expressed his support for John McCain. When asked who he is supporting, Colin Powell said he has great respect for both candidates but he's waiting to watch the debates before he makes up his mind.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/kissinger-backs.html

So, after each of the candidates laid out their approaches to foreign policy - areas where they're in basic agreement and where they differ, where do you think Powell would fall?  Is he more likely to support McCain or Obama, if you were to judge simply on compatibility of philosophy and policy?

I posted yesterday that the Washington Post had a front page article about Cindy's past addiction to painkillers.  It was pretty detailed and wasn't overly-varnished.  

In the comments section of the online version of that article, a poster provided a link to an interesting overview of the whole fallout from the exposure of Cindy's involvement w/narcotics in the Arizona Republic in 1994:  http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/content/printVersion/161307.

This article includes excerpts from the journal that Tom Gosinski kept while he was in Cindy's employment at the American Voluntary Medical Team (AMVT), which he turned over to the DEA after Cindy fired him.  This is what launched their investigation of her.

There's a lot of detail in that article that will raise lots of eyebrows about Cindy and John and her family, but for me, the one fact that's most pertinent in all of this that should be considered in today's Presidential race is the illegalities in how Cindy was obtaining these narcotics and how those were handled once it all came to light.  I actually lived in AZ during this period, but I had no idea of what was really transpiring in all of this.  It was extremely whitewashed in the AZ press.  It was presented as a story of Cindy's heroic struggle w/addiction, and that's it.

In fact, I don't see this as being about addiction, I see it as being about criminal activity and about a very wealthy, powerful, priviledged, politically-connected individual who got away with it without consequence, while others paid a heavy price for her crimes (specifically, Tom Gosinski and Max Johnson).

Prior stories that I've seen about this have suggested that maybe Cindy was simply taking narcotics from the AVMT inventories.  But, this article and Gosinski's journal suggests that she was doing much more than that.  It appears that she may have been using the DEA numbers of multiple doctors (without their knowledge) who provided services for AVMT to obtain narcotics for personal use under the guise of them being for the use of AVMT.  That's a different thing altogether - in essence, she was writing her own prescriptions, fraudulently.  And the article suggests that, if this had been prosecuted by the State of AZ, Cindy would have been charged with a Class 3 felony and faced 10 to 20 years in prison, with 2/3 served before being eligible for parole.

Is this background that we ought to be looking at and thinking about in regards to the wife of a Presidential candidate?  Old news?  Personal business?  We're talking about criminal activity that was swept under the rug.  I'd like for the Press to pull this out, shake off the dust, and have another good look at it.  We're talking about putting this man in the office of President of the United States.

I don't know what's going on with WaPo - their coverage seems to have taken an ever so slight turn since McCain started to gain the advantage in national polls.  But, on today's front page, there is a long article detailing Cindy's past w/her addiction to painkillers and full detail about how she was using her charity to obtain them and how she allowed the medical director, John Max Johnson, and another employee, Tom Gosinski, to go down professionally.

Gosinski is an interesting guy.  I'm not clear on what, exactly, his role was in the charity, but it is said that he was close to the McCain family.  He started noticing odd behavior in Cindy and recognized it for what it was and started keeping a journal.  When Cindy realized that he was on to her, she fired him and 3 weeks later, he turned his journals over to the DEA. 

He later launched a separate lawsuit against Cindy for wrongful termination, but didn't have the resources to see that through.  Cindy tried to countersue him for extortion, but the County ended up dropping her charge as being without merit.

Gosinski has been unwilling to come forward until now, because he was afraid of having to face retribution from the McCain campaign.  He finally came forward yesterday and now has the backing of the Center for Responsibility and Ethics, a public watchdog group, if he gets sued as a result.  And by the way, he also stated, while many reporters have contacted him for his story, he has not been contacted by either the Obama Campaign or the DNC.

Here's the full article, check it out, comment, pass it around:  <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008091103947&s_pos'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008091103947&s_pos=">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103928.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008091103947&s_pos=</a>

In the first of Gallup's Daily Tracking polls (based on a 3-day rolling average of data collected in phone interviews conducted in late afternoon/early evening hours (daily sample of 1,000 adults)), to include a window in which respondents will have viewed convention coverage, Obama has moved forward slightly, polling at 45% to McCain at 44%, with a margin of error of 2%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/109873/Gallup-Daily-Race-Still-Close-Obama-45-McCain-44.aspx

Perhaps, the beginning of a very modest bounce.  Tomorrow's results will include respondents who had the opportunity to view Warner (yawn), Schweitzer (fun!), and Hillary (...mixed reviews?). 

I predict Obama takes another 1 point lead tomorrow and yet another point on Friday reflecting reaction to speeches from Bubba and Biden tonight.

That leaves the impact of Obama himself, which won't show up in the polls until Saturday - which you have to keep in mind are tricky polls to interpret as people are often not home on weekends - and note that this is a holiday weekend.  Full impact of the convention won't be apparent until you look at the Daily Polls for next Mon and Tues, I'd say.

After that, you'll start seeing the impact of reaction to the Republican Convention.

That's my 2 pennies!

Obama delivered a speech today at the Lansing Center near Michigan State University. It's an excellent outline of his energy policies and does a nice job of tying in some economy themes as well. More importantly, he speaks to his recent willingness to consider offshore drilling and his reasoning:

But the truth is, none of these steps will come close to seriously reducing our energy dependence in the long-term. We simply cannot pretend, as Senator McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem. We need a much bolder and much bigger set of solutions. We have to make a serious, nationwide commitment to developing new sources of energy and we have to do it right away. Last week, Washington finally made some progress on this. A group of Democrat and Republican Senators sat down and came up with a compromise on energy that includes many of the proposals I've worked on as a Senator and many of the steps I've been calling for in this campaign. It's a plan that would invest in renewable fuels and batteries for fuel-efficient cars, help automakers re-tool, and make a real investment in renewable sources of energy. Like all compromises, this one has its drawbacks. It includes a limited amount of new offshore drilling, and while I still don't believe that's a particularly meaningful short-term or long-term solution, I am willing to consider it if it's necessary to actually pass a comprehensive plan. I am not interested in making the perfect the enemy of the good - particularly since there is so much good in this compromise that would actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

So, there will be those out there will be profoundly disappointed in Obama's position on this issue. There will be others who take this opportunity to jump out and point and scream "flip flopper!" But, Obama does appear to be showing consistency in how he intends to govern, doesn't he? He is indeed a pragmatist. And he will support solutions to problems that ensure progress on an issue, even if it means sacrificing some ground on his position going in. He has the ability and willingness to compromise. Can we live with that? Will our personal ideologies and our own commitment to specific issues leave room for any compromise on those issues? Here's the link to the full article for those who are interested to the details:

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/ELECTIONS01/80804004

I see no further reporting in either the print or electronic versions of WaPo, but the NYT online has a full follow-up story on McCain's false ad on the topic of Obama's cancelled visit to the wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us/politics/29truth.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin). 

The article clearly states that the Obama campaign never planned for reporters to accompany him on the visit to the troops.  It further states that, after the Pentagon contacted Obama's campaign advisor, Major General Scott Gration, and advised him that the Pentagon considered the visit inappropriate as the trip was now viewed as political, they decided that it would be best to cancel the visit, rather than involve wounded troops in political controversy.

The article goes on to point out that Obama could have possibly continued with the visit to the medical visit by leaving his campaign staff behind.  They conclude with a statement from Robert Gibbs, a strategist for the Obama campaign, who states that this position was not considered advisable, as it was still likely that controversy would result from the visit, and Obama preferred not to have wounded troops in the middle of it.

Overall, I think this is good follow-up on the part of NYT and I appreciate it and will send an email to the author (Jeff Zeleny) letting him know. 

If you wrote to NYT yesterday challenging them on this issue, thanks so much for participating, and please take some time to follow up today to thank them for their thoughtful follow through on the issue. 

Hi Everyone!  Our hardworking TPM-EC host, Greg Sargent, kindly scanned the several of the biggest mainstream media outlets today to determine how they had covered the McCain’s political attack ad against Obama in regard to his cancelled visit to the U.S. Army bases in

Hi Everyone!  Our hardworking TPM-EC host, Greg Sargent, kindly scanned the several of the biggest mainstream media outlets today to determine how they had covered the McCain’s political attack ad against Obama in regard to his cancelled visit to the U.S. Army bases in