Register to vote, and send Voltage to play at the Democratic National Convention. We have songs that are perfect for the event already written, and I am already the number one democrat at the DNC.
For the last filing period, Steve Driehaus, a Democrat from Cincinnati, outraised his opponent -- a Republican incumbent who has held the office for 13 years. This is pretty amazing! So many people have seen that he can take back this seat for us. The downside is that the incumbant has a huge war-chess and therefore has more cash on hand than Driehaus. I want to urge all PB folks to contribute what they can, even if it is $5 to keep this momentum going.
I know everyone is caught up in the primary debates, but let's help the congressional candidates too! This is a very winnable seat, with help.
from speakout.com
Everything he's 'voted for or against' matches Clinton.
Also see comparision from
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/final_candidates_positions.pdf Read More »
would love any other links or information anyone has on Clinton. Read More »
Love any other links or articles that you know of. Read More »
blah blah blah
Here's this week's announcement
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23918341/
This one was interesting to me because it addresses Ohio and Florida as two key states in the General election. In the end I think Michigan will be the key state this time around, but I don't disagree that these two states are critical for a democratic win in November.
So I ask... What do you think of this article? does it change your mind about which candidate you support? why or why not?
Personally, it made me think. It doesn't change my mind about who I support but it did make me look a little closer as to why I support them. Read More »
Moving onto the topic of Abortion:
This is a difficult topic to quantify so I narrowed it down to introduced bills in the Senate only, that were pro choice or pro prevention as those are what Obama said he supported in 2004 and what Clinton has said she has always supported. All information is gathered from the Thomas Library Website and referring ONLY to Senate bills/resolutions starting Jan 1 2005 to keep things "fair."
The following are both Obama and Clinton:
s.1173 Freedom of Choice ActTitle: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
introduced on 4-19-07
Clinton was a cosponsor from the beginning.
Obama became one on 5-11-07.
it appears to still be under review.
s.2916 Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act of 2006Title: A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.introduced by Clinton 5-19-06 it has 12 cosponsors.
Obama IS one of them from the beginning.
(I think this became s.1075, which Obama does NOT cosponsor.)
s.20 Prevention First ActTitle: A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.
Introduced 1-24-05
Clinton cosponsored from the beginning
Obama cosponsored as of 2-8-05
Became s.21
Title: A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and improve access to women's health care.Both Clinton and Obama cosponsored since 1-4-07 s.res.162Calls on Congress, on the 40th anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut in which the Supreme Court held that married people have a constitutional right to use contraceptives, to take steps to ensure that all women have universal access to affordable contraception.
introduced 6-7-05
cosponsored by Obama and Clinton from the beginning.
---------------
The following are just Clinton:
s.1264 Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies ActTitle: A bill to provide for the provision by hospitals of emergency contraceptives to women, and post-exposure prophylaxis for sexually transmitted disease to individuals, who are survivors of sexual assault
Introduced on 6-16-05
Clinton was a cosponsor from the beginning (there are 11 co sponsors)
Obama is NOT one.
Became s.1240 I believe…
Title: A bill to provide for the provision by hospitals receiving Federal funds through the Medicare program or Medicaid program of emergency contraceptives to women who are survivors of sexual assault.Clinton introduced on 4-26-07Obama is not a co-sponsorThere are 7 co sponsors at this time s.res.485Title: A resolution to express the sense of the Senate concerning the value of family planning for American women.
Calls for Congress to: (1) help women, regardless of income, avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion through access to affordable contraception; and (2) support programs and policies that make it easier for women to obtain contraceptives.
introduced by Clinton on 5-22-06.
It is co-sponsored by 17 other senate members and is still under review.
Obama is NOT a co-sponsor.
s.1075 Unintended Pregnancy Reduction ActTitle: A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to expand access to contraceptive services for women and men under the Medicaid program, help low income women and couples prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce abortion, and for other purposes.
introduced by Clinton 3-29-07 to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortion.
It is cosponsored by 8 other senate members and is still under review.
Obama is NOT a cosponsor.
S.2108 Emergency Contraception Education Act of 2007Title: A bill to establish a public education and awareness program relating to emergency contraception.
Introduced 9-27-07
Clinton is a cosponsor from the beginning
Obama is NOT a cosponsor
s.844 Family Planning Services ActTitle: A bill to expand access to preventive health care services that help reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women's health care.
introduced by Clinton 4-19-05 with 2 cosponsors.
Obama is NOT one of them.
It is related and linked to s.20
-------
Obama has not introduced anything of his own to support pro-choice.
The DCCC picked its latest slate of "Red to Blue" candidates and the list includes Steve Driehaus! According to the DCCC site these candidates
"earned a spot in the program by surpassing demanding fundraising goals and skillfully demonstrating to voters that they stand for change and will represent new priorities when elected to Congress.
These candidates have come out of the gate strong and the Red to Blue Program will give them the financial and structural edge to be even more competitive in November," said Chairman Chris Van Hollen, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The candidates for change in our first round of challenger Red to Blue are strong examples of Democrats who represent a commitment to new priorities for the families in their districts.
The Red to Blue program highlights top Democratic campaigns across the country, and offers them financial, communications, and strategic support. The program will introduce Democratic supporters to new, competitive candidates in order to help expand the fundraising base for these campaigns."
Driehaus offers an exciting opportunity to take back an important seat. I encourage anyone who can to help continue Steve's momentum by Contributing Now! or you can mail a contribution to Driehaus for Congress, PO Box 11101, Cincinnati, OH 45211.
http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=11&c=16
Campaigning for the Illinois Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama scolded Bush for invading Iraq and vowed he would "unequivocally" vote against an additional $87 billion to pay for it. Yet since taking office in January 2005, he has voted for four separate war appropriations, totaling more than $300 billion.
Last June, Obama voted no to Senator John F. Kerry's proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq.
...
John Cabral, a member of the Oak Park Coalition for Truth and Justice, an anti war group in suburban Chicago, said Obama now seems more concerned with avoiding Republican accusations of harming the troops than ending the war. "It's disappointing that he got swallowed up in the Senate in his two years there," Cabral said. "He didn't do some of the things we would have liked him to. He is worried about his political future."
......
As a Senate contender in October 2003, with the Senate on the verge of approving the $87 billion war budget, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that approving additional funds "enables the Bush administration to continue on a flawed policy without being accountable to the American people" or to the troops.
A few weeks later, at a Democratic forum outside Chicago, Obama said that he would have "unequivocally" voted against the $87 billion "because, at a certain point, we have to say 'no' to George Bush." As Democrats, "If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance," he said.
Nevertheless, Obama had muted some of his strident criticism of the war even before arriving in Washington. In 2004, Obama defended pro war votes by Kerry and Edwards, that year's Democratic presidential ticket; although he thought the invasion was wrong, "there is room for disagreement," he said.
......
He has ramped up his criticism of the war since then and is now pushing a bill that sets a goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by the end of March 2008. But unlike Kerry's withdrawal plan, Obama's bill would not set firm deadlines and would allow troops to remain in Iraq if the government meets specific benchmarks.
As last week's vote attests, Obama opposes using Congress's power of the purse to force the war to end. That's a deep disappointment to some liberals, who recall Obama as a Senate candidate speaking forcefully at antiwar rallies.
.....
Obama, who has consistently said that he would have voted no based on what he knew at the time.
But Obama has often added a caveat: He did not have access to the classified intelligence that members of Congress saw, and he might have voted differently if he had.
Wow.
I'm confused again.
So when this all started Obama's camp was claiming they got the undecided votes and the liberal republican votes. By saying that he was seen as a person who unified the country and crossed party lines.
hmmmmm
So, coming to the present, Mississippi exit polls show that 13% of the democrats who voted used to be Republicans and that CLINTON was the candidate of choice for that population. By saying that she is seen as a case of the Republicans manipulating the caucus to get the candidate elected that they can beat.
I don't get it. Why is it okay for him to get the Republican vote but it isn't okay for her to get it?
.... sometimes the posts on this site make my head spin....
We fight the fights we can win - Clinton '08
Newsweek had this article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/120070
It highlights a key thing I have seen here. I know we can get mean - I know we through around loyalties and middle names. And, yeah, I realize we taked about being more civil a couple weeks ago... but this article really accents the main reason to keep things respectable when discussing the issues or trying to get out the vote in states that have yet to hold their primary/caucus.
Thank you for reading
BUT EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT!!!!
call me young, call me crazy, but EVERY VOTE SHOULD COUNT!!!
What is the matter with everyone ... I don't care if FL and MI voted for NADER to be president... they are part of "WE THE PEOPLE" and they should have a say just as much as the next guy.
They should get a re-do... and the DNC should help pay for it... 50-50. They should both have a caucus that assigns 49% of the delegates and a primary that assigns 51% of the delegates.
Not counting them is what divides us. If the DNC told me I didn't matter, I'd be far more willing to vote Nader or McCain. Luckily, the DNC likes my state. Why WHY would ANYONE vote for a party that doesn't think their vote counts?
Use some logic people. Treat everyone equally!
Dean and the DNC are being stubborn to teach a lesson and all they are going to do is hurt democracy and alienate thousands and thousands of Americans.
Why is everyone so against allowing MI and FL to count?
Please join Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and hosts:
Former Governor Jack & Susan Gilligan, Peter & Nancy Cassady, Ellen Gilligan & Charlie DeSando, Jody & Terry Grundy, Venessa & Byron White, and Jim Carroll
For a Private Reception in Support of State Representative Steve Driehaus, Candidate for US Congress.
Contributions:
Friend of Steve's: $100
Practically a Driehaus: $250
Steve Driehaus has been an effective and dedicated Representative in the Ohio Legislature for eight years. Greater Cincinnati needs and deserves that type of representation in Congress! Please come and support our efforts to help elect strong, effective congressional leadership for Greater Cincinnati.
Read More »
I said this before, and I am saying it again. This was posted before bedtime, and buried, I hope she reads this, and him too. You know who you to are. You are both unique individuals, hurt by the lack of acceptance some in our culture has exhibited toward you because of your differences. Yes, it is unfair, and ignorant, but turning on each other won't make it better.
It seems the American culture has several issues which obstruct it’s ability to grow towards a more civilized society, kind of like the 7 deadly sins/signs that help is needed.
1. The lack of “Theory of Mind”. American Psychological Association (APA) speak for the “ability to analyze from the perspective of others.” This seems to be a prevalent deficit in our culture as a whole, generally speaking, not enough empathy is experienced, which unfortunately and most obviously is demonstrated by many republicans. Therefore we judge and prejudge others as bad, wrong, or not good enough because they are different from us. That is not a democratic principle.
2. Prioritizing Acceptance over Integrity. Our culture is hungry for acceptance and craves it’s prizes, rewards, praise and “points.” A sense of self worth is often achieved at the expense of ignoring individual principles in order to be one among a crowd. Individuality and speaking out against the crowd is the democratic way, it is how a real majority is cultivated, by considering different opinions.
3. Crowd Mentality. A common trajectory, the need for acceptance is the most important ingredient for a crowd mentality. Most brilliantly depicted in the artful classics “To Kill a Mockingbird”, “Bad Day at Black Rock” “The Lottery” and “The Lord of the Flies”. Without considering the specifics of an individual, the crowd mentality seeks it’s strength in numbers and presumptions. Sadly the outcome is often tragic. If not for the courageous few who have spoken out against the crowd, Rosa Parks, Einstein, Newton, Galileo,Marquee De Sade, Gloria Steinam, Helen Keller (a favorite), this country would not have reached the level of collaboration, communication and conscienceness we are currently maintaining. Well, just barely maintaining.
4. The need to be right and/or prove someone else wrong. Actually, this has reached such an epidemic that is a diagnosable condition under the disabilities act, Authoritative Opposition Disorder. Not sure if anyone believes it to be anything more than a natural consequence of overexposure to the word “no”.
Many kids/people are so saturated with negative feedback, they develop an inability to feel secure and comfortable with themselves. They are easily threatened by others, peers, grown ups, and authority. Their stance is to say “wrong”, or “no”, it’s like being generally compulsively disagreeable.
They usually do this more so to those they admire, like and care for, ironically, than those who they are disinterested with. It’s actually complimentary, in a beat around the bush kind of way. Rather transparent, yes perhaps, but not easily overcome. For everything negative said to a kid, 5 positive things need to be said, in order to replace the incentive to listen, learn and love.
Therefore if you say to a kid in need, "Yes we can", you have created a follower.
5. The need for reward and punishment. Rewards rob us of our intrinsic motivation and leave us morally bankrupt. Punishment does nothing but satisfy a childish urge for revenge. Neither are productive, both are self indulgent and destructive, creative counter production like this will only stunt the human conscience and cognitive growth. Take a look at our justice system and jails.
6. The concept of wealth and what is of value. With such an intense emphasis on material goods, a technologically savvy nation is left with the emotional intelligence of a toddler. We waste, ruin, and pollute without thinking of the future.
7. The lack of emotional intelligence/brilliance. There are often situations when the feeling of sadness and hurt are jettisoned into immediate anger. Anger is a safer place to be, more self-righteous, more assertive. It takes strength to admit pain, sorrow and sadness. Anger, is nothing more than a thin and transparent veil to hide beneath. Emotion, unchecked, can fester like a tumor, many have anger manifesting in various degrees. Without acknowledgment, it can manifest itself right into regrettable behavior, a negative demeanor, and a sad and lonely life. Thank you Dr. Suess for giving us the the Grinch, he is a model of transformation.
Voting for Hillary Clinton 08
I think I'm turnin Billary
I really think so
I think I'm turnin Billary
I think I'm turnin Billary
I really think so
I think I'm turnin Billary
I think I'm turnin Billary
I really think so
I think I'm turnin Billary
I think I'm turnin Billary
I really think so
I think I'm turnin Billary
I think I'm turnin Billary
I really think so
2 good heads are better than one!
Clinton 08
Maybe it's time to get real.
Let's all be allies against the republicans
once more.
Hillary 08
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
It makes you think.
Officials in Texas and Ohio are bracing for record turnouts today. And with the weird Texas Two Step, it is quite possible that Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could split the popular vote and delegate hauls. Here's why:
Obama is strongly favored in the caucus that follows the Texas primary, which requires voters to return at night after casting their primary votes to vote again. That favors his young, enthusiastic supporters. A third of the 193 Texas delegates at stake will be apportioned through the caucus.
Obama strongholds in Houston and Dallas also will yield more delegates, because delegates are apportioned based on past Democratic turnout. African Americans voted in greater numbers than Latinos in past elections, meaning that Clinton strongholds in the heavily Latino Rio Grande Valley will produce fewer delegates.
This process could mean that Clinton might win the Texas popular vote, while Obama could simultaneously win more delegates.
One result is certain: The confusion will be spun like crazy by both campaigns.
In Ohio, officials are working frantically to forestall the kind of messes than have tainted previous elections, where voters stood for hours in cities waiting to vote, said John Gilliom, a political scientist at Ohio University.
"We have a tradition of totally botched elections," Gilliom said, adding that the new Secretary of State "is working very, very hard to get that squared away." He said there are "attorneys standing ready all over the state" prepared to ask judges to extend voting hours in case poll stations are overwhelmed. He notes these are state attorneys, not from the campaigns. "We all have our fingers crossed," he said. "Indications are it's going to be just huge."
Gilliom expects that unless there is a blow-out by Clinton or Obama, results "are going to be going very, very late into the night if not into Wednesday."
Posts
