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.

   Read More »

A Japanese venture company, Genepax, has unveiled a car on that runs on water. All it requires is a litre of water. In fact, any kind of water to be exact, whether its river, rain, sea water, or even Japanese tea. Its an electric powered car that runs solely on hydrogen dioxide.
"The main characteristic of this car is that no external input is needed. The car will continue to run as long as you have a bottle of water inside for you to add from time to time," said Kiyoshi Hirasawa, Chief Executive Officer of Genepax, after he proudly announced the company's invention.
Once water is poured into the water tank at the back of the car, the newly invented energy generator takes out the hydrogen from the water, releases electrons and finally generates electrical power.
"We highly recommend our system since it does not require you to build up an infrastructure to recharge your batteries, which is usually the case for most electric cars," said Hirasawa, who is hoping to advertise the car in time for the upcoming G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan.

That meaning is... For Fifty States. So ADD THE MISSING STATES- DNC! PEOPLE VOTED...AND WILL BE COUNTED. ALL 50 STATES = UNITED.

This summer, President George W. Bush will smile while jaunting up the stairs to Air Force One - his laughable presidency all but over - with not a care in the world.

For 13 hours, he'll lie on a couch in the airplane, drink pomegranate-flavored water and watch reruns of Texas Rangers games from the glory days of Nolan Ryan and Jose Canseco

Eventually, he'll land in Beijing, China, for the 2008 Summer Olympics. He'll pose and smile for photos with great Chinese leaders.

You'll definitely read about it in the newspaper, and so will people just like you all over the world; and you'll probably feel pretty good when you do. Like a bottle of cheap gin the whole globe can pass around, the Olympics somehow make it okay to forget for a little while.

This is helpful for most of us, but somewhat unfortunate for the Tibetan people, whose struggle against occupation has gone on for nearly 60 years

In 1951, the Chinese government annexed Tibet and declared it part of China. In 1959, an uprising resulted in the expulsion of the Dalai Lama; since that time he has run a "government in exile" based in India and become a martyr for global political rights.

On March 10, in honor of the 49th anniversary of China's great experiment in the abuse of state sovereignty, Tibetan monks began to protest en masse the continued demonization of the Dalai Lama and China's efforts to ethnically cleanse Tibetans.

China, for its part, pledged to "resolutely crush" those people. Within days, it launched a fresh military campaign in the region. It kicked out journalists and declared no quarter on religious figures.

Anyway, a generation later, as a reward for Chinese progress and a concession that China has established itself as a modern global player, it gets to host the Olympics!

Irony in such high doses should be fatal.

Hey! I found a difference or two...

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 »

still getting info off speakout.com

would love any other links or information anyone has on Clinton.   Read More »

still getting my info from Speakout.com at this point in time...

Love any other links or articles that you know of.   Read More »

again, from speakout.com

for clinton:   Read More »

I swear I'll stop soon... then I'm moving onto the economy.

from speakout.com
For Obama:   Read More »

Who do you think better supports the LGBT community - Obama or Clinton - and why?

A recent discussion I had on this topic is below...   Read More »

again... been talking with a lot of people and just started this conversation...any thoughts anyone?

ME:

I think Obama v. McCain will be focused on McCain avoiding racist remarks and a lot of smiling from Obama.

I think Obama can probably beat McCain as a result.

I think Clinton v. McCain will be focused on McCain's constant aggression trying to trip Clinton up and Clinton effectively pointing out all the flaws in McCain's logic and rhetoric.

I think Clinton can probably beat McCain as a result.   Read More »

Okay, I left for almost a month because I don't like the fact that these blogs are set up in such a way that people get to have their say for a response, but very little is ever seen of the debate thereafter. As a result of a new post to me from D. Tree I need to have the opportunity for others to see my response... and I ask you to please read them.

To see the post I am referring to, please go here:

http://www.democrats.org/page/community/post/kmiller/CckX
(titled why not Obama)   Read More »

I have many reasons to not support Barrack Obama.

My reasons aren't the typical "fluffy distractions" that the media and others seem to "lightly" address. It isn't because of Rezko, Michele's "proud to be American" speech, or even the "Rev Wright issue." I have difficulties voting for Obama because of the highly conflicting message his campaign has effectively delivered.

Obama is the candidate for Change. Obama gives Hope back to America. Obama believes in changing politics and doing things differently.   Read More »

So the next batch of the democratic Caucus is coming up this weekend...April 5th to be exact. Anyone who was elected a delegate in the 40th and 42nd Legislative District (which is essentially all of Whatcom Co) are supposed to gather, sign in, say who they wish to vote for, listen to each other try to get elected a delegate for the next convention/caucus, have an opportunity to change their vote, and then listen to Platform Issues for the Democratic Party.

Now I'm writing this post because I'm a democrat and a delegate.

When I caucused in Feb, and was chosen to be a delegate I heard a lot of reasons why I should vote for Obama and why I should vote for Clinton. When the delegates were elected we were told it is our job as delegates to represent the people that elected us.

Here's my dellemia:

I heard: Vote for Obama, the newest poll says he can beat McCain. Vote for Obama, he says he will do things differently and we need something different. Vote for Obama, he has always been against the war. Vote for Obama, he cares about America and equality. Vote for Obama, he'll bring the troops home. Vote for Obama, he believes in fair politics. Vote for Obama, he believes in giving the American people the power to stand up for themselves. Vote for Obama, he won't make you pay for healthcare you can't afford.

I also heard: Vote for Clinton, she has the experience. Vote for Clinton, she does what she says she'll do. Vote for Clinton, she knows how to deal with world leaders and right now we need that. Vote for Clinton, we'll get 16 years of democrats in the white house, 8 Clinton, 8 Obama. Vote for Clinton, she'll fight for equal rights. Vote for Clinton, she believes in woman's rights. Vote for Clinton, she'll give everyone health care. Vote for Clinton, it takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush.

Now my problem is... all the reasons I was given to be a delegate for a candidate have new arguments now. A lot has happened in the political scene since Feb 9th.

Newest polls says Clinton is best for the economy. Newest polls say Clinton can beat McCain in swing states. MI and FL haven't been allowed to vote and Obama says that they agreed to the rules that took away their voice so they should have to live by the rules. Clinton says the votes should count (because the states in question like her). Obama and Clinton don't want to bring the troops HOME they want to redeploy more effectively. Obama has Rev. Wright as a MENTOR which is not really very comforting for those that want peace and equality. Obama's senate record shows he favors African Americans, not equality for all minorities. Clinton has a senate record that shows she made a bad decision to go to war in Iraq. Clinton has a senate record that shows she's always fought for healthcare but has yet to win. Obama has a healthcare plan that a majority of the lobbyists (big decision makers in DC) refuse to support. Obama says he's always been against the war, yet in 2004 he stated in two different press releases that he stood behind the president (because we were already pot committed). Obama says he never trusted the Bush Administration when they reported that Al Queda (sp) was in Iraq... but he trusts them now when they say Al Queda(sp) is in Pakistan and he is willing to go after Al Queda(sp) in Pakistan without the support of the Pakistan government. Clinton says she made a decision based on the information she had (and she voted WITH the American people) when she agreed to the Iraq war. Clinton also says she wants to be certain of the information being accurate before she makes any aggressive moves in Pakistan or anywhere else.

I'm so confused.

The people that elected me to be a delegate gave me reasons that are no longer accurate. Does that mean I change my vote to match the reasons they gave me?

Or does that mean I vote as I was elected, and fall back claiming my hands were tied?

The Whatcom Democrats say it is my job to make the decision to vote according to the people. They also say I shouldn't stab the people that elected me in the back.

This is very conflicting... can anyone give me some insight?

Every week there is at least one article --- Obama beats Clinton in new poll... Clinton trails Obama against McCain in new poll... Clinton beats Obama in new poll on economy....Obama beats Clinton in new poll on war...

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 »

This is an urgent call for an end to the bitter infighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and for serious reconsideration by some of their supporters who vow to vote for McCain in the general election if their favorite Democratic presidential candidate--Clinton *or* Obama--loses the Democratic presidential nomination.

It is very important that all Democrats--whether they are Obama *or* Clinton supporters--remember that both Clinton *and* Obama would make an excellent president who would put an end to Republican warmongering while realistically and effectively addressing and resolving the serious domestic crises confronting our nation, to the betterment of not only our nation and our fellow Americans, but ourselves as well.   Read More »

Another discussion about Obama and his views on Iraq

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obama_and_iraq.html   Read More »

If Obama says the run between Clinton and himself isn't about race... and the supporters agree with him (see their attack against Ferraro)...

Then why would Obama have EVER said this... or even eluded to it?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/43/

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 Act

Title: 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 Act

Title: 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.162

Calls 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 Act

Title: 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.485

Title: 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 Act

Title: 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 2007

Title: 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 Act

Title: 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.