I am trying to figure out what the role is of the alternates that were elected at the county caucus. I know that they went from the county to the Legislative district caucus. I know at the LD caucus the alternates helped elected the delegates/alternates for the NATIONAL convention. I know that the delegates and alternates from the county caucus are supposed to attend the State Convention.

I think the role of the alternates at this point is non existent. I've read about the election process at the state convention and it reads like those that were elected at the LD to go onto national will be the delegates that vote on the platforms and elect the AT LARGE delegates to go onto the National Convention.

Therefore I can't for the life of me figure out why any of the delegates and alternates that were elected at the county level should be going to the state convention.

Does anyone know anything that can help?

Thanks

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... 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 »

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 »

Another discussion about Obama and his views on Iraq

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

An older article worth sharing if you haven't seen it...

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.

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=11&c=16

the above link lists some very general info, but if you haven't seen it, you should probably give it a look.

Okay... um excuse me... but, um.

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

It is easy for emotions to get out of control and our beliefs in one candidate over another can cause us to say things that damage our candidate or even party far more than it helps our arguement.

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

On a different site, I had someone ask...

If it weren't a woman or a black man running, would we be breaking voter turn out records? Would we still care about this election?

.........

I thought it was a good question and well, I want to share my response and see what everyone here thinks.   Read More »

Look - I hate to say this ...

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?

I was just looking at this site

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html

and I a little "detail" caught my eye. Many states haven't actually assigned the delegates yet. They will assign them at the state convention. That means the percentages for Obama and for Clinton could change.

I strongly encourage everyone to stay in touch with their elected delegates in these states. Keep your elected delegate aware of your vote and help make sure they continue to represent the votes of the people.

The last thing anyone would want is their delegate suddenly switching teams and voting for the other candidate, right?

or maybe you've changed your mind, maybe you were a Clinton supporter and now you want Obama... or maybe you were Obama and now you want Clinton...

In a race as close as this one, everything is constantly changing. It is even more important that - if you have an "undecided" delegate, or a delegate for a candidate no longer running, you need to let them know where your vote lies and help them make a decision.

It's not too late - stay in touch with your delegate and get the word out. It's too close to assume anything.

I'm going to take a page from Obama's book and copy "democrat in Los Angeles" to say I agree with what they shared, and it was an important link... but i'm going to go a little deeper.

Obama joined the Senate Jan 2005, here is what his site shows for his Iraq stance and what he has done about it.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/


Clinton has been there far longer - which is why she was there to vote "incorrectly" in the Fall of 2002. Here is what her site shows about her stance on Iraq and what she has done about it.

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

For those of you against WAR in general, I encourage you to look at the two candidates and what they have done for Afghanistan.

I also encourage you to compare what they have done for the families of war fatalities and for the care of those that have returned from their duty abroad.

(no i did not put those links up)

FEAR TACTICS-
The Republicans have jammed fear down our throats for 8 years, it is why we are at war. It is why Obama is willing to go into Pakistan (if Pakistan won't do it themselves) without permission to get rid of Al Qaida. It is why the American People believe Al Qaida is out to get us. It is why congress allowed The Patriot Act to pass. Shame! Shame! Shame on Clinton for using FEAR tactics!

This message says something different to me.

-------------------
History:
When 9-11 happened, Bush didn't and couldn't respond right away. When Katrina happened he waited days before making a comment or visiting.

I was abandoned by Bush's lack of response - lack of concern.

Present:
On Super Tuesday, when tornados were hitting the Midwest, Clinton responded in her speeches that SAME night. Clinton thanked the voters for battling the storm and gave understanding and sympathy to those who lost homes and loved ones. It took until Wednesday for Obama to notice.

I was abandoned by Obama's lack of compassion on Super Tuesday.

When the motorcycle driver in Clinton's motorcade was killed, Clinton stopped campaigning right away to be with his family.

I was insulted by Obama's supporters' cold and hateful remarks about Clinton's reasons for leaving the campaign trail.
---------------------

It isn't fear that makes me want to know who is answering that call at 3 am�
It's compassion and the belief that America deserves better.


Have a Heart - Clinton '08

Since I didn't copy the link correctly, I'm going to post the entire article but it came from CNN politicalticker.

It says McCain is statistically tied with Obama and that he has a clear lead over Clinton. I personally don't understand the math. A plus or minus 3 percent means McCain and Obama could just as easily be McCain 47% and Obama 39%... It also means they could be McCain 41% McCain and 45%.

To me that shows it could go either way.

For McCain and Clinton it could just as easily mean McCain 43% and Clinton 43% or it could mean McCain 49% and Clinton 37%. Which to me shows McCain may have a stronger lead but it is stil unclear.

Another thing I find interesting is the percentages match up exactly. In the Obama and McCain vs the Clinton and McCain you get a total of 86% --- that leaves 14% unaccounted for which is more than enough to put any of the candidates far ahead of the others.

So all these statistics mean to me is that it is a tight race AND that until a dem is choosen the dem party will be split on how to answer this question when they are polled.

As for the other statistics, these are more informative. With overall approval we again see that Clinton and Obama are close but the part that gets confusing is the next paragraph.

MCCAIN HAS AN ADVANTAGE ON THE TOPIC OF IRAQ. --- Okay now there is a problem. I ask everyone, why do you think that is? (I have answers of my own and I'll start a different post for that)

CLINTON HAS A 19 POINT ADVANTAGE ON OBAMA OVER THE ECONOMY --- wow, that's interesting too. Of course I agree with this, but I'm a Clinton fan, but I didn't realize so many Obama fans agreed with this (and yes, statistically, they'd have to for her to have that great of a lead)

Yet despite Obama trailing McCain in popularity, trailing McCain on the topic of Iraq, and trailing Clinton so GREATLY on the topic of the economy, he still has a 6% (+/-3%) advantage over Clinton... Which by the way means if you take 3% from Obama and give 3% to Clinton... THEY ARE TIED!

I ask - beg -
If you are going to follow the polls, read them carefully. This race isn't over yet, it is just the beginning.


----click extended for the article----   Read More »

Attention Senator Obama,

I am a delegate for Senator Clinton. I have made a commitment to my precinct to vote for Senator Clinton. I stand firmly behind that commitment.

However...

I will change my pledge and I will vote for you if you do one thing for me. Just one.


Remember a long time ago when Biden said you were "articulate" and it was reported as a racial slur? Have you noticed that since that point everyone works very hard to prevent from saying anything that could possibly be perceived as racist during their campaign?

Well, I ask you, beg you really... stop this never ending discussion about Racism vs Sexism. You have the power. All you have to do is stand up and speak out to the media and to your supporters and demand equality. Stand up against them and demand they stop dropping remarks that might possibly be perceived as sexist.

No more - "get back in the kitchen" - no more "beat that bitch" - no more "mood swing" remarks.

If you, Mr Senator Obama - with all your power and all your support for equal rights would do this for me. I would abandon my people and give you my vote.

Heck I'll even cash in my retirement and donate it to your campaign.

I'll do anything you ask... but will you do just this one thing?

Sincerely
A Clinton Delegate

Clinton has said:

On my first day in office, I will announce, as I have repeatedly in this campaign, that the era of cowboy diplomacy is over. That includes the doctrine of pre-emptive war. I have been against that for many years. I believe it led us into a blind alley and I don't think I need to remind the retired flag officers here today how difficult the choices made by the president have been for American military. We need a new national military strategy that employs military power wisely instead of squandering it.

That requires us to begin to bring out troops home from Iraq within 60 days of the new president taking office. I believe we can redeploy one to two brigades a month but I also believe it will be dangerous. There's been a lot of talk about withdrawal and redeployment and I think it needs to be put into an appropriate context.   Read More »