4th LD Washington State

WA State democratic convention help

BJM — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:30:32 EDT

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

LGBT - Obama/Clinton - I found a difference

BJM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:57:08 EDT

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

The Beginning of the Economy - Clinton

BJM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:11:01 EDT

still getting info off speakout.com

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

The Beginning of the Economy - Obama

BJM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 19:02:10 EDT

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

Love any other links or articles that you know of.

LGBT again - Clinton

BJM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:48:46 EDT

again, from speakout.com

for clinton:

LGBT again - Obama

BJM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:40:33 EDT

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

from speakout.com
For Obama:

A debate with McCain

BJM — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:11:30 EDT

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.

Next Round of Caucus Help

BJM — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 14:33:51 EDT

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?

Just how close is it?

BJM — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:42:28 EDT

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.

more on Iraq

BJM — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:44:13 EDT

Another discussion about Obama and his views on Iraq

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

Abortion - Obama vs Clinton

BJM — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:21:10 EDT

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.

Obama / Clinton re: Iraq

BJM — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:46:38 EDT

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.

Come'on Baby, Let's do the Twist!

BJM — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:00:10 EDT

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

Two Traveling Troupe Excursions

Brian A. Sayrs — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:03:30 EDT

The Traveling Troupe had a great day on Saturday, April 21, 2007, and I'd like to tell you a little bit about our first two (ever!) Recruitment Excursions.