OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT

Your Tax Dollars at Work in the Middle East: Palestinians Forced from East Jerusalem Homes by Israeli Settlers Despite US Protests

Mark C. Eades — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 01:04:44 EST

On the night of Nov. 22, a group of Israeli settlers descended on the Jerusalem home of Palestinian resident Fatima al-Daoudi while the owner was away visiting relatives, changing the locks on the gates and putting a metal sheet over an open-air porch built in by the al-Daoudi family in 1948. Although an eviction order was obtained by the al-Daoudi family and the settlers removed, the order was only temporary and the settlers are expected to return, eventually to stay as the al-Daoudi family is forced to seek housing elsewhere. Residents of the same house since 1930, the al-Daoudi family now faces the prospect of joining the many other Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who, like those in the neighboring West Bank, have been turned into homeless refugees by expanding Israeli settlements (PNN).

Despite US and international protests, a similar fate recently befell the family of Mohammed al-Kurd and his wife Fawzieh, residents of their East Jerusalem home since 1956. Evicted in a pre-dawn raid by Israeli police, the al-Kurd family was forced to move into a tent on private land rented from a Palestinian neighbor while Israeli settlers moved into their home of more than fifty years. Israeli harassment against the family continued, however, including repeated demolition of the tent in which they had been forced to live despite its location on private Palestinian land. To make matters worse, Mr. al-Kurd suffered from complications related to diabetes, of which he finally passed away on Nov. 23. As Mrs. al-Kurd, her children, and her grandchildren mourn Mr. al-Kurd's death, the family's future remains in question (PNN, BBC, AFP, Haaretz, AIC).

As Haaretz reported prior to the al-Kurds' eviction from their home, the US filed an official protest with Israel for acts against Palestinians including the eviction of the al-Kurd family and harassment of Palestinian residents by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The US complaint was obviously ignored. Such complaints from US officials including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have grown more frequent in recent months according to a separate Haaretz report, drawing the ire of some Israeli officials, who suggest the US is meddling in local affairs that are none of its business. Despite overriding US concern for Israeli interests and massive US aid to Israel, it would seem that the Israelis have little regard for US and international opinion on the human rights of Palestinians. Billions of your tax dollars go to Israel each year, yet even the most restrained US complaints against settlement expansion and abuse of Palestinians go ignored by those who are supposedly America's best friends and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Meanwhile, anger toward both Israel and America festers throughout the Arab world.

President-elect Obama has told us that "the time for change has come." Has the time come for this long, sad state of affairs to change?

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Democrats: Help Defeat Saxby Chambliss and Build Senate Majority

Mark C. Eades — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:56:51 EST

After our stunning Election Day sweep of the White House and Congress, Democrats still have one remaining opportunity to finish 2008 with a win. Even as Senate races pending recounts in Minnesota and Alaska hang in the balance favoring Democrats, one Senate runoff in Georgia remains offering Democrats the possibility of a 60% majority in the upper house of Congress. Recent polls show the Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss (pictured on left) holding a narrow lead over Democratic challenger Jim Martin (pictured on right) with just two weeks to go until the Dec. 2 runoff.

Chambliss remains infamous for his attacks on Democratic opponent Max Cleland in 2002, including an ad showing pictures of disabled Vietnam veteran Cleland along with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, suggesting dishonestly that Cleland would allow terrorists like those who struck America on 9/11 to strike America again. Chambliss' GOP colleague John McCain called the ad "reprehensible" and "worse than disgraceful" for its attack on the patriotism of a man who lost three limbs fighting for the United States in Vietnam. Ever ready to flip on previously-held principles, however, McCain appears to have forgiven Chambliss for his attack on McCain's fellow Vietnam veteran, and is currently campaigning for Chambliss in Georgia. A noted chicken-hawk, Chambliss avoided service in Vietnam with five student deferments and a medical deferment for a "football knee."

Chambliss is also infamous for his remark, shortly following the 9/11 attacks, that Georgia ought to "arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line."

This year, Chambliss took to race-baiting in the effort to stem a Democratic tide in Georgia that threatened both to unseat Chambliss himself and to deliver the state's electoral votes for Barack Obama. As in other Deep South states, Democratic voters in Georgia are largely African American while white voters tend strongly to vote Republican. Unlike in other regions of the United States this year, white voters in the Deep South broke even more strongly Republican this year than in previous years, owing to racial antipathy toward Obama. Meanwhile, African American voters in Georgia turned out in massive numbers for Obama, producing an electoral result strongly divided along racial lines, and holding McCain's ultimate Georgia victory to a relatively narrow 5.2 percentage points.

Fearing the loss both of his own Senate seat and of his state to the Democrats owing to heavy African American voter turnout, Chambliss not-so-subtly warned his conservative white base of this on more than one occasion as a way of getting them to the polls. In one instance during early voting in Georgia featuring huge African American turnout as expected, Politico quotes Chambliss telling his white supporters that "the other folks are voting" as a warning that they too had better get out and vote. In another instance, Chambliss told the New York Times that the "rush to the polls by African-Americans" in Georgia "has also got our side energized, [because] they see what is happening." Finally, after failing on Nov. 4 to reach the 50% majority required under Georgia law to avoid a runoff, Chambliss again referred in a Fox News interview to the "high percentage of minority vote" this year and the the fact that "we weren’t able to get enough of our folks out on Election Day."

Saxby Chambliss is a liar, a bigot, and a disgrace. In 2001, he openly suggested collective punishment of Muslims for the 9/11 attacks. In 2002, he won his Senate seat by shamefully attacking the patriotism of a disabled veteran in a time of fear shortly following 9/11. This year, he used race-baiting in the attempt to save his own Senate seat and keep Georgia in the Republican column. His Democratic challenger, Jim Martin, is a Vietnam veteran, an accomplished legal scholar, and served for 18 years as a Georgia state legislator. Readers are encouraged to visit Jim Martin's campaign website, to contribute there or at Act Blue to Martin's campaign, to spread the word to other Democrats, and to contact Georgia voters on Martin's behalf.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Please sign this petition to eliminate tax exemptions for churches that lobby for state propositions...

Gretchen — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:15:23 EST

Sign this petition to support the legal effort to amend our tax laws such that the Mormon Church, and other transgressing churches, would lose tax-exempt status if they continue lobbying for state propositions.

http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/#petition

Income Crisis Negative Feedback Loop Accelerating

Ray Pairan — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:29:49 EST

With each cycle of the income crisis negative feedback loop an accelerating economic decline moves the global economy spiraling downwards into an abyss that will eventually end in total economic collapse. Systemic declining real wages starting over 40 years ago has laid the fragile foundation that fed a continuing drop in consumption when credit could no longer be a sustainable proxy for income among low to middle wage earners. Even if credit was suddenly available - average Americans are already highly over leveraged. These factors triggered a negative feedback loop of declining real income available to 95% of the citizenry, falling consumption directly proportional to falling incomes, and declining business revenue accompanied by job lay-offs & retail price declines (deflation) all completing each successive feedback loop cycle. All along the course of the feedback loop cycle theses effects oscillate across the general economy in a continual downward slope of economic decline that translates into falling GDP and national capital stock destruction that occurs at an ever increasing exponential rate.

Reversing an income crisis 'drain spiral' becomes more difficult with the passage of time since unemployment and capital stock destruction exponentially increases across a number of income crisis negative feedback loop cycles. The longer a government waits to enact substantial fiscal stimulus targeted at low to middle income citizens the more and more 'income emaciated' these citizens become thus making it much more difficult to push the entire economy up out of the income crisis spiral.

Eventually, the nation's capital stock becomes so inconsequential from an economic perspective and the number of citizens who are unemployed so numerous that the government becomes the sole income generating agent (presumes the government has infused the economy with insufficient fiscal stimulus and/or is still making government expenditures into the private sector) in an extinct standalone private economy that has reached the terminus in an income crisis deflationary economic spiral.

Reaching the terminus point is a foregone conclusion without substantial (10% of GDP) government fiscal stimulation of the 'real' economy. At this terminus point economic activity in the country has been completely extinguished from successive negative feedback cycles down economic gradients with ever accelerating declines in GDP and national capital stock destruction.

Infusing the supply side (financial sector - or top of the pyramid) with government bailout capital will do absolutely nothing (covered in many of my previous essays) to get the 'consumption engine' of an 'income starved' economy running again. Effectively, there is no substitute for bold decisive action on the part of government policy makers in implementing a substantial fiscal stimulus program that immediately creates sufficient stable employment (not a token number of jobs) at a sustainable higher tier private sector wage rate. This must be immediately followed up with rebuilding the nation's capital stock to pre-income crisis levels through infrastructure investment in an industrial base that lends itself towards taking advantage of a nation's competitive advantage in multiple areas. In the case of the United States it has been determined that long term stimulus investments (substantial) that target the creation of a 'Green Industry' sector would have the potential of employing millions of Americans across all professions within two main program branches comprised of manufacturing and delivery. Subsidiary industries would also be created either directly through government and/or private sector capital infusions that would ultimately employ a cross section of every professional occupation group that has been placed on the unemployment rolls during this income crisis.

The global community has so little time left in which to act decisively. We are racing ever faster with each passing day down a cold dark abyss towards the terminus of economic collapse. We must act now, not later.

Posted on my blog 11/5/2008 at:
http://structuraleconissues.blogspot.com/

An Interconnected Community View of Economics

Ray Pairan — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 22:16:48 EST

It's impossible to conclude that our economic environment is not subject to the same diversity that comprises our natural environment. Given that an economy is a subset of the society that wrests itself from an unforgiving natural world riddled with chaos, why do some branches of economic thought continue to rationalize humankinds pecuniary endeavors down to neat tightly, clean, predictable outcomes. The structure of an economic system must reflect the multifaceted and diverse characteristics of the world in which it operates - a world of varying personalities all interacting in incoherent ways.

Our universe is not clean and orderly it-s very, very messy - nothing ever seems to work out according to the best conceived plans. It is therefore imperative that we not endeavor to extend our subconscious world view of tidy, neatly trimmed 'lawns' to any natural substrate in the living breathing messy struggle for life. There are no 'lawns' of perfectly crafted conception in nature so why extend the improbable to a natural world substrate? A prairie ecosystem is full of tall grass of varying varieties, riddled with ground squirrel holes, snakes in some regions, muck, and a variety of wildlife not allowed to intrude into our comfortable neat complacent checkerboard communities. But the interaction between the two does result in changes that affect both.

Similarly, our economic system must reflect the realities or 'ground truth' inherent in the natural environment, societal structure, and impractical, irrational interspersed behavior of the human substrate. So why continue to refine any economic model based upon illusion by further perturbing an already tumultuous society by injecting policies that don't align with any existing observable dynamic?

Over the past few years we've been led to believe that the Laissez-faire neoclassical economic realm of illusory conceptualization would translate into this wonderful world guided by some 'invisible hand'. Ours would be a service sector oriented economy never again requiring the utilization of dirty hands, and strong muscles. Every citizen would magically be endowed with all the necessary intellect, desire, and personality to expand the service sector into the preeminent sector of employment. There was just one problem with the distorted nation state competitive advantage simplistic view of our globe - it still left a substantial segment of our population underemployed, and unemployed because they just didn't fit into the special mold of a service sector laborer.

Expanding the concept of competitive advantage outside of its original boundaries centered in a particular industry was just another attempt to mold reality (only perceptually achievable by propaganda) to fit illusion. Over the past few decades we've been deluding ourselves into thinking that a viable economy can function stripped of its manufacturing sector. It has become abundantly evident that an economic system crafted for the benefit of the larger community cannot operate solely as a service sector economy devoid of a sustainable manufacturing base.

Competitive advantage must mold both the service sector and manufacturing components across industry segments that are jealousy defended by national policies within a completely economically integrated world. No economy can be sustained under just one of these core economic components they both must be merged together in order to achieve some semblance of economic and societal sustainability & stability.

We have witnessed the effective subversion of an already inherently unsustainable service sector nation-state competitive advantage model into something contrived and contorted beyond its illusory construct. Perpetuated by the 'information age' propagandists we were led to believe that an economy could be solely built upon a technologically oriented service sector. Factories were no longer needed within an economy based solely upon intellectual labor. The problems with this early nation-state competitive advantage centered model were three fold. First, it was myopically constrained to a nation-state centric advantage that never expanded across borders. Secondly, it failed to account for the unpredictable effects of human behavior within a tumultuous greed enhanced global society. Thirdly, as already conveyed, the competitive advantage of a technologically oriented service sector was too broad in scope to be maintained at the nation-state level.

But what mutated from this touted elegant distortion of reality was driven by the second factor, the uncontrollable greed educed by Laissez-faire religious tenants that encouraged human behavior contrary to the maintenance of sustainable and stable communities. Any behavior was permissible in the corruptly focused short-term greed addicted behavioral state. What evolved was a belief system built around the individual to the exclusion of the community a credo that any means was justified even the 'slash and burn' pillage of entire nation-states to fulfill the unquenchable desires of the few wealthy elite. Labor arbitrage became the 'club' of choice wielded by the 'strong arms' of an army of mercenary lobbyists fielded to sustain the wealthy fiefdom's ability to exploit workers by any means imaginable.

With so many interconnected messy threads weaving throughout our society, class consciousness, across unique behavioral responses to stimuli, and the turbulent at times dangerous physical world we inhabit it is abundantly clear that any economic theories must be conceived in the forge of reality. It is a reality that recognizes a simple requirement of all human beings - fairness. Without fairness or some form of equity, infused with equality the best conceived seemingly realistic policies will be nothing more than distorted illusion cloaked in a thin veil of reality. Human beings are very adept at perceiving whether certain aspects of their societal framework is fair, or slanted towards the interests of those ultimately in control. No amount of 'packaging' will deceive a community of citizens over the 'long haul' - this is aptly reflected in the current rejection by the general populous of the trickle down supply-side greed based economics benefiting the few practiced over the last few years.

Quakers believe that we are all our brothers keeper, that when we act in the best interests of our fellow human beings we serve the better interests of our communities. Thus, realizing that in order for a sustainable, stable economy to transpire we need to include everyone; those who desire or are suited to work in a vibrant manufacturing component, others who excel in a service sector intellectual or assistance driven component, and those who must be cared for by a compassionate community (government) because their unable to survive in either component of a competitively oriented sector of our economy. It is also important to integrate our nation-state economies into an 'International Economic Congress' whereby the interests of Capital (businesses) and Labor can be democratically resolved, and a coordinated oversight of all economically related endeavors can be achieved for the betterment of the entire global community. We are on the cusp of an appreciation that transcends any past global paradigm shift - our movement towards a sustainable, stable world community is very achievable. Let's make it happen.

Originally posted on my blog at:
http://structuraleconissues.blogspot.com/

My Campaign Bag....

Lee — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:22:03 EST

Here is a pic of my campaign bag...My Campaign Bag

Defeated Republicans Lick Their Wounds and Debate Comeback Strategy

Mark C. Eades — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:21:13 EST

Still reeling from the punishing defeat handed to them by victorious Democrats on Election Day, Republicans are licking their wounds and debating their strategy for a comeback. As Democrats and progressives celebrate our hard-won victory, we should also be keeping an eye on our vanquished opponents and preparing to remain on the offensive against them, whatever comeback road they attempt to pursue. For the sake of the future, we cannot allow a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.

Most observers see two major possibilities for the GOP. One is that the party could stick with its rural, white, ultra-conservative base and become the party of the far right, thus alienating moderates, independents, and swing voters, many of whom would likely migrate to the Democratic Party and join the ranks of conservative-leaning "Blue Dogs" like Virginia senator Jim Webb. The other possibility is that the GOP could move toward a more moderate and less ideological, center-right position that could make it more attractive to independents and swing voters but at the same time would tend to alienate the conservative base. Neither is an exceedingly attractive option for the GOP, since either would likely result in the loss of one or another key Republican voting block. The electoral success of Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II depended upon a united Republican coalition of social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, defense hawks, and "Reagan Democrats." That coalition has now fallen apart.

I personally hope the Republicans will take the former choice, stick with their demented base, and become a far-right fringe party doomed to increasing irrelevance as old bigots die off and their children discard the prejudices, fears, and hatreds of the past. This is what may well happen if far-right blowhards like Rush Limbaugh have their way, warning their shell-shocked followers now against a moderate takeover of the GOP led by once-and-future-maverick John McCain and other hands-across-the-aisle types, whose ranks will seek to purge the party of "real conservatives" like Sarah Palin and those who identify with her. Never exceedingly popular among those on the far right, McCain is already being branded a defeatist and a traitor by the Limbaugh-Palin crowd, who are incensed by the attacks on Palin now coming from within the McCain camp itself, and who increasingly regret that McCain was ever nominated even as they are in his debt for giving them "their Sarah." Meanwhile, angry dittoheads at RedState.com have launched a bitter assault on Palin's Republican critics called "Operation Leper," and appear poised to advocate for Palin as a presidential candidate for 2012 and/or 2016. Perhaps we will see a full-fledged Palin faction form within the Republican Party in opposition to the forces of Republican moderation, leading to an all-out faction fight and perhaps even a split in the party. I sincerely hope so.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans choose the path of moderation, returning perhaps to the GOP of Eisenhower and Goldwater, our work could be a little more difficult. This possibility highlights the importance of maintaining the center-to-left coalition that enabled us to win in 2006 and 2008 just as their center-to-right coalition enabled Republicans to win in 1980, 1994, and 2000, as it raises the risk of swing voters swinging back to the Republican side if they are not happy with the job Democrats are doing in Washington. Those of us such as myself who are on the Left of the Democratic Party will have to balance our expectation of having a place at the table with the realization that the rest of the country isn't with us just yet. At least in the near term, the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress will have to govern more-or-less from the center, and at the same time will have to prove that they are more capable of governing the country effectively than their opponents. Given the dominance of the far-right in today's GOP and its dependence on the conservative base, however, owing in part to the fact that so many moderate Republicans have either left the party or been voted out of office, I wonder how realistic or likely a route this second option actually is. I could be wrong, but I suspect hopefully that our opponents will remain in the funk they are currently in for quite some time to come.

Whatever course they may ulimately choose to take, our task as Democrats is to stop any GOP comeback dead in its tracks before it even starts. Democrats must remain on the offensive and must remain focused on solidifying and building our congressional majority in 2010, re-electing President Obama in 2012, and putting another Democrat in the White House in 2016. We must aggressively go after not only Republican congressional seats but also state and local offices nationwide. Grassroots Democratic organizing, voter registration, fundraising, and media activism are key to this, as is maintaining a strong center-to-left coalition through effective, balanced governance. We must demonstrate to the Republicans that they are dealing with a new, much tougher, much more aggressive and effective Democratic Party: a Democratic Party that won't be so easy to kick around as in the past, a Democratic Party whose days of whining about mean old swiftboating Republicans are over.

If we are to avoid a repeat of the last eight years or something even worse, no Republican comeback can ever be allowed to happen.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

We did it! ...Part 2

Lee — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:03:27 EST

I attempted a copy and paste to 'We did it!' forgetting that I did the body of the message first and the signature second...so, here is the body of the message I intended to have in 'We did it!'.

We did it!

Barack stepped up and asked for our help and we answered the call. I am so happy that this campaign has succeeded …this movement, as Bill Schneider of CNN put it. This movement has opened up a dialogue among people who held similar views and concerns who were not speaking to each other. We united and spoke not only to each other, but also to those who tried to suppress our voices. But the work (and we have put in so much work already) has only just begun. There is so much to work on…

 The Economy
 Fix our crumbling infrastructure
 Quality healthcare for all
 Ending outsourcing of jobs
 Ending our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general
 Development and implementation of truly alternative energy sources-solar, wind, hydro and biofuel
 Working on global warming
 Improving our image abroad-engaging in diplomacy…not unilateral military action…getting out of Iraq…targeting real terrorism
 More fairness in the tax burden to all
 Revoke the PATRIOT Act and restore privacy

These issues/priorities are all interrelated. The economy can not stay balanced when you cut the revenue coming in and increase spending at the same time. The incursion into Iraq is costing $10 to $12 billion a month and this does not count Afghanistan or the $$$ sent to terrorist nation for oil imports. The threat of terrorism, increase in global warming and its terrible impact on all of us (the world) is heightened due to our reliance on fossil fuels. Development and implementation of truly alternative energy lessens the effects of global warming, lowers the threat of terrorism, and helps to create jobs here that will help our economy. Fixing our crumbling infrastructure helps us to live better and safer and again, provides jobs. We can not continue to have jobs outsourced to other countries because it is cheaper for the corporations without regard for the citizens of this country. Also, large corporations and the truly wealthy need to pay their fair share of taxes and not put the burden on the faltering middle class and middle income folks. Quality healthcare for all…it makes for a better quality of life, we are happier and healthier and able to do more. We feel less threatened and more secure. If all of this can be accomplished, then our government will not need to spy on and keep such close tabs on us citizens. We will be happier, more secure and less afraid.

For the first time in a long time, I am proud to be a citizen of the United States of America and am PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!

We did it!

Lee — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:54:20 EST

Lee ;-)((fist bump))
I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington...I'm asking you to believe in yours.-Barack Obama

Obama did it!

Lee — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:29:56 EST

What can I say? I voted for Obama and then practically held my breath as the results came in. I watched with 2 friends and we had major sugar highs...we ate candy pumpkins every time Obama won a state...and also, when a new Dem senator was announced. I do not want to look at candy for the rest of the week!!! Of course, I am still wondering about Al Franken in Minn....that race is so close. I watched everything and went to bed late...I am so tired....but so happy and relieved. I think we have a chance to really change and fix this country...our economy...and achieve real peace and more fairness in the world.

Only the Beginning: Obama's Historic Victory and the Road Ahead

Mark C. Eades — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:40:54 EST

For Democrats, Barack Obama's stunning victory last night over John McCain brought a seemingly endless and often bitter presidential campaign battle to a welcome end. Obama's victory came as cause for relief and for celebration, as did Democratic gains in the Senate and the House of Representatives. When our first African American president takes office in January, Democrats will enjoy a position of authority in Washington we have not held since a brief period from 1992 to 1994. Many progressives are saying now that the era of conservative dominance in America beginning with the rise of the "New Right" in the 1970s and the Reagan victory in 1980 has now come at last to an end, that the long Republican nightmare is over, and I too am hopeful that this is so. While we celebrate and look ahead to the Obama Era, however, we should also remember that just as power can be won so it can also be lost, as it was in 1980, 1994, and 2000.

Each end is also a beginning; and so the end of Campaign 2008 and the end of Republican rule is also the beginning of something, but of what? Are we at the doorstep of a bold new progressive age that begins with Obama and extends into infinity, or of another brief Democratic reign to end again with a bitter Republican resurgence? Now that we have successfully driven the Republicans from power, how do we keep them from coming back, as we know we must if we are to avoid a repeat of the past eight years? A Republican resurgence would be a disaster, not only for Democrats and progressives, but for America and the world. The Karl Roves and Dick Cheneys of the world are not going anywhere. They will simply retreat to their think tanks and begin cooking up plans to retake power, just as they did during the Clinton years. Their success must be prevented by any and all means at our disposal.

While progressives will surely have a place at the table in the new administration, we cannot expect that the Left will or should dominate the Obama agenda at least in the near term. I would consider myself to be well on the Left of the Democratic Party, and I'm happy that progressives will have a voice in the new administration, but I feel pretty certain that Obama will have to govern more-or-less from the center if he is to avoid creating a whole new generation of "Reagan Democrats." I am hopeful that it may now be possible for progressives not simply to move the government to the left but to actually move the country to the left, and to create a new progressive America free of the politics of Reagan and Bush. In order for this to happen, however, Democrats in Washington will first have to prove themselves capable of governing the country effectively and satisfactorily in the eyes of their constituents. Once conservative-leaning, "soft" Democrats see that liberals aren't so bad after all, they will be much more likely to elect Democrats to Congress in 2010, to re-elect President Obama in 2012, to put another Democrat in the White House in 2016, and to listen to progressive ideas in the meantime with an open mind. While Democrats in Washington focus on effective governance, they and Democratic activists including us in the netroots must also focus on maintaining the gains we have made and on making further gains in election cycles to come. We cannot afford a repeat of 1980, 1994, or 2000.

Meanwhile, a whole new generation of first-time Democratic voters has been brought into the electorate, and this new Democratic base must be maintained and built at a grassroots level. Because of a far less reliable base of Democratic voters in previous elections, a hardcore Republican base of social conservatives, neo-cons, bigots, and xenophobes was allowed to dominate American politics for the better part of thirty years. This can never be allowed to happen again. Republicans who cannot be persuaded to go Democratic must be isolated and outvoted. In the immediate term, this means building a broad new Democratic base that includes centrists and even moderate conservatives in addition to progressives and the Left: not an easy task. The brilliant success of the Obama campaign in doing precisely that, however, can be credited in great part to Obama's experience as a community organizer in Chicago - experience that will serve the Democratic Party's organizing efforts well in the years to come.

Indeed if anyone is up the difficult tasks which surely lie ahead, I think it is our new president-elect. Throughout his campaign, he has shown himself to be a steady, focused, and disciplined political leader: not bad traits if one wishes to be an effective and successful president. More importantly, Obama possesses clear vision and a spirit of idealism that could not contrast more with the cynicism of the era that has just ended. He also possesses a strong, committed base of grassroots support that is ready for the battles to come. I for one look forward with hope and confidence to the road ahead.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Will be in D.C. for Inauguration Day!!

Gretchen — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:18:55 EST

I booked my tickets and hotel for January 19-25th-- Am taking my daughter! Would love to meet up with others from my PB "family"...

I knew it was going to be a LANDSLIDE!!! Now let us CELEBRATE!!!!

Repeat after me...

VTDem — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:48:21 EST

Dear John & Sarah and the GOP,

Repeat after me...

I will never again Mock Community Organizers...

I will never again try to scare people into voting for me...

OBAMA/BIDEN 08-12!!!

Voting for McCain in 2008 is Like Voting for Nixon in 1960

Mark C. Eades — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:31:03 EST

If like me you are not old enough to have voted in 1960, or if you are old enough and voted for John F. Kennedy as you should have, try and imagine how it would feel if you had voted for Richard Nixon instead.

Imagine watching Kennedy's rise, in life and in death, to take his place among America's greatest presidents, knowing that you could have voted for him but didn't; and imagine then watching Nixon's descent to take his place among the worst, knowing that you voted for him perhaps not just once but two or even three times.

Imagine watching the secret bombing of Cambodia revealed, watching the sad tale of Watergate unfold, and watching Nixon's resignation in disgrace. Imagine looking back from the vantage point of 1974 and thinking of how you might have voted differently in 1960, of how at that pivotal point in time you made an unwise decision and ended up on the wrong side of history.

Now imagine how things might have been if lots more people had made the same mistake as you in 1960 and John F. Kennedy, one of America's greatest presidents, had never been elected. Imagine a world without President Kennedy.

Then, if you can bear repeating such a tragic error in judgment, go ahead and vote for John McCain.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Meeting Barack Obama in Nevada: Henderson Rally, Nov. 1

Mark C. Eades — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:26:31 EST

Four days before Election Day 2008, I drove with a friend from my home in the San Francisco Bay Area to Henderson, Nevada, just outside Las Vegas, for a rally with Barack Obama. We arrived in Las Vegas on the Friday night preceding the Saturday morning event, which also happened to be Halloween. With little else to do before driving out to Henderson to take our places among the first in line for the Obama rally, we did what any other visitor does on a Friday night in Vegas: We went to the Strip. This was of course a strange prelude to the Saturday morning event, as apolitical a beginning to a political weekend as I can imagine. Surprisingly, among the crowds of revelers along the Strip in almost any kind of costume one can imagine, I didn't see a single Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, or Sarah Palin. As always, Vegas seemed to occupy a world entirely its own.

Once we tired of the Strip, we drove the few miles out to Henderson on the southern edge of metropolitan Las Vegas and located the rally site, a local high school football stadium. By two or three o'clock in the morning, dedicated Obama supporters were already taking their places in line at the gate, and we soon took our places among them. I personally had never "camped out" for any kind of event, be it a political rally, rock concert, or movie premiere, but at this event I had no intention of being any further from the front than I had to be. Our diligence paid off, and once the gates were opened we and other early arrivals were able to take places along the rope line in front of a crowd that grew to number around 15,000 (see BarackObama.com, Las Vegas Review-Journal; photos available also at Flickr).

Obama's 25-minute speech contained many of the same points he has made throughout his campaign, but lacked nothing in excitement for being what one might describe as a "standard Obama stump speech" with a little extra dose of urgency just three days before Election Day. Introduced by Nevada's own Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Obama arrived at the podium to wild applause and screams of support, the energy all positive. I couldn't help but take wonder at how the overwhelmingly positive atmosphere at this event contrasted the ugly rage, bitterness, and hate we have all seen on video from McCain/Palin rallies. The one time booing started at the mention of John McCain, Obama reminded the crowd as at other rallies recently, "You don't need to boo. You just need to vote."

In his speech Obama reminded his supporters that the election has yet to be won: "Don't believe for a second this election is over. Don't think for a minute that power concedes. We have to work like our future depends on it in these last few days, because it does. But I know this, Nevada: The time for change has come." As he spoke, the tiny silhouettes of police and/or Secret Service lookouts could be seen atop buildings and other high points around the rally site, just in case anyone should wish to harm the Democratic nominee. Secret Service agents also patrolled the crowd and shared the open space between Obama's stage and the rope line with news photographers taking rapid-fire shots both of Obama up at the podium and of the cheering crowd. A helicopter circled over the rally site, too high to tell whether it was a news helicopter or police.

For us and others at the front of the crowd, the climax of the event came at the close of Obama's speech, as he began to make his way along the rope line to depart. Surrounded by Secret Service agents and rapid-firing news photographers, Obama moved along the rope line shaking hands, kissing babies, and thanking his supporters. The Secret Service agents pushed back against the metal barriers as the crowd surged forward to get a glimpse of Obama or shake his hand. My friend and I suddenly found ourselves with little room to move or even breathe as Obama approached and the crowd pressed in around us, holding their hands out in hopes of getting a handshake with the man they hope will be the next President of United States. We both did get handshakes with Obama when he finally arrived at our place along the rope line, and when my turn came I looked into Obama's face and told him the first thing I could think of to say: "You are going to be a great president." Obama looked back at me and said in all sincerity, "Thank you." Then he was gone.

Finally, as Obama moved away from us along the rope line shaking more hands and kissing more babies, we got a chance also to shake hands with Harry Reid. Having previously shaken hands with Ted Kennedy at an Obama event in Oakland just before the California primary, I can now say with pride that I have shaken hands with three of the people Republicans most love to hate in the world. One of those hands, I hope, will soon be holding the keys to the White House.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Who are the replublicans, what are conservatives?

NJ member — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:52:05 EST

Years ago I could of answered that question, I could of even said I respected some of them, disagreed with them, but respected them. As is evident in the difference between the 2000 and 2008 McCain Campaign and the fact that some are calling Palin the future of that party, the republicans are in the middle of a schism. Once the cry of the party, small government and leave peoples freedoms alone. If it ain't broke do not fix it, seems to no longer apply. Government has gotten much larger over the last 8 years, peoples rights have been trampled and we have stuck our nose somewhere it did not belong and left it there. The republicans used to be known to favor the rich, but they were also competent, at least not completely stupid!!! They were also not as corrupt as they are now.

I no longer know what a conservative is: The rich board room type, very smart but want small government and low taxes. OR

People who celebrate being stupid, denounce science. Speak plainly(poorly) do not know much, but know how to fix a 1984 ford 150 on the weekend. Palin, who clearly knows very little is now there spokes person.

The party is clearly split and the candidates in that party have to appeal to both factions, as can be seen in the McCain campaign.

The next four years will see where the party goes, if it continues to celebrate stupid people and denounce science, it will have more in common with Bin Laden then with the party we once known.

This is a concern for all of us, having multiple political parties is essential to our country and if the republican parties go all Talaban on us it will hurt the country as a whole. The Christian right in this country is just as dangerous as the Muslim right in the middle east if it goes unchecked. Be warned it can happen here!!! It has before (KKK) but the world today lends itself to more dangerous events for those who practice in ignorance and hatred!!!

We will win on Tuesday, but we need to keep an eye on that party and the conservative movement. Sarah Palin will be a good benchmark to watch

New School Teachers and Property Taxes

NJ member — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:18:44 EST

I was looking through the posts and saw one from Mel, normally a troll and most of the response she got reflects that. However, the question does deserve answering and was not truly answered in the post. Yes it is true that the majority of school funding comes from property taxes, however that is not always the case. Both the state and Federal governments can legislate and fund school policies. Public schools only exist as a mandatory institution is a result of a federal degree. States can take over school districts that do not meet guide lines and test scores. If you look at the "no child left behind" law, its federal!!! So yes the federal government can effect the school districts, including funding them without effecting property taxes. One of the largest complaints people have with no child left behind is the law was not fully funded by the Bush administration, it could of been.

This is how the federal government can have a hand in local school districts and how Obama can meet his campaign promise.

It was a simple question with a simple answer

Palling Around with Harmless History Professors: John McCain and Rashid Khalidi

Mark C. Eades — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:06:47 EDT

Following the failure of their "Bill Ayres Strategy" to cause major problems for Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin have stumbled upon a new bogeyman from Obama's past to sow suspicion in voters' minds: Rashid Khalidi, a Middle East history professor at Columbia University, whose ties to the Middle East and the Palestinian exile community include no evidence whatsoever of terrorist activity or support. The McCain/Palin campaign has decided, however, that Khalidi is a shadowy figure with suspicious ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and with whom Barack Obama has a suspicious relationship because the two apparently attended a dinner together and said nice things about each other. I guess that means Obama has been "palling around with terrorists" again.

What John McCain seems to have forgotten, however (in addition to the number of homes he owns), is that he has far deeper ties to Khalidi than Obama has. While he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI) during the 1990s, McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth nearly half a million dollars. A 1998 tax filing for the IRI shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank (see grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS," on page 14 of this PDF.) The relationship between McCain and Khalidi extends back as far as 1993, when McCain joined the IRI as chairman in January. The IRI helped fund several research projects by Khalidi's organization in the Palestinian Territories that year, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes" among Palestinians. Khalidi's organization has also received financial support from the American Academy for Arts and Sciences, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the National Foundation for Democracy, none of which are known for funding terrorist organizations (see Huffington Post, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC).

Rashid Khalidi's only offense is that he has published opinions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict with which strong supporters of Israel might disagree, and with which Barack Obama has in fact expressed disagreement. The right to express opinions with which other people might disagree is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and is a cornerstone of modern higher education - a fact John McCain seems to have forgotten, just as he forgot how many homes he he owns and how many grants he issued to Khalidi's organization back in the '90s.

How many more times must we listen to John McCain and Sarah Palin make sad, desperate attempts to pin other people's words and deeds on Barack Obama? Simply knowing someone doesn't make you responsible for whatever that person might have said or done in the past. Neither Bill Ayres nor Rashid Khalidi are advising Obama, serving on his campaign, or likely to serve in his administration. End of story.

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

Obama's 30 minute Infomercial... Get out your kleenex... as it is Obama at his best...

Gretchen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:04:51 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtREqAmLsoA

Elizabeth Dole uses McCain's ad writer and calls opponent "godless"

Gretchen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:07:42 EDT

Elizabeth Dole calls her opponent, former Sunday school teacher, Kay Haggen "godless" CNN says that the Dole campaign contacted the person who is in charge of McCain's advertising in desperation. This is the ad they came up with: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/dole-ad-fabricates-audio_n_138874.html

Shame on you Elizabeth!!! SHAME ON YOU!!!