Dear Democratic Voter,
They were the three biggest steps towards fairness and equality in 20th century America.
Franklin Roosevelt gave us the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson gave us Medicare and the Civil Rights Act.
But that's only half the story.
The other half is that the historic legislation those presidents signed emerged from Senates that had overwhelming Democratic majorities, far bigger than the narrow one-seat majority we hold today.
In 2008, we must combine taking back the White House with electing a new wave of Democratic senators committed to bringing our troops home from Iraq, universal health care and aggressive action on climate change.
But these momentous changes won't happen unless we get behind the DSCC's efforts to create a gridlock-proof Democratic majority. Helping the DSCC meet their $2.25 million goal ensures that we'll have the money, manpower and voter outreach to triumph on Election Day.
This goal is so important that a group of Democratic senators will match your contribution two-to-one if you give by June 30.
Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to help the DSCC beat its critical second quarter fundraising deadline and put us one step closer to a gridlock-proof Democratic Senate majority.
Strong Democratic Senate majorities are even more important now than they were in the past, because the Republicans have decided they have zero interest in cooperating.
In 2007, the Republican Senate filibustered more bills than any Congress in U.S. history.
They blocked bills that would've repealed egregious tax breaks for oil companies, allowed Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors, and forced President Bush to begin troop withdrawals from Iraq.
The stakes are simply too high for America for this to continue. The DSCC knows how elect Democratic Senators who will create a strong enough Senate majority to overcome even the most strident Republican obstruction.
Supporting the DSCC means you're getting behind a rapid reaction team that knows exactly when and where your money can make the greatest difference. Months before the election in 2006, the DSCC knew the Montana Senate race would be a nail-biter, which is why they set aside almost $3 million for a last-minute push that helped Democrat Jon Tester win by 3,562 votes. That fateful decision cemented Democrats' one-seat Senate majority and that's why your help is so important now. Helping the DSCC beat its second quarter fundraising deadline ensures our Democratic candidates will have everything and anything they need to win on Election Day.
Click here to make a contribution of $50, $75 or more to help the DSCC beat its critical second quarter fundraising deadline and put us one step closer to a gridlock-proof Democratic Senate majority.
The elections that will take place in five short months will be our chance, a rare and historic opportunity to build a Democratic coalition that can truly create a more inclusive, prosperous and just America.
We have no time to waste.
Sincerely,
John Edwards
June 1: The Telegraph, a newspaper published in Britain, reports today that the Obama campaign is in talks with the Hillary Clinton campaign, with an offer to pay her campaign debts when she withdraws from the presidential race next week. Here are a few paragraphs from the article:
"Another Democrat who has discussed strategy with friends in the Obama inner circle said that Mr Obama was openly considering asking Mrs Clinton to join his cabinet, alongside two other former presidential rivals: John Edwards, who is seen as a likely attorney general; and Joe Biden, who is a leading contender to become Secretary of State.
"Informal talks have already begun between Obama and Clinton fundraisers to discuss a merger, enabling Mr Obama to pay off Mrs Clinton's campaign debts of $11 million.
"Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator. "
You can read the whole story in The Telegraph by visiting: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/democrats/2058907/US-Elections-Hillary-Clinton-to-be-offered-dignified-exit.html
Why would a man who proposed a universal healthcare package support a candidate who's healthcare package was not universal? Clearly, because Mr. Edwards has been negotiating with Mr. Obama for months vying for a prime spot on the ticket. When Mr. Edwards saw all his planning and jockying threatened, he spoke up, not to endorse Mr. Obama, but to ensure his political aspirations come to fruition.
Mr. Edwards left me passionless during his many bids for the Executive Office. Now his recent opportunism has turned my bland taste for him sour. What is a good woman like Elizabeth Edwards doing with an Obsequious Igor like John Edwards? If Obama were half the messiah people make him out to be he would hold Edwards to his word- No endorsement until after the voters have made their decision.
On another note the California Supreme court, all justices having been appointed by Republicans, held it unconstitutional to discriminate against gay people who want to get married. They also ordered immediate compliance, from all the departments of the state involved in marriage, especially county clerks, to accomodate these marriages post haste. John McCain has of late been running ads about activist judges, but what he and people like him don't want anyone to know or remember is that those judges he accuses of "activism" have been appointed by right wing Republicans. As Bill Clinton was fond of saying "that dog just won't hunt."
You people in the DNC rules committee better wake up and do the right thing here and not the convenient thing to get your favorite candidate nominated. We all know that the rules committee is dominated by Obama supporters, so there is no possible way that the meeting on the 31st will be fair.
Florida was a fair election and should be awarded to Hillary in proper proportion to her win. Michigan was also a fair election that Obama took his name off of the ballot in! I'm sorry but him taking his name off that ballot meant he did not care about the votes or the voters of Michigan. Neither campaigned in Florida, but it was still the highest voter turnout ever and she won fair and square. So based on that she has more of the popular vote than Obama does and more delegates. She should get all of Michigan's and her fair share of Florida. Anything less is simply handing an unearned nomination to Obama, and that is something I simply can not and will not support.
After 7 years of Bush breaking the law I am not going to turn around and support us doing the same thing to "install" the "feel good" black candidate because young voters think it would be cool, or liberal elites think it's the right thing to do. What have we become if we do this? Throw away the smarter, more electable candidate, in favor of Mr. Charisma with no experience and a "Vision" of America he has yet to share with us?
Wake up Democrats before this party implodes and we lose the White House again! Hillary is on a roll and sore losers like Richardson and Edwards back another man rather than admit a woman beat them. Why is it okay for our party to be this misogynist? And why do Obama supporters always try to paint Democrats who don't support Obama as racist? I don't like where our party is heading with all this "New energy" that Obama supposedly brings. Feels more like a cult that government to me, but that's just my humble opinion.
BARACK IS A YUPPIE. THERE, I SAID IT! I AM NOT INTO YUPPIES OR REDNECKS! BARACK SAYS THE GENERALS WILL DECIDE THE WAR'S FATE! AS FOR THE OTHER WAR- AS BARACK PUTS ON HIS ARMANI SHIRT AND SMELL GOOD STUFF, I AM SURE, HIS WAR ON POVERTY WILL UNDERWELM ME, JOHN!
JOHN "SWITZERLAND" EDWARDS, BABY, JUST "MORE" HILLARY FOR ME!!!
FINALLY ! BREAKING NEWS !!!
Dionne spoke of how Clinton did the Democratic Party a favor by speaking up for the Blue Collar workers. And yes he is right, but I think that John Edwards is the one who deserves the lion’s share of credit for the message of the working class being brought back to the Democratic Party. Still if Hillary had not picked up that gauntlet, the issue of the working class and particularly the working poor would be buried today. It would have died when Edwards dropped out of the race.
The working class was Edward’s battle cry. He stood head and shoulders above both Clinton and Obama as a voice on those issues. It was Edwards who was the champion of the poor. His entire life is a testimony to defending the poor.
Hillary did not begin to trail blaze for the poor and blue collar workers until she returned from that initial meeting with Edwards and his wife when she met with them to seek Edward’s endorsement. That was when Hillary’s crusade for the blue collar workers began. The unfortunate thing that Hillary has done, I think, is to bring race into the issue of poverty and the working class. Poverty and blue collar are class, not race issues.
Read More »I was listening to Senator Clinton today, Mother’s Day in West Virginia promising that she would give a tax credit of $3,000 to people who take care of their loved ones--a pee in a bucket with a hole in it, my friends. Those of you who have had the burden of taking care of a loved one who had no insurance know exactly the truth of what I write.
Sounds good, just like her gas tax solution sounded good to some in Indiana. But neither are real solutions. Both amount to political pandering. First of all, remember that the caregiver she spoke of must have a job (in addition to taking care of their loved one) for which they have earned money that they have paid taxes on. The only people in this country who get tax refunds/credits without having paid taxes are corporations—and that’s a fact. I hope that Americans are not so ignorant that they don’t know this. What if that caretaker is on Social Security and doesn’t even pay $3,000 in taxes each year?
Read More »mr edwards and his hair will be making a guest appearance sunday, may 11th, on "face the nation". you're welcome!
Video
Fri., May. 9, 2008 The once-formidable fund-raising machine of Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton has begun to sputter at the worst possible moment for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, Clinton advisers and donors said Thursday, with spending curtailed on political events and advertising as Mrs. Clinton seeks to compete in the last six nominating contests.
Mrs. Clinton’s diminished political momentum, following Tuesday’s loss in the North Carolina primary and her narrow victory in Indiana, appears to have had a dampening effect on her fund-raising, aides said, increasing the likelihood that Mrs. Clinton will lend her campaign more of her own money beyond the $11 million she has already provided.
Clinton advisers said Mrs. Clinton was committed to spending more of her own cash on the campaign if necessary, although they spoke optimistically about a rise in fund-raising if she prevails in Tuesday’s primary in West Virginia.
The campaign is clearly running low on cash, although advisers would not say how much money — or how little — Mrs. Clinton currently has. The campaign had started April with over $10 million in unpaid debts, and Mrs. Clinton was vastly outspent by Senator Barack Obama in North Carolina and Indiana.
Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama last January.
(CNN) – Add Obama supporter Sen. Ted Kennedy to the list of joint-ticket naysayers.
In an interview airing this weekend, the Massachusetts senator told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt that despite widespread talk of a ticket featuring both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, "I don't think it's possible."
He added that “…I would hope that he would also give consideration to somebody that has — is in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations of the American people. And I think if we had real leadership — as we do with Barack Obama — in the number-two spot as well, it'd be enormously helpful.”
Kennedy also said that he had not spoken with former President Bill Clinton since endorsing Barack Obama.
From: CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca
Read More »Posted: 12:19 PM ET
(CNN) â€" Barack Obama picked up another superdelegate Friday, narrowing Hillary Clinton's advantage to three.
Democratic National Committee Member Ed Espinoza formally endorsed Obama, saying he has "the character to lead our great nation."
“I am endorsing Barack Obama today because throughout this process I have seen him show a judgment and character that we need in our next president," he said in a statement released by the campaign. "From day one he opposed the Iraq war and has a plan to end the war in a responsible way and bring our sons and daughters home."
Espinoza is a former supporter of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's presidential bid. Read More »
I have a few favorites on my Vice Presidential list for Senator Obama .
1.)Senator John Edwards he is honest brings new ideas to the table and is a Progressive Democrat was against building new Nuclear Power Plants and just would make a great team if selected .
2.)Senator Barbara Boxer of california who had voted against the War resolution back on Oct 10th,2002 when Clinton voted for it .
She is also a good Senator and Progressive .
3.)Bill Richardson who had the courage to be independent when deciding who he would support for President over a longtime friendship with the Clintons.
He has alot of good ideas that he presented as a Presidential candidate and would make a good Vice Presidential choice as well.
I am sure my list will grow between now and our Democratic Convention in Denver.
So feel free to share your ideas for V.P for the second position on the Obama ticket .
John Edwards said the math isn't working in Clinton's favor.(CNN) – John Edwards still isn’t backing a candidate in this year’s Democratic primary race – but it looks like he might be ready to pick a winner.
The former presidential candidate told interviewers on NBC and MSNBC that Barack Obama will probably top the Democratic ticket this fall.
Hillary Clinton has said that she can still win the nomination – but "it's very difficult to make the math work," said Edwards.
Which one of the remaining contenders is best-equipped to beat presumptive Republican nominee John McCain? Edwards tried to avoid picking between the two – then chose Obama, because he said the Illinois senator was the probable Democratic nominee.
He added that he worried the continuing campaign could take a toll on the party’s presidential chances. “I think it’s fine for Hillary to keep making the case for her,” said the former North Carolina senator. “But when that shifts to everything that is wrong with him, then we’re doing damage instead of being helpful.”
Edwards has been heavily wooed by both the Clinton and Obama campaigns since he ended his presidential run in January, but has not publicly endorsed either candidate.
From: CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand
Facing South
Who's behind the mysterious "robo-calls" that have spread misleading
voter information and sown confusion and frustration among North
Carolina residents over the last week?
Facing South has confirmed the source of the calls, and the mastermind
is Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based nonprofit which aims to
boost voting among "unmarried women voters."
What's more, Facing South has learned that the firestorm Women's Voices
has ignited in North Carolina isn't the group's first brush with
controversy. Women's Voices' questionable tactics have spawned
thousands of voter complaints in at least 11 states and brought harsh
condemnation from some election officials for their secrecy, misleading
nature and likely violations of election law.
First, a quick recap: As we covered yesterday, N.C. residents have
reported receiving peculiar automated calls from someone claiming to be
"Lamont Williams." The caller says that a "voter registration packet"
is coming in the mail, and the recipient can sign it and mail it back
to be registered to vote. No other information is provided.
The call is deceptive because the deadline has already passed for
mail-in registrations for North Carolina's May 6 primary. Also, many
who have received the calls -- like Kevin Farmer in Durham, who made a
tape of the call that is available here -- are already registered. The
call's suggestion that they're not registered has caused widespread
confusion and drawn hundreds of complaints, including many from
African-American voters who received the calls.
The calls are also probably illegal. Farmer and others have told Facing
South the calls use a blocked phone number and provided no contact
information -- a violation of North Carolina rules regulating
"robo-calls" (N.C. General Statute 163-104(b)(1)c). N.C. Attorney
General Roy Cooper further stated in a recent memo that the identifying
information must be clear enough to allow the recipient to "complain or
seek redress" -- something not included in the calls.
It is also a Class I felony in North Carolina "to misrepresent the law
to the public through mass mailing or any other means of communication
where the intent and the effect is to intimidate or discourage
potential voters from exercising their lawful right to vote."
The calls have been denounced by the N.C. State Board of Elections, as
well as by voter advocacy groups including Democracy North Carolina,
which called them "another in a long line of deceptive practices used
in North Carolina and elsewhere that particularly target
African-American voters."
Yesterday, I placed a call to the Virginia State Police, which had
investigated similar suspicious robo-calls before that Virginia's
primaries last February. Their investigation concluded that the source
of the calls was Women's Voices Women Vote.
Facing South then contacted Women's Voices, and staffer Sarah Johnson
confirmed they were doing similar robo-calls in North Carolina; they
later admitted that they were the ones behind the deceptive "Lamont
Williams" calls.
So who is Women's Voices Women Vote, and why are they making shadowy
and legally-questionable calls that are causing North Carolina voters
so many headaches?
The D.C.-based nonprofit, led by well-connected Washington operatives,
claims in a press release they sent to Facing South [PDF] that the
North Carolina calls are part of a 24-state effort targeted at a list
of 3 million voters, especially unmarried women. The robo-calls, which
never mention Women's Voices, are followed by mailings that include
information on how to register to vote. They plan to mail some 276,000
packets in North Carolina alone.
But since last November, in at least 11 states nationwide, Women's
Voices -- sometimes working through its Voter Participation Center
project -- has developed a checkered reputation, drawing rebukes from
leading election officials and complaints from thousands of would-be
voters as a result of their secretive tactics, deceptive mailings and
calls, and penchant for skirting or violating the law. For example:
* In Arizona last November, election officials were "inundated with
complaints" after Women's Voices sent a mailing erroneously claiming
that recipients were "required" to mail back an enclosed voter
registration form. Many who received the mailing were already
registered; the mailing also gave the wrong registration date.
Secretary of State Jan Brewer denounced the group's tactics as
"misleading and deceptive." A similar mailing in Colorado that month
"[drew] fire and caused confusion," according to a state press release.
* In Wisconsin, state officials singled out Women's Voices for
misleading and possibly disenfranchising voters, stating in a press
release [PDF]: "One group in particular -- Women's Voices. Women Vote,
of Washington, D.C. -- apparently ignored or disregarded state
deadlines in seeking to register voters," sending in registrations past
the January 30 deadline and causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who
think they registered in advance" to actually not be.
* Michigan officials ended up "fielding tons of calls from confused
voters" after Women's Voices did a February mailing to "380,000
unmarried women" -- including numerous deceased voters and even more
that were already registered. Sarah Johnson of Women's Voices "seemed
confused by the confusion," the Lansing State Journal reported.
* A 1.5 million-piece Women's Voices mailing in Florida falsely
stated: "To comply with state voting requirements, please return the
enclosed application." Pasco County's elections supervisor called it
"disingenuous"; another said it created "a lot of unnecessary panic on
behalf of the voters," reported local newspapers. Sarah Johnson of
Women's Voice said, "I'm sorry to hear that."
* By March, Women's Voices was backing off the erroneous
"registration is required" language, but there were still problems. For
example, a mailing in Arkansas allowed that "registering to vote is
voluntary," but a clerk in Washington County reported that "the
majority [of forms] sent back to the county come from registered
voters, causing needless labor for office employees."
Problems with the group's tactics have also been documented in
Louisiana, Kentucky and Ohio.
In each state, the Women's Voices campaigns have brought the same news
and the same themes, again and again: Deceptive claims and
misrepresentations of the law -- sometimes even breaking the law.
Wildly inaccurate mailing lists, supposedly aimed at "unregistered
single women," but in reality reaching many registered voters as well
as families, deceased persons and pets. Tactics that confuse voters and
potentially disenfranchise them.
For such a sophisticated and well-funded operation, which counts among
its ranks some of the country's most seasoned political operatives,
such missteps are peculiar, as is the surprise expressed by Women's
Voices staff after each controversy.
In at least two states, the timing of Women's Voices' activities have
raised alarm that they are attempting to influence the outcome of a
primary. As we reported earlier, in Virginia, news reports surfaced the
first week in February that prospective voters were receiving anonymous
robo-calls telling voters that they were about to receive a voter
registration packet in the mail.
The timing of the calls was astoundingly off: As the Virginia State
Police confirm, the calls were made the first week of February -- about
10 days before the then-critical Virginia primary, but more than two
weeks after the deadline for registering in the state had passed (Jan.
14). The Virginia State Board of Elections was deluged with calls by
confused voters -- many who were already registered. When they heard
the calls from Women's Voices, they feared that they really weren't.
Because of the horrible timing and secretive nature, state officials
assumed the calls and mailings were part of an identity theft scheme.
When the Virginia State Police investigated, they found Women's Voices
was behind them. Women's Voices was unapologetic after the controversy,
merely issuing a boilerplate press release trumpeting the success of
the program.
Now Women's Voices is plunging North Carolina into the same confusion.
State officials tell Facing South they are still receiving calls from
frustrated and confused voters, wondering why "Lamont Williams" is
offering to send them a "voter registration packet" after the deadline
for mail-in registration for the primaries has passed.
In correspondence with North Carolina election officials, Women's
Voices founder and President Page Gardner merely said that the
disruptive timing was an "unfortunate coincidence" -- a strange alibi
for a group with their level of resources and sophistication.
There are other questions about Women's Voices' outreach efforts.
Although the group purports to be targeting "unmarried women," their
calls and mailings don't fit the profile. Kevin Farmer in Durham, who
first recorded the call, is a white male. Many of the recipients are
African-American; Rev. Nelson Johnson, who is a married, male and
African-American, reported that his house was called four times by the
mysterious "Lamont Williams."
And as Farmer asks, "Why are they using a guy for the calls if the
target audience is single women?"
Some have also questioned the ties between Women's Voices operatives
and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Gardner,
for example, contributed $2,500 to Clinton's HILLPAC on May 4, 2006,
and in March 2005 she donated a total of $4,200 to Clinton, according
to The Center for Responsive Politics' OpenSecrets.org. She has not
contributed to the Obama campaign, according to the database.
Women's Voices Executive Director Joe Goode worked for Bill Clinton's
election campaign in 1992 as a pollster; the group's website says he
was intimately involved in "development and implementation of all
polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general
election campaigns" for Clinton.
Women's Voices board member John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for
President Bill Clinton, donated $2,300 to Hillary Clinton on April 19,
2007, according to OpenSecrets.org. Podesta also donated $1,000 to
Barack Obama in July 2004, but that was well before Obama announced his
candidacy for president.
"The reports from other states are very disturbing, especially the
pattern of mass confusion among targeted voters on the eve of a state's
primary," Democracy North Carolina's Bob Hall tells Facing South.
"These are highly skilled political operatives -- something doesn't add
up. Maybe it's all well-intended and explainable. At this moment, our
first priority is to stop the robo-calls and prevent the chaos and
potential disenfranchisement caused by this group sending 276,000
packets of registration forms into North Carolina a few days before a
heated primary election. We need their immediate cooperation."
While Hall says his group has "begged" the group to stop the mailings,
but as if this writing, Women's Voices has not done so -- even though
the mail-in voter registration deadline for the primaries passed April
11.
State election officials are likely bracing for the deluge of confused
phone calls and complaints that are sure to follow.
--
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/78/
petition-for-former-edwards-supporters-for-hillary
Barbara and Henry Platt
Earlier this morning I posted a letter to the editors at NYT regarding an opinion article that had been written by Elizabeth Edwards.
Since then there have been two posts referring readers to that article.
In it, Ms. Edwards points out that most people don't even know what the healthcare plan of Joe Biden and others was because they were not discussed. Her article was titled "Bowling 1, Healthcare 0"
The extended post contains the letter that I sent in response to her article:
Read More »
Posts