Obama Puts Manufactured Political Distractions (by news media) On Notice in Surprise Colbert Report Appearance

I'm proud of our future president, Barack Obama.



In this surprise appearance on The Colbert Report, Senator Obama asks Colbert to officially put Manufactured Political Distractions "on notice". We're not putting up with them anymore! Do you hear that, ABC? We want more substance, and your pathetic attempt at a debate isn't going to be tolerated anymore.

Oh, and Hillary? Buh-bye. It's been fun while it lasted, and you almost had us worried a few times, but that just made us work harder for what we know is right, and for what we want as the future of America, the future that our children will live with. You didn't make the cut, and this continued attempt to subvert Obama in the general election is simply ruining your own chances for "next time". If you won't step down, I agree with Howard Dean - it's time for the Super Delegates to stand up.

He's Only Winning Because He's Black!

And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his "radical" views, "if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."

Oh, wait. That was 20 years ago. This year's quote was:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Then, she actually "defends" herself with this:

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

At least I agree with her on one thing. About 3:25 in, she calls herself a lunatic:


Clinton refused to distance herself from Ferraro after the first remark, and that I know of, hasn't since the second, either. As a fundraiser and BFF of the Clintons, I can only agree with a commentator I saw last night who believes she's actually acting as a mouthpiece for Hillary, who can't say these things herself.

The thing is, every campaign will find itself associated with someone who is less than perfect, and who does or says something stupid, or just plain IS stupid. However, it seems to me that Hillary has surrounded herself with nothing but stupidity. It tells you a lot about the candidate when you look at those who are the closest to them, and it's looking like Hillary might just be dripping slime.

Clinton distorts image of Obama in campaign ad to make him "blacker"

The details are over on DailyKos, but here is a summary.

Hillary Clinton put out a campaign ad where a picture of Barack Obama was used. The photo was altered to make his skin darker. If that wasn't bad enough, the ratio was also altered, or "squished", to make it seem as if he has a wide, flat nose.

In this ad, she also lies about his subcommittee, saying it's responsible for Afghanistan, and that he hasn't held hearings. Problem is, Afghanistan is under another committee.

Then, when confronted, the Clinton campaign denies that the ad is theirs. Except the ad was on Clinton's own site. Oops.

Seriously, go read this, look at the facts. This is absolutely horrible behavior. This woman does not deserve to be president, by any stretch of the imagination.

Newsflash, Hillary: Fear Mongering Is a Republican Tactic, Not a Democratic One

Yeah, we all know about the 3 am phone calls right now. And this does start out on that topic, but it gets much juicier.



I love the part where Bill tells the crowd (for Kerry during the '04 election):

Now, one of Clinton's Laws of Politics is this; If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think. If one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person that wants you to think and hope.

I sure as hell don't want another 8 years of Bush style politics.

Daddy, I want to be president!

After the last video I posted of Hillary endorsing McCain, I stumbled upon this video.



This is exactly what Hillary has reminded me of so many times, and towards the end when it shows her saying she had a specific social security plan, then her saying she wouldn't endorse any social security plan until she's "approaching fiscal responsibility" just eats at me.

I saw Countdown earlier talking about her accusing Barack of making side deals with Canada about NAFTA, and a friend (hi, Nikki!) sent me a link to an article about it. As I told her in reply, tfahese are the things I've known about her since the start, just knew inside. She'd lie to get us to go to war just like Bush, if it suited her purposes.

And that's why, as much as I'd really, truly like to see a woman in the White House, Hillary is not someone I believe should be in there. I hope that tomorrow's primaries and caucuses (aka primacaucuses) will answer any doubt about the Democratic Nominee being Barack Obama. The Results Watch Party will be quite a thrill!

Hillary Clinton Abandons Democratic Party ...or... Clinton Endorses McCain

I'd like to find a more eloquent way of expressing what I think of this. More below.

CBS News titled this: Clinton Says She and McCain Offer Experience, Obama Offers Speeches

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

The only thing I can say is "What a bitch!"

She has obviously abandoned the Democratic Party. Will they abandon her now?

Watch for yourself:

March 4 Watch Party (TX, OH, RI)

Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island will tell us on March 4th who they want to be the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Texas is the last state with over 200 delegates at stake, and between these states, there will be 355 delegates awarded based on the people's vote.

So, come watch the results with us at Mo Diggity's! This is a 21 and over event, because Mo Diggity's is a private club. You don't need to worry about a cover charge to come watch the debate, though.

Mo's has a really great kitchen (I recommend Tenley's Famous Philly!) and the room we will be watching the results in is non-smoking. There are Love Sacs and plenty of seating. Mo and Digg let us watch a debate here last fall, and everyone had a really good time.

I hope that you'll join us! More information may be available later, so please check back, or watch your email.

We are hoping to have as many watch parties as possible, so if you would like to host one yourself, please contact me.

Time:	Tuesday, March 4 at 6:00 PM
Duration:	3 hours
Host:	Misty Fowler
Contact Phone:	8013867729
Location:	Mo Diggity's (Salt Lake City, UT) 3424 S State Salt Lake City, UT 84115 View Map: Google Maps MapQuest Yahoo! Maps
Directions:	Look for Arby's, and you'll find Mo's in that parking lot!

You can RSVP here, to stay informed of any additional information.

Congratulations to Senator Obama on Wisconsin Win!

I am looking forward to finding out how the Hawai'i caucuses went, but in the meantime, Obama's 9th straight win in Wisconsin is great news!

According to MSNBC, he split the female vote in Wisconsin with Hillary, which makes me believe that women who previously were going for Hillary solely because of her gender may now be looking for something more, and have found that in Barack.

With 60% currently reporting, Barack has 56% of the vote, with Hillary at 43%. That should give Barack a pretty good chunck of Wisconsin's 74 delegates.

Yes we can!

Politics as Usual

The LA Times broke this story today:

Ed Coghlan was just starting to prepare his dinner in the northern San Fernando Valley the other night when the phone rang. The caller was very friendly. He identified himself as a pollster who wanted to ask registered independents like Coghlan a few questions about the presidential race and all the candidates for Super Tuesday's California primary.

Ed, who's a former news director for a local TV station, was curious. He said, "Sure, go ahead."

But a few minutes into the conversation Ed says he noticed a strange pattern developing to the questions. First of all, the "pollster" was only asking about four candidates, three Democrats -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, who was still in the race at the time -- and one Republican -- John McCain.

Also, every question about Clinton was curiously positive, Coghlan recalls. The caller said things like, if you knew that Sen. Clinton believed the country had a serious home mortgage problem and had made proposals to....

freeze mortgage rates and save families from foreclosure, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for her?

Ed said, of course, more likely.

Every question about the other candidates was negative. If Ed knew, for instance, that as a state senator Obama had voted "present" 43 times instead of taking a yes or no stand "for what he believed," would Ed be more or less likely to vote for him?

"That's when I caught on," said Coghlan. He realized then that he was being push-polled. That malicious political virus that is designed not to elicit answers but to spread positive information about one candidate and negative information about all others under the guise of an honest poll had arrived in Southern California within days of the important election.

And there's plenty more before the story wraps up this way:

Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received.

Woman Power at it's Best

The idea of empowering women and what it means to be a feminist has been on my mind a lot, lately. This is for a few reasons.

First, I was asked to start a Women for Obama group here in Utah. I had kind of avoided the "Women for Obama" movement because I had a lot on my plate being involved with the all-inclusive Utah for Obama group, and because I felt like maybe "Women for Obama" was too narrow of a view about why I support Senator Obama.

Secondly, Hillary Clinton recently attacked Barack Obama's record on women's issues.

Lorna Brett Howard, the former Director of the Chicago chapter of NOW (Nation Organization of Women), who had been a Hillary supporter, was so offended by this attack that she not only turned around and endorsed Obama, but put out a video defending his record with the facts.

Then when Senator Ted Kennedy endorsed Barack, the NY State Chapter of NOW got more than a bit upset and called him a traitor.

Actions such as this are why I've never considered myself a feminist.

So, what does it mean to empower women, and to be a feminist?

Does it mean that no matter what other issues there are, supporting a woman should take priority? Does it mean that because I am female, I am better than men? Does it mean that women have some kind of inherent rights that trump a man's inherent rights?

I get the impression that there are women in America today who believe that the answers to those questions are yes, and that for any woman, or women's rights activist, to support anyone but the female candidate, they are betraying women everywhere.

And I have to call bullshit.

That would be like saying that a black man who supported John Edwards was betraying the black cause, and that he should support Obama regardless of whether he believes Obama is the best choice, or not.

And I'm saying that to support a man because he's black, and only because he's black, is the same thing as ostracizing a man because he's black.

I'm saying that to vote for a woman because she's a woman, and only because she's a woman, is the same thing as not voting for a woman because she's a woman.

I will admit that if all things were equal, I'd love to vote for the woman candidate. But, I don't believe she's the best choice. And because of that, I'm supporting another candidate. I'm not betraying women's causes in doing so.

In fact, I believe that voting for a woman only because she's a woman is actually doing a lot of damage to women's causes.

Back to my original question - what does it mean to empower women and to be a feminist?

I may not have all of the answers, but I have a feeling that there are some good ones in this book, Good As Lily.

I hadn't heard of it before seeing the review on Boing Boing.

It tells the story of Grace Kwon, a young Korean-American girl who, on her 18th birthday, finds herself in the company of her six-year-old self, her 29-year-old self and her 70-year-old self, three women who become a part of her life as she finishes out her last semester of high school before going off to her freshman year at Stanford.

Grace is a perfect young adult protagonist, likable and flawed, insecure and brave, driven and oblivious all at once. She's in love with her drama teacher (and bent on rescuing the school play from budget cuts), surrounded by great (and flawed) friends, and embroiled in high-school dominance struggles that are savage as only school fights can be.

The review really makes it sound like the ultimate book on what woman power really is, and if I'm ever lucky enough to have a daughter, I hope I remember this book. It might not hurt my sons to read, either.

I decided to go forward with Women for Obama because I feel like it embodies what the feminist movement should, even if the feminist movement gets it wrong sometimes.

This Really Disgusts Me

I still haven't blogged about my trip to Nevada. I really want to, and I wish I had the 3 hours of time it is going to take! I got to attend a caucus, and it was an amazing experience. Thankfully, I didn't see any of this happen in the small town I was in:

January 22, 2008

Jill Derby, Chair
Nevada State Democratic Party
1210 S. Valley View Road
Suite 114
Las Vegas, NV 89102

Dear Chair Derby:

On behalf of the Obama for America campaign, I am writing to request that the Nevada State Democratic Party conduct an inquiry into an apparent and disturbing pattern of incidents reported at precinct locations throughout the state during the January 19 Caucus.

These reports suggest the possibility of activity conducted in violation of Party rules and the rights of voters—activity that, as the volume and distribution of those complaints indicate, may have been planned and coordinated with the willful intention to distort the process in the favor of one candidate, Senator Clinton. A sheet of instructions provided by the Clinton campaign to its precinct works captures its program for the Caucus: "It's not illegal unless they [the temporary precinct chairs] tell you so." (See attachment). This certainly suggests that, for the Clinton campaign, the operative standard of conduct was, simply and only, what it could get away with.

On the day of the Caucus, we received by phone reports of misconduct, violations of the rules and irregularities, in the hundreds. Since that time, well over a thousand more accounts have been sent to us. Others have begun to emerge in other sources. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/sleaze-in-nevad.html#more

At the outset, we wish to make clear what the inquiry we are requesting is not intended to accomplish. We are not seeking to challenge the outcome of the Caucuses at the precinct level.

Nor is it our intention to question the extraordinary efforts devoted by the NSDP to the organization and conduct of the Caucus, including the contribution its leadership made to resolve the high volume of questions and problems that exploded during the caucusing. Indeed, the Party responded promptly and effectively to the frontal attack on the Caucus in the form of an eleventh hour legal action by Senator Clinton’s allies, intended to shut down voting locations or to put into question the legitimacy of the process.

The question raised here about activities on Caucus Day concerns solely the tactics employed by one campaign and their effects—their intended and actual effects—on the participation of voters supporting other candidates. Participation is a principle second to none in importance to the Democratic Party, emphasized throughout the national party’s rules, as well those of the Nevada party.

Nature of Suppressive and Other Improper Activity

We have attempted to sort through the range of reports received, and while our own review has not been completed in the short time since the conclusion of the Caucus, we suggest that the evidence supports an inquiry focused on the following:

Door closings

As you know, and as their own training materials confirm, the Clinton campaign informed its precinct captains that the doors should close—and registration should end—at 11:30 am. This is, of course, false: the rules could not be clearer that any voter wishing to participate would until 12:00 pm take his or her place in line. What the rules clearly specify is repeated, with equal clarity, in the party’s own Guide to the Caucuses.

It seems inconceivable that a well-financed and nationally organized campaign, stressing a platform of competence and experience, could have inadvertently misunderstood a rule of first importance to the Caucus. It is a rule governing participation and intended to encourage it. Any preparation for the Caucus would have included careful attention to any such rules of eligibility.

Yet the Manual put out by the Clinton campaign stated a false statement of the “closed door” rules.

Voters have given these reports, which are representative of others received like them:

• "It happened at my caucus site and it happened, apparently, at every caucus site in Southern Nevada, as I spoke to dozens of Barack volunteers from other caucus sites who all said the same thing. At 11:30, the Hillary supporters were clamoring to have the doors closed, saying that the caucus was supposed to start at 11:30 and the doors should be closed immediately. The theory was that if a number of different people asked the caucus chair to close the doors at 11:30, some caucus chairs might believe that 11:30 was indeed the official door-closing time and would close the doors. This appeared to be the case and a number of caucus locations across the Vegas area, from my own first-hand (random but small) sample.

Apparently, Hillary's strategy was to tell her supporters to get there early, and have the doors close 30 minutes prior to their prescribed time, thereby shutting out some Barack supporters who might be a little late."

• "Those Hillary people…closed the doors on our people and we had to call the cops in some precincts to have locks cut from doors, [they] slipped people in the back doors, they sent people home at 11:30 when it was illegal to prevent people from voting before noon."

• “Issue one was when the temporary chairman locked the doors at 1:30 preventing at least two caucus participants at 11:34 and 11:40 from entering. He stated that the rules were to close the doors at 11:30. Immediately stated that I was informed that the doors were to close at 12:00 but was rebuffed.”

• “The Precinct 16 Caucus Chair...ordered the doors locked at 11:30 am. not 12 noon. I objected and called the hotline, and [the Chair] relented, but not before many voters were prevented from entering.”

Obstructing Voter Access

Voters have given these reports, which are representative of others received like them:

• “While my precinct ran well due to the fact that we had only 24 caucus members present, there was mass confusion in the five other larger precincts at the same site. Obama people were being told my Clinton supporters that they could not register because the sign-in sheet was only for Clinton voters.”

• “In Precinct 21, a Democratic worker …(who was clearly for Hillary) refused to register Obama supporters and said she was only registering Hillary supporters.”

• “Someone told Obama supporters they had to wait until 11:30 to enter because Republicans were voting. (A Clinton supporter in front of the School.) There were many Clinton supporters telling Obama supporters to leave. A Clinton supporter took our bottles of water, and then tried to take our box containing precinct packet and voter registration forms. I had to run her down in the crowd. By the time I located her (with help)she had thrown things out, but kept the water bottles in her large bag.”

• “Almost immediately, I was told by a couple of other Obama precinct leaders, whose names I don't know, that the Hillary people were turning our supporters away, by asking to see their ID's and telling them they weren't valid.”

Improper Handling of Voter Preference Cards

Voters have given these reports, which are representative of others received like them:

• “The next controversial issue involved the voter cards disappearing into the Clinton camp, so that the Edwards and Obama people were left with no cards. When we asked them to give us back some cards, we then noticed that they had all been pre-marked for Clinton.”

• “We circled Obama and were given a small slip of paper with our names and no voting ballot. We were told they were out of ballots. How convenient. It wasn't until later than I realized the Hillary group had ballots.”

• “I personally observed one of Hillary's precinct captains taking up the ballot of the voter before the caucusing started. When the delegates were moved to the other side of the room she could not find all of the people that she took their ballots she then put them in her purse, further another one of Hillary supporter collected ballots as well and she had a ballot where some one was voting for Obama she fold it up in her hand. I call her on this matter she stated that she could not find the person that it belong to.”

Process for Conducting Review

This is a smattering of the reports we have received. Emerging from them is a disturbing picture of rules violations, discriminatory treatment of voters, bullying and disrespectful behavior toward those from other campaigns, the mishandling of preference cards, and failure to follow the process specified under the rules for the conduct of the vote count.

To support the inquiry that we are asking that you conduct, we will provide them these reports, unedited or redacted, to the Party, subject to an agreement protecting the privacy of voters who have given these accounts. We are confident, however, that with the benefit of these protections, these voters, if asked, will give their first-hand recollections directly to party counsel and representatives.

We would ask that this process be expedited. It is crucial that the Party enforce its rules. And, in the interests of all voters, any and all questions about misconduct at the Caucuses should be conclusively and clearly addressed so that what seems to have occurred in Nevada on January 19 will not be repeated.

We stand ready to support and cooperate in this inquiry, and hope and expect that the same support and cooperation will be forthcoming from the Clinton campaign and any and all others with relevant information.

Very truly yours,

Robert F. Bauer

The small town I was in, Eureka, had a county and a city caucus in the same room. They were held separately, but the two ladies running them relied on each other for support. One was an Obama supporter, and the other was for Clinton. They weren't necessarily perfect in everything they did, but they followed all of the important rules, and the general process was nothing if not open and honest. The people relied on each other as a community, and the caucus process was a wonderful and beautiful thing. While they had differing views, none of it was underhanded.

However, the area didn't have a big Democratic base, and if it weren't for the fact that a local activist was an Obama supporter and pushed for it, the area just wouldn't have had a caucus. So, I'm guessing because that the small effect the area had, the Clinton camp wasn't interested in them. So, I would doubt that she even had a Clinton manual, and I know that it probably wasn't read if she did, because she didn't seem to understand much about the caucus process.

I truly wish that this would stay a debate about the issues.

The Washington Post has a pretty insightful article about the Clinton attacks. Most interesting was something I thought none of the party officials were willing to say aloud:

In Washington, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who endorsed Obama last week, castigated the former president for what he called his "glib cheap shots" at Obama, saying both sides should settle down but placing the blame predominantly on Clinton.

"That's beneath the dignity of a former president," Leahy told reporters, adding: "He is not helping anyone, and certainly not helping the Democratic Party."

That concern was also voiced by some neutral Democrats, who said that the former president's aggressive role, along with the couple's harsh approach recently, threatens to divide the party in the general election.

A few prominent Democrats, including Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) and Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), have spoken to the former president about the force of his Obama critiques. There is some fear within the party that if Obama becomes the nominee, he could emerge personally battered and politically compromised. And there is concern that a Clinton victory could come at a cost -- particularly a loss of black voters, who could blame her for Obama's defeat and stay home in November.

I'm just grateful for Obama's Fact Checker section. I don't think the latest rebuttal to a smear is up yet, though. Clinton attacked Obama's pro-choice record, which led Lorna Brett Howard, former President of Chicago NOW, to not only quit supporting Clinton, but to switch over to the Obama camp and release her own video explaining exactly what Clinton's lies were, and why they were lies.

Hillary Just Killed Her Chances

Geekesque, of Daily Kos, tells us of Clinton's Big Mistake:

The context, of course, lies in Clinton's regrettable statement from last Saturday's debate:

"We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Obama, not being a stupid politician, pounced.

Obama challenged Clinton's claim in a weekend debate that he was raising "false hopes" about what he could deliver for the country. Obama told his audience that hope made President Kennedy aim to put a man on the moon and Martin Luther King Jr. to imagine the end of segregation.

"If anything crystallized what this campaign is about, it was that right there," Obama said of Clinton's comment in the debate. "Some are thinking in terms of our constraints, and some are thinking about our limitless possibilities."

Well, Clinton had her chance to respond, and oh boy did she deliver up a doozy:

"Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act. It took a president to get it done. The power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president capable of action."

Just how awful is this, on so many levels? "It took a President to get it done?"

Seriously, if you are going to click through on any blog today, and get the rest of the story, this is it. This is some serious desperation, folks. Obama's numbers have skyrocketed, and this mistake shows that she's running scared.

I can't imagine the media ignoring this. She just lost the "black vote", along with a lot of other people who admire Dr. King. On a political level, this amounts to blasphemy.

The Speeches

As I mentioned last night, I really saw a difference in the speeches between the candidates.

Over at Third Avenue, he says of Obama and Huckabee:

And listening to Barack Obama's speech later in the evening, I was struck by how similar the two were.

Both talked about working with the other side, about the little guy, about DC powerbrokers, and the establishment, and how "they" were wrong and underestimated them. Both spoke in positive hopeful, and unifying terms. Obama talked about health care, education, and the war. Both spoke like ministers. Huckabee is actually an ordained Baptist minister, Obama just sounds like one. It was very effective.

Having spent the first 8 years of my life as a Southern Baptist, I don't think Huckabee sounds anything like a Southern Baptist minister. I'm not just saying that because he didn't promise hellfire and damnation if he isn't the next POTUS, but I didn't think he was very impassioned.

I know I'm biased here, but when Huckabee mentioned God in his speech, I had flashbacks to his "Phone Call to God", which, as I've said before, offends my faith greatly. When Obama spoke of God and faith, it was soothing, and didn't feel like he was wearing his faith on his sleeve, but rather that it was a natural statement from him.

I was struck by the difference in tone between the Democrats. Hillary and Edwards gave speeches about themselves, while Obama gave a speech about "us". On top of which, Edwards made me feel like I needed anti-depressants when he spoke of the problems in America. Which was a nice setup for Obama speaking of the same problems, but in a tone of fixing them. Edwards wound up getting to the point of fixing the problems, but he was pulling the fear mongering trick to make us afraid, while Obama gave us hope.

Hillary nauseated me when she began her speech and seemed to be pretending that she'd won Iowa. I left the room, so I really don't know what she had to say.

I watched Edwards' speech first, then Hillary (which as I said - didn't watch), then Huckabee, then Obama. I didn't see any of the others.

One other thing that I found interesting was that Oprah didn't appear onstage with Obama. I think that was a smart choice. While he did use her star power to reach more voters, he's not running a campaign around it. I think I paid more attention to Chuck Norris behind Huckabee than I did to Huckabee himself. (Side note: is Norris going to the same plastic surgeon as Hillary? That frozen smile on his face was kind of horrifying)

Here are the speeches, all in one place, for your viewing pleasure (or displeasure, as the case may be).


John Edwards speaks in Des Moines after the Iowa caucuses. Change won, the status quo lost, and the fight is on to see if we're going to have the kind of change we need to save the middle class.

Note: That text was what the Edwards campaign had describing the video. Does it seem odd to anyone else that Edwards says Change won, when Change in Obama's platform and Obama won? Of course, most of us at Obama HQ were cheering Edwards during last night's speech, but the statement above could almost be read as endorsing Obama. Not that everything he said last night could be taken that way.


Alternatively, you can read the transcript for Hillary's speech, which I found while looking for the video.


I also found Obama's transcript on his blog.

Obama's campaign included the Salt Lake Tribune in their blog showing the front pages of papers this morning across the nation. Which is rather interesting, because the Trib didn't send a photographer down (that I know of) like the Deseret News did. The Trib covers Obama on a national level quite regularly, but at times like this you'd think they'd want the local story, too. I haven't seen the front page of the Deseret News, but they did feature a shot of Obama's Utah HQ party in their online article.


Oddly enough, Mike Huckabee had lots of video on his blog, but I couldn't seem to find the Iowa Caucus speech, so I had to go directly to YouTube, where his campaign hadn't posted the video, but had "favorited" someone else's posting of it.


It's interesting to me that Mitt Romney's campaign apparently asked Fox 13 not to show video of the Romney Utah HQ reaction to his "Silver Medal".

Fred Thompson doesn't have his own web site? In looking him up, all I could find was the "Friends of Fred" site. Odd.


John McCain's web site seems to be stuck in April '07, so I had to head back to YouTube again for this one. (No wonder he isn't winning)


I stuck around the YouTube site to look for Ron Paul's video. I had a difficult time finding one because, even though I sorted by time added, there were a ton of videos added in even the last few hours both for and against Paul. But, going back through the videos in the last 24 hours, I wasn't able to find anything except the MSNBC post-caucus interview. So, I decided to go over to his web site for it. It wasn't there, either. So, here's MSNBC's coverage.

I'm still a bit surprised the Giuliani didn't bother to show up in Iowa. I'm more surprised that he didn't bother addressing supporters after Iowa's results came in. The only video even closely related was of his Town Hall speech in New Hampshire, which is what he was doing during the Iowa Caucus.


Sadly, here is Chris Dodd's withdrawal speech after the caucus. I got the following email from Dodd just before 9:30 last night:

Dear Misty,

I count the past year of campaigning for the presidency as one of the most rewarding in a career of public service.

Unfortunately, I am withdrawing from that campaign tonight.

But there is no reason to hang our heads this evening -- only the opportunity to look towards a continuation of the work we started last January: ending the Iraq War, restoring the Constitution, and putting a Democrat in the White House.

I know a lot of you came to this email list through a shared desire to return our nation to one that respects the rule of law, and I want to make one thing clear to all of you:

The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.

You've been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I'll need you to stick by my side despite tonight's caucus results.

So, one more time, thank you for all of your efforts throughout the course of this entire Presidential campaign.

We made a real difference in shaping the debate, and we'll continue to do so in the coming days, weeks and years.

I'll never forget you, and what we've fought for, together, over the past year.

Chris Dodd

That was a good man that just dropped out of the race. I have faith that he'll continue doing fine things for our nation, though.


Here's Biden's post-caucus speech. He loves you. He really does. And Dodd. And Obama. Sadly, this was also a withdrawal speech.


For some reason, Mike Gravel is still in the race, and pretty pissed that it was reported otherwise. From how his web site frames the situation, I think that's what he would want me to post, instead of his apology for not showing up in Iowa on Caucus Day. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a post-caucus speech by him.

Burr: Clinton a Disaster for Democrats?

Thomas Burr's column today was titled "Could Clinton be disaster for Dems in West?"

Should Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lead the Democratic Party's ticket next year, Western Democrats could face a lashing at the polls, one state party leader argues.

Wyoming Democratic Party Chairman John Millin says in a letter to The Denver Post that Clinton is a polarizing figure and could scare voters away.

"If Hillary Clinton is our party's nominee, every Democratic candidate in Wyoming will be painted with that same liberal, big government brush," writes Millin, who is backing Clinton rival Barack Obama. "We will also be the target of the locker room jokes that rightfully belong to Bill Clinton."

Millin, who said he was speaking for himself and not his state organization, calls his warning the "dirty little secret of the Democratic Party." Other Democratic leaders in the West distanced themselves from Millin on Friday.

Read the rest here.

The comments section has some heated debate going, and not as much immature commentary as you would expect on an article like this, though of course the Ron Paul freaks haven't made it there yet.

Clinton to Obama: Still selling drugs? [Updated]

I normally try to avoid talking about Hillary Clinton's campaign, mostly because I have nothing good to say about her or her campaign. Today her campaign really crossed a line, though. The co-chairman of the Clinton campaign had this to say about Senator Obama's campaign:

Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

Does he really think anyone is going to read about this and say to themselves "what a nice guy he is to be so worried about Obama"? Is he a Republican, that he thinks Americans aren't smart enough to see that he was being what's known as a "concern troll"?

Does Hillary really think that she can tell us that he wasn't authorized to make those comments will negate them? Her refusal to condemn the comments, and take appropriate action, says a lot about the kind of politics she wants to lead America in.

Get the whole story at DailyKos.

[Update] Shaheen has stepped down from the Clinton campaign.

I would like to reiterate that I deeply regret my comments yesterday and say again that they were in no way authorized by Senator Clinton or the Clinton campaign. Senator Clinton has been running a positive campaign focused on the issues that matter to America’s families. She is the best qualified to be the next President of the United States because she can lead starting on day one. I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the Co-Chair of the Hillary for President campaign. This election is too important and we must all get back to electing the best qualified candidate who has the record of making change happen in this country. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.

Wouldn't an apology from Hillary have been a better route?

A Message To Troops and Veterans

VoteVets has introduced their blog, and asked presidential candidates to write a message to troops and veterans. Barack Obama's message is now up, as are most of the other candidate's messages, including John Edwards, Ron Paul, Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden and Bill Richardson's messages are still on their way, as of right now.

So far, all of them except for Clinton and Paul have addressed the issue of PTSD, and all of them seem to want to fund the vets. It's definitely interesting to see what each of them felt it was important to say on the topic.

DFA Won't Settle For Hillary?

I just got this email from Democracy For America.

Dear Misty,
Fight for a Progressive President. Support DFA with $15 Right Now.

The mainstream media and Beltway pundits have made up their minds. The Presidential Primary is already over.

Not so fast. The media isn't going to vote on caucus day -- but we are.

That's why Dennis Kucinich fought hard for your support in the DFA Pulse Poll.

Why John Edwards was first to respond to DFA members with his positions on Iraq and Global Warming.

Why Barack Obama is using DFA Training Academy materials to give his supporters the skills to win.

You know that primaries matter -- and this primary is the biggest of them all. Democracy for America is not going to let the pre-ordained front runner walk away without a fight.

Chip in $15 right now and support DFA's fight for a Progressive President.

http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/PrimariesMatter

Last week over 150,000 DFA members voted in our Presidential Primary pulse poll. No candidate was able to walk away with a majority, but one thing was clear. DFA members will not settle for the pundit's top choice.

DFA members are the boots on the ground fighting for progressive change. We are the caucus-goers, the early primary voters, the ones whose votes actually count.

DFA members support bold candidates with big ideas. Progessive candidates like Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Barack Obama. DFA members support candidates who are going to take our country in a new direction, stand for principles and make change happen.

We will not triangulate a third way. This race is not a foregone conclusion. Support DFA with a $15 contribution right now.

http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/PrimariesMatter

Together, we will show the pundits that primaries matter.

Thank you for putting your contribution into action.

-Rachel

Rachel Moss
Finance Director

There are a few things I picked up in reading this. The very first point was that the Chosen One of the media (Hillary) hasn't already won the Primary. Then they mention Kucinich, Edwards and Obama in a rather positive light. Just in case a person didn't already see what they were getting at, that was followed up with saying they weren't going to "let the pre-ordained front runner walk away without a fight".

They all but say that Hillary isn't progressive, and they don't think she should be in office.

The bold type was DFA's, and not mine, so I think the impressions I got were the ones they wanted me to have. I wonder how big of a ripple this will make in the end, but I have to say I'm highly impressed that they would do this, and I hope that other Democratic organizations will take their lead and not be afraid of pissing Hillary off. Because they're right - this race is not a foregone conclusion. We should be voting for who we think is the right person, and not who the media tells us has already won.

Now if we could just get Gore to tell us who he's endorsing.

Kudos to John Edwards

This is a very bold ad, and it's spot on.



(h/t Cosbo)

Lobbyists and PACs Represent Americans?

I think that lobbyists and PACs represent corporate interests and a few people who have a lot of money. So, it really pisses me off that in order for me to pay for Utah for Obama to have a booth, or advertise an event in City Weekly like our Bowling for Barack fundraiser this Friday, that we have to jump through hoops to make sure we are within FEC guidelines. We, as a small group of citizens cannot hold a BBQ without worrying that we save every receipt that might be slightly related and turn it in as an in-kind donation to the campaign. And, if we wanted to form a Political Action Committee, so that we can pay our own way for events and BBQs, we couldn't because a PAC can't have the sole purpose of helping a presidential campaign. Besides which, Obama isn't taking PAC or lobbyist money in this election.

So, we jump through those hoops, and it's so frustrating to watch PACs and lobbyists funding Hillary's campaign. We, average citizens who want Barack to be our next president, cannot be a PAC, but yet PACs and lobbyists donate to Hillary's campaign, and she turns around and declares that they do represent us.

She's wrong. A very small portion of PACs and lobbyists might represent us. But, her statement is far from true. By far, the money that has gone into Hillary's campaign represents special interests, and not the individual American. 350,000 individual people have donated to Barack Obama. Very few of those donors are maxed out, while far more of Hillary's are.

We truly need campaign finance reform. Until then, sadly, the lobbyists and PACs get a greater say in who our next president will be than we do. Donating helps, but considering that most "average" people aren't going to be able to max out their $2,300 donation limit in the primary, it still feels like "they" get a far bigger say in what happens than "we" will. I do have faith that Obama will continue to outpace Hillary with the sheer number of donors. That's been why he had higher fundraising dollars than Hillary did for the first two quarters.

Why does it have to be about money, though? This has got to be fixed, and soon.