As the GOP Turns (Oh Wait! It's Flat, So It Rotates)

Yeah, I know. An understatement.

As you have probably read, recent polling of those identifying as either republican or conservative believe that the GOP needs to move further to the right (thereby dropping off the planet altogether... oh don't we wish?) and believe that she, the you-know-who from the north, should fashion the party. Forgive my use of the word fashion.

As the first African American takes the helm of the GOP--something that has been largely uneventful--it is clear Michael Steele is the leader of the GOP machine, but is not the leader of the GOP rank and file.

Steele who beat out several GOP candidates including Chip Saltsman who ran former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign and who circulated the "Barack The Magic Negro DVD" (also, here and here)] has a tough row to hoe.

As Joan Walsh correctly points out in Salon, a right wing radio host who has pretty much kept the GOP cats in line by outing anything they do that strays from his brand of conservatism and she-from-Alaska (who the infamous radio talk show host loves) are, in fact, the de facto GOP leaders. Too bad for Steele, and, actually, too bad for the limping and rudderless GOP.

Steele is, thus, left in the odd position of either strategizing with the radio host or coming under his fire like many who didn't tow the line:

These pratfalls commenced after Obama casually told some Republican congressmen (correctly) that they won’t “get things done” if they take their orders from Limbaugh. That’s all the stimulus the big man needed to go on a new bender of self-aggrandizement. He boasted that Obama is “more frightened” of him than he is of the Republican leaders in the House or Senate. He said of the new president, “I hope he fails.”

Obama no doubt finds Limbaugh’s grandiosity more amusing than frightening, but G.O.P. politicians are shaking like Jell-O. When asked by Andrea Mitchell of NBC News on Wednesday if he shared Limbaugh’s hope that Obama fails, Eric Cantor spun like a top before running off, as it happened, to appear on Limbaugh’s radio show. Mike Pence of Indiana, No. 3 in the Republican House leadership, similarly squirmed when asked if he agreed with Limbaugh. Though the Republicans’ official, poll-driven line is that they want Obama to succeed, they’d rather abandon that disingenuous nicety than cross Rush.

--The New York Times, 31 January 2009 (excellent reading, BTW)

Meanwhile, the great northern state (where state taxes do not exist, but oil revenues certainly underwrite the state budget), suffered a one billion loss in bizarrely-timed market investments, and is projecting a one billion oil revenue fund reversal, with perhaps a three billion problem next year.

So mavericky she-from-the-north goes hat in hand (among the elitists) to Washington to ask for a share of the stimulus moneys (not the only thing she did while there, but that is a topic of another post) while, in fact, criticizing the stimulus bill. Apparently, she likes the slap-and-kiss approach.

Meanwhile, she-from-the-north is cutting and borrowing to make the balance sheet in Alaska work. It should be noted that Alaska is the number two state living off of federal dollars. Only New Mexico takes more money.

In trimming the Alaska budget, perhaps she-from-the-north is using this handy implement designed by a man who characterizes the she-from-the-north family as "the perfect American family" (is THIS odd or what!). I am a little puzzled by families with babies out of wedlock being called "perfect", but hey maybe that works for this man. I don't know about you, but giving implements of destruction to the "perfect American family" is beyond bizarre.

In the meantime, Limbaugh writes in The Washington Post his views on the stimulus package (turn off your chuckle-meter or you will break it) and proposes a bi-partisan plan so laughable that its audacity is but a footnote.

And the topper? The GOP has summoned Joe the Plumber to help them design outreach to conservatives. And NO, that is not a joke.

No one could make stuff like this up.

Why Obama Cannot Support LGBT Marriage

Yesterday afternoon, I read the first several pieces to surface with information regarding Obama's 1996 support of lgbt marriage. To be honest, I was not surprised, no matter WHAT he has said, politically, before the public and press.

I want to discuss not only how I feel about this, but take a walk through some history to see WHY Obama's 1996 statement, clearly in contradiction with his statements in 2007 and 2008 as he ran for, and won the presidency, is the true one and not what we have been hearing more recently.

You all know how I personally feel about this, so I needn't explain my own convictions other than to say that until all are equal, none are equal.

Here are a few links to articles on the 1996 Obama statements on a variety of lgbt issues: here, here, and here (these among others, the last of these has all the documents captured and readable on his statements for your perusal, and I strongly urge you to read them).

So, what are we to make of this? Well here is my take and this comes from someone that can be--though is usually not--a political pragmatist. I apologize for the length.

*****

Obama is a constitutional scholar. Having taught constitutional law for over a decade, Obama knows full well that, legally, separate is not equal. So, is his current tact (supports equal rights but not marriage) just political? That's my guess.

While campaigning, Obama said he did not support gay marriage (while supporting repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which, as this article points out, is hardly an easy thing to understand), he also said he did not support Proposition 8 which not only outlawed future same gender marriage but some suggest legislated the dissolution of 18,000 extent same gender marriages in California. (Note: The language of the bill is pretty short if not sweet: Prop 8: Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.) [my red emphasis and link]

Again, Obama is clear about the matter of civil rights in 1996 and clearly opposed Proposition 8 in 2008 (though I have found nothing to give reason) but is far less clear on DOMA while clearly supporting repeal of DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell, see below).

Obama is not clear about how he intends to proceed, and this seems to be the absolute stopping point for us all: We don't know what he means or what he will do. Of course, we have to admit, given he hasn't assumed the presidency yet, this should hardly be a surprise.

So I have to ask myself this, from a pragmatic point of view:

Is it better to have a president that understands equal rights but doesn't openly advocate for same gender marriage during the election cycle, or is it better to have a president in the closet about the issue (forgive the pun, please) who might well quietly work for gay marriage given he clearly understands the constitutional and legal backdrop of the matter?

My Case

First, let me reiterate that during his campaign, Obama had said that DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) would remain an issue at large until his hoped-for second term. THAT changed recently, as I posted here. That one change, mostly ignored by the mainstream media (MSM) signaled to me that we aren't in shallow water anymore. More is going on than meets the eye. It also signaled to me that he is clearly hearing from the lgbt community, and their supporters, that equality cannot wait.

Second, Colin Powell, after having supported Obama, issued a strong statement (watch the short CNN video) saying DADT does need to be revisited and went so far as to say he believes that Obama agrees. That might seem a minor thing, but it isn't considering Powell's history on the matter, his support of Obama, and the fact he went to the MSM to say so. It's the difference between announcing a wedding to close friends over dinner and doing so on the front page of The New York Times.

Furthermore, if Powell is going in this direction, you can be sure that others in the military are, likewise. One thing about Obama is clear: He does not listen to one voice, he listens to many before he makes a decision and let me remind you of the huge line of military showcased at the dem's national convention where Obama accepted the party nomination. That was no accident, rather an important statement.

Despite Powell's considerable errors on Iraq under Bush, he remains a respected mainstream voice, especially among people who listen carefully to those in uniform and often take their lead on issues. Many Americans were puzzled or delighted in Powell's support of Obama. Sure, some fired that Powell's support of Obama was "race"-based support, but that was the right wing waxing nonsense and throwing their last disgusting wad of spit into the public arena prior to the election.

Powell made his case for Obama--and his case against McCain and Palin--and I believe it was genuine.

There's fire here, not just smoke.

My Case and Historical Perspective
Now let's take a walk through a period of history that changed American politics for the last 45 years--and the lives of countless millions in this country.

Let's look at Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and later the Voting Rights Act of 1965) and what happened, politically, because of these important bills.

LBJ knew when he advocated (with a stick--that was pretty much his way of herding dem party cats!) for the 1964 Act, and at its signing, that, as he opined, "We [the democratic party] have lost the South for a generation." [emphasis and inclusion mine]

What Johnson didn't anticipate was the loss of the presidency (in terms of frequency) for well OVER a generation, loss of a united democratic and presidential majority for the majority of the last 45 years, and the creation of the racially divisive Southern Strategy/republican strategy that exists today:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.
--1970, Kevin Phillips, Nixon Strategist, The New York Times

The point is, that political decisions have legs for decades (as LBJ envisioned, and as history confirmed) and the strength of a party can be wiped out (regardless of the reason) in favor of another. The results of ONE issue, politically, can change the gold-standard of the country, in terms of political party, for decades--as it did.

In the intervening years between LBJ and Obama, democrats held the office of president for only 12 of the 36 years through Presidents Carter (four years) and Clinton (eight years). During these presidencies, Carter had a dem party majority in the US Senate for all four years of his presidency, and Clinton had a US senate dem majority for only two years. And majority doesn't tell the tale. If you only have a majority, and not a veto-proof majority (60 votes), the power of the majority is far less potent and cannot stop filibusters though, politically, one can assume that even dem party members will not always support dem issues, and some republicans might.

At stake in the 2008 election of Obama, and likewise members of congress, especially the senate, was control of the lower and particularly the upper house (and a hoped-for filibuster-proof majority) and the presidency. As you realize, many congressional members are elected on the coat tails of the president.

On November 4, 2008, there were 49 republicans, 49 dems, and two independents [Sanders (VT) and Lieberman (CT)] in the US Senate. With the Franken (D, winner)/Coleman (R) election in the Minnesota court, were Franken to eventually be seated, that would bring to 59 the number of democrats in the US Senate--one vote shy of a majority which could stop filibusters by opponent republicans.

Is the Southern Strategy still alive and kicking today? You bet. The tired old racial divide is
going screaming and kicking into its goodnight.

The November 4, 2008 election of Obama was a major break-away from this travesty as several red states became pink, purple or changed to blue. But the deep south (see second map) still maintains its red hue while the Bible Belt (see first map), especially in the very red deep south, very, very slowly changes and overlaps the very deep red in the deep south where the Southern Strategy remains effective enough to hold sway.

Both the Southern Strategy and the Bible Belt come significantly into play on lgbt issues including gay marriage as do states with significant predominate religions (e.g. Utah).

Politics and Sausage: It's better not to see either being made
I cannot say whether the choice of Christian Conservative Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation was a choice of politics, example, inaugural-by-committee or any or all of these things. No one knows, or at least no one is taking on the record about it. We may not know until Obama's presidential biography is written in years to come.

What we do know is that, in light of California's Prop 8, the issue of gay marriage is hardly settled not only in the (allegedly liberal) Golden State but in most other states. In light of the calendar of the California Supreme Court, and its hearing on challenges to Prop 8's passage, we are hopeful to have a decision this spring.

But the national issue of repeal of DADT and/or DOMA (and here), remain in the balance with DADT the likely first repealed if either.

There has certainly been NO mention of some sort of federal protection for same gender marriage and that is not to come, imho, for many, many years. Rather, Obama seems content to let the states decide, individually. THUS, it is easy, in that light, and given his history on the matter, to conclude that while he may personally support gay marriage in concept, he is NOT going to go out on a political limb to achieve it. He is going to let us duke it out at the state level and perhaps clear some sort of path through the repeal of DADT.

So, how do I feel about that? Well (and remember I am writing from a pragmatist point of view here), I think he has no choice, actually. Were Obama to come out guns blazing on this issue, the dems could be wiped out in 2010 and 2012 in the short term, and, like the dems post 1964, for decades.

It is important to remember that we have some horrible issues to deal with right now, including winding up a war-turned-occupation that should have never started (Iraq), trying to figure out what to do in a war that was dropped (Afghanistan), trying to avoid a war (Iran) and trying to keep the middle east, in general, from a complete meltdown not to mention India and Pakistan and the frequently pissy North Korea. Then there is the global economy and our national economy, energy (and the associated issue of energy security and global warming), how to deal with the incredible number of crimes committed by a bevy of folks in the last eight years (torture, among them) etc.

Every single person reading this knows that if we do not do the above right, our gooses are cooked and it won't matter who can marry who, the GOP could recover not only the house chambers but the white house and so begin eight more years of tyrannical rule that could make the last eight years look like a walk in the park. THIS is why, in my opinion, Obama will not go out on a political limb.

So, what will it take to achieve the needed civil rights? You, me and everyone we can muster to stay active and convince our representatives that rights are not just theoretical "things" but living entities.

This is not a happy conclusion. It isn't even a remotely satisfactory conclusion. The only thing I can say, at this point, is that it looks like the only conclusion.

Something's Happening Here...

Since (actually it started before November 4, 2008) Obama's election, there has been a notable tone of reconciliation running around. At first, I thought I was imagining it. I was wrong, it really is out there!

With this in mind, watch this wonderful CBS video (2:44) but listen carefully to the very end statements from the commentators.



I think I might have missed it since before Christmas because of the Rick Warren flap (and a well-deserved flap, at that).

But, For What It's Worth, it seems that the reign of terror associated with the last 8 years is, at least in our minds, coming to a close. Thanks Be To God for this!

If you close your eyes and listen to these lyrics (no matter how well you may know them) and put them in the context of the Bush Administration and even the 2008 Republican Convention where people of all stripes were arrested, including media, versus the late 60's, I think you will see what I mean. I sang this song for years along with We Shall Overcome (usually a capella) at protests, demonstrations and political events.

For What It's Worth (Stephen Stills, see song history here)


We Shall Overcome (see history here)


Eight frigging long years of social, military, environmental and economic tyranny, soon over. The battles before us will be fought differently as we may not shout as we climb the mountain, but listen and talk as we wend through the hills.

We shall overcome and begin again on January 20th.

We have high hopes and sometimes we may be disappointed. But this is going to be a new era amid serious economic challenges. This will be the time we must learn to talk, learn to compromise on some things and try to work, for once, together. Yes, it will be challenging.

But today as I look out my window at the beautiful blue sky and the distant red sedimentary cliffs and listen to the sounds of the birds and little else, I have been reflecting on what it will mean to be living in 2009 and the serious challenges we face nationally and internationally.

We have to keep our heads on straight because many will try to turn them away from the goals we see before us. There are generations behind mine (and no doubt yours) that now depend on each of us, as elders, to assure their future and a good future at that.

Let us pray that we are strong in will, kind in heart, open to hearing, capable in thought, and gentle in action.

Lord Hear My Prayer.

Thank you, God!

This picture says why.

Today, it was announced that our beloved Bishop Gene Robinson (NH) would give an opening prayer at the inaugural concert. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read it. When I realized it was true, I literally sat down and cried.

To say I was stunned is an understatement.

This wonderful man, the first openly (and married) gay Bishop in TEC was asked TWO weeks ago to take part in the inauguration. I had been wondering why TEC not only seemed to be shunned in the inauguration, but also WHEN Obama would lose his blind spot and be the inclusive man I believed him to be.

As many of you know, I have been extremely upset about the choice of Rick Warren as the person chosen by Obama to give the inaugural invocation. Not only has Warren spoken and acted cruelly on the issue of lgbt folks and issues, my past personal experience with Warren left me wondering not only about his honesty but his real connection to God. When someone tells me that God tells them to do things, I exit the bus via the closest door, window or hole in the floor.

Warren's church site has recently cleansed even more written material on their beliefs, something that started after both media and bloggers began to post on much of his church's exclusive thinking.

The angst I have so deeply felt culminated today upon reading the news. The tears were tears of joy (and great, great relief). When someday I look back for the final time at my life, this will be one day that will bring me a great, great sense of happiness and joy.

I know that this will cause great criticism and renewed attack upon +Gene, but +Gene is strong and has faced this before. I am certain +Gene knows exactly how much this means to so many of us; those that believe civil rights belong to all of us, lgbt and straight, people of color and not, those religious and not and those many of us who call ourselves Episcopalians and view +Gene, among many others in our faith, as a representative of the welcoming, inclusion and love of our church.

+Gene is a living testament honoring our beliefs and shines a light forward on our path asking us to move forward away from darkness when that darkness can be frightening for many.

In the middle of the oft painful schism which continues within TEC, we are given this wonderful gift at a time when another very special African American, Barack Obama, takes the oath of President with his hand on Lincoln's Bible. None of these are small details.

If you have not read some of +Gene's statements on this, I encourage you to visit The Lead and follow up with the various links to articles. +Gene's comments about how he intends to handle his prayer are wonderful.

Thank you, God.

Bishop Gene and the Inauguration + More

You have no doubt heard by now that Bishop Gene Robinson (TEC) was asked to give the opening invocation at the Presidential Inauguration Concert. Wow. For more (and believe me, you would have to be near death not to have heard about this by now!), go to the Lead, here. Pretting dang interesting news.

Obama's SEC (Security and Exchange Commission) nominee, Mary L. Schapiro, is being sued. Worth a read at the NY Times.

And the most important news (on the domestic front): Welcome Spike and Harry!

Obama Commits to Abolishing DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) +...

On DADT, watch what Obama's incoming Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says in this video (this short topic begins at about 4:25/5.00 in the video) if you want to fast forward. The several questions addressed are the result of input to change.gov, round 2. Previously, Obama had said he would get to this (likely in a hoped-for second term). Go here to read on his expression of delay on the matter from November 21, 2008. Here is a piece from 365 on this and at the end, a para on DOMA.


DADT is also addressed in this short piece.

Rev. Susan Russell writes on Rick Warren's recent (eh-hem) offer to orthodox TEC churches (in this case, schizmos only, in the wake of the recent CA Supreme Court decision on their theft of TEC property) to temporarily home them as he is in solidarity with them. Now, is Warren's offer and statement just a slap at TEC in general? Well, yeah! And is it also a slap at the lgbt community (AGAIN!)? Well, yeah! Read it here. I don't attend this parish, but it is quite close, as is Warren's church to me. I find Warren's recent action as disgusting as his more recent thoughts on Prop 8, etc. And least you think I am alone, try googling Rick Warren and TEC. Some are lgbt and some straight. A LOT of them are mighty miffed. I am one.

Interesting News of the Day

I'm trying to keep my wits about me in the face of Hopi's illness, so wanted to post. What an incredibly bad day.

But the news has some very interesting pieces, today:

Laura Douglas-Brown, writing for Californians Against Hate, writes: The Atlanta Black LGBT Coalition last week called on Ebenezer Baptist Church, the historic church where Dr. Martin Luther King served as pastor, to remove Pastor Rick Warren as the keynote speaker for its upcoming MLK Day service. Warren is scheduled to speak at Ebenezer the day prior to the presidential inauguration where he will be giving the opening prayer.

This article found on Beliefnet is interesting though i don't necessarily follow the line of thinking. What I personally found interesting is that, for instance, the Obama transition team has met with the United Methodists (and others?) a dozen times. I just have to wonder if they have visited that same interest upon TEC and if so, who it is that is representing us, and what the discussions have been. Also, if you click on the link to George Bush (religious liberal) his early Episcopal training seems to show. Mmm.

This Tuesday, January 5, 10am, it is expected the California Supremes will issue their judgement on the various California TEC property litigations, case S055194. You can go here on Monday to see if that is, in fact, the case. I'm not much of a gambler, but I am (figuratively) betting on the Los Angeles Diocese winning these cases.

Axelrod on Warren, Thoughts on Prop 8 and More

Obama's advisor David Axelrod defended Obama's choice of Warren at inauguration as a "healthy thing". Read it here. Apparently, bigotry is healthy and good now.

*****

Kos diarist hahne writes on the problems with the no on 8 campaign. Worth reading, and has links to other postmortem diaries. This is one person's perspective, but give it a read. I am not being critical, but I do believe it is important to look back and see what could have been done better.
*****
Now all this said, this 60 Minutes section really outlines Obama's rise. It is excellent.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Merry Christmas, Everyone! (+ a news video)

There are many of you that come here that are not Episcopalian, let alone Christian... let alone any other spiritual belief. So I offer you a very happy holiday! This is actually my favorite time of year!

We had dinner at my mom's (I cooked) and here is a nice picture of her with her dear tenant, Robert. Mom will be 95 in January.

Here is a picture of the local mountains covered in snow. I live in there somewhere:) In my 34 or 35 years here, I have NEVER seen these mountains (in the center is Saddleback Peak) like this. It has been just incredibly cold (oy, my electric bill!), and lots of rain this year. Normally, we get our rain in January and February, so if this continues, we will have a very good rain year which we certainly need.

In the 2007 burn area, though, it is still wrecking havoc. Many continually struggle with debris flows, etc. These many folks are still so very harmed by the arsonist. It is terribly sad.

*****

Much has been said about the civil rights Methodist minister Joseph Lowery giving the Benediction at Obama's inaugural. One of the things said is that he supports gay marriage. He doesn't.

You can watch the MSNBC vid here where, in his own words, he struggles with the term.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is VERY Good News!

I am happy to report that Obama has chosen Dr. Steven Chu, Nobel Prize winner, as his nominee for Secretary of Energy. Can you imagine! Science back in the cabinet!

You can read about the choice here at the NY Times.

For you science types, here is an hour-long video with Chu:



Also chosen are:

Carol Browner, former head of EPA under Bill Clinton (good choice) to head energy policy from the White House.

Lisa Jackson, chosen to be EPA administrator

Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Nancy Sutley was chosen to be chairwoman of the president's Council on Environmental Quality.

I cannot speak to Jackson or Sutley, but Browner was pretty darned good.

Steven Chu's one position that I oppose is increased use of nuclear power. He has stated, though, that the waste is a huge problem to solve so I do give him credit there. He does have some viable alternatives, on their face, to Yucca Mountain for high-level radioactive waste and that is good. It is NOT going to be an easy subject to solve.

Science back in the cabinet? Science back in the white house? Good grief, change is coming!

Barack and Michelle Obama on 60 Minutes

I think you will really enjoy this, both the first interview of Barack alone, and both he and Michelle in the second half.

You will need to copy paste this into your browser. I cannot get it to embed or link directly right now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4608198n

Major Fresh Air From Obama: Change!

Obama is set to undo some of Bush's last minute handiwork, especially on environmental issues.

This is SUCH a positive read!

Go here!

Election Day Post 1... Many to Come

If you have or see ANY problems at the polls, call here:
Call 1-877-US-4-OBAMA (1-877-874-6226)
Call 866-OUR-VOTE, Voter Protection

Please Pass this on on your blog.

I am going to be blogging throughout the day, so watch this site!

*****

Go here to watch the electoral vote (EV) map develop as polls close. This is a great way to watch what is really going on instead of listening to talking heads if that drives you nutso. You can watch the situation by state, and, actually, in much smaller units by state. Helpful for you ex-pats.

*****

Voting today: I was amazed at my polling place. In live in the reddest of red counties in the U.S. in a blue state. It just doesn't get more conservative than Orange County, CA.

They had, by 9:30am, almost three times the number of votes normal here. They had 8 booths for 1,000 homes which begs the question, how can other states POSSIBLY have two or three booths for over 100K people?

I talked to my librarian who had just come from another much larger area (Anaheim). Just to be SURE people could vote, they had several paper ballot booths (and lots of paper ballots), and eight machine ballot booths. Wait was about 40 minutes. She estimated the number of voters under 25 in line at about 40%... woo hoo... and said some of the poll workers were REALLY young! You know how that happened, and it is a noun and a verb: Obama.

I felt so proud being able to vote this time. The only other time I felt anything near this was when I voted for Clinton in 1992. That was a big relief for me at the time.

Now don't get me wrong, I am WAY more progressive than Obama is and I don't like his energy plan. But I did not vote for him because I was casting a "better than" vote.

I voted for The O because I honestly believe he will be a great leader, will be respected in the world, will make sensible foreign policy and domestic decisions, I like his tax plan, I like his health care thinking (for the most part), and the man has the composure I want next to the nuclear football.

Obama has inspired more people to work for a campaign than anyone in modern history. He planned for all possible events, raised more money in tiny donations than anyone in history, and he will be handling potential poll problems. He is a bright and dynamic man, cool as a cucumber and passionate as well.

The video below--fun and funny and VERY inspirational--is a piece of An O rally yesterday. It is just GREAT.

If you are not yelling Fire It Up, Ready to go! by the end of this, I have some coffee for you and a message from one of my rescue cats, Kiki aka "Coffee Cat"


Fire It Up!

Ready to Go!

Get Out and Vote

For "The O"!

Kiki is one of the most persistent cats I have ever rescued. She is not shy in asking for some love or food. She is the one making the phone calls today on GOTV, driving vans of people to the polls, walking the lines to check for problems at polling places. If she were a human, she would be my mentor. She is about 16 years old and the only reason she is still here is that she has medical problems and will likely stay in our rescue for the rest of her life. She is a fabulous cat. Loves everyone.

So watch this... and yell it out!

*****

On exit polls. This is mandatory reading [hint: No credible early exit polls will be out until after 5pm EST (8pm PST)]. Reading this will keep your blood pressure down and keep you out of the "fear zone". Read it here, from Daily Kos. You will thank me later.

*****

One of my all time fav You Tube Vids on the election. An early one, but a great one:

McCain Goes After Obama's Fund Raising + Other Nifty Stuff

Barack Obama has raised a TON of money, no question. And every time the pubs open their mouths these days, he raises more.

The choice of Sarah Palin by McCain for VP probably spurred millions of dollars of donations for Obama. Seen as a terrible threat given McCain's age--let alone her lack of qualifications and strident neocon views on everything from the environment to foreign affairs--I know it certainly has been driving my wee wallet.

Obama raised over $250 million as of June, 2008. In September 2008, after both the democratic and republican conventions, Obama hauled in a record-breaking single month of donation: $150 million.

Federal law requires that campaigns disclose donations of over $200.00 from small donors. It does NOT require the reporting of names for these small donors. I think most of we small donors really appreciate that, I know I do.

Obama's television add spending--in line with the DNC's 50 state approach:

Based on his current spending, CMAG predicts Mr. Obama’s general election advertising campaign will surpass the $188 million Mr. Bush spent in his 2004 campaign by early next week. Mr. McCain has spent $91 million on advertising since he clinched his party’s nomination, several months before Mr. Obama clinched his.
--The New York Times, 10-17-2008

It's no wonder McCain is whining and almost tripping himself on accusations these days given the original underdog is now winning, thanks to his platform. Here is what McCain said today on Fox News Sunday (transcript):

And finally, there's $200 million of those campaign contributions — there's no record. They're not reported. You can report online now — $200 million that — that we don't know where the money came from — a lot of strange things going on in this campaign.

Cry me a river, John McCain. Obama's campaign outsmarted you, and out fund-raised you. Why? Because he's got a better plan, a better message, and better campaign staff.

And those (spooky music) 'strange things going on in his campaign'? It's called Americans like him better than you. Hard to accept, I know, John.

You are in the first stage of grief, John, which includes denial, but are also integrating stages two and three, including anger which people seem to see in you all the time. Your personality is uneven and you are unable to control your emotions as your facial expressions exhibited in the last debate:

1. SHOCK & DENIAL-
You will probably react to learning of the loss with numbed disbelief. You may deny the reality of the loss at some level, in order to avoid the pain. Shock provides emotional protection from being overwhelmed all at once. This may last for weeks.

2. PAIN & GUILT-
As the shock wears off, it is replaced with the suffering of unbelievable pain. Although excruciating and almost unbearable, it is important that you experience the pain fully, and not hide it, avoid it or escape from it with alcohol or drugs.

You may have guilty feelings or remorse over things you did or didn't do with your loved one. Life feels chaotic and scary during this phase.

3. ANGER & BARGAINING-
Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame for the death on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

You may rail against fate, questioning "Why me?" You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair ("I will never drink again if you just bring him back")

One of the things I find incredible is that any Republican, knowing that money controls campaigns and successful outcomes, and given Bush's campaign funding history, would have the temerity to knock Obama on this point. Hey, republicans, look at it this way: We took a page from your book, changed it a little, and used it against you. I hope you can adjust.

The other little factoid is this: The public didn't put their money behind your 'gal' (her words), just their anger. Even the GOP doesn't like you much, John. Those right wing, homophobic, sometimes racist attack-everyone-on-the-planet types love ya though. I guess there are not that many of them, and apparently, they don't donate. No surprise there.

I think you could take Palin-speak advice on this point: They don't like to 'spread their money around'. Talk to your wife, John. She's got bucks, and a bunch of homes, and spends over $270K annually just for domestic help. Maybe she'll loan ya a few bucks.

The dems didn't take it easy this time... they were prepared to kick the pants of the GOP. 16 days until we know if that paid off not only for Obama, but for down ticket dems, as well.

*****

You know, while Sarah Palin has lived in a media vacuum since her nomination, Obama has been out there now for two full years against one of the best of the best for most of that time, Hillary Clinton. Anyone that can't figure out who Obama is needs to blame themselves or perhaps their favorite right wing radio host, TV station or even, perhaps, their church. But don't blame the media and don't blame Obama.

While the McCain campaign dares say that 'something is funny' with Obama's campaign, Palin has been dodging the truth since nominated, and, actually, long before. Using private e-mail accounts on Yahoo to do official business--as Rove does, and has--she attempted to keep her personal communications out of the line of fire from public records requests and public scrutiny.

After an Alaska court recently ordered that those e-mails (and those of her staff who have also been using private accounts) be preserved, and media requested the information, Alaska has now informed them that it will cost $15 MILLION dollars for them. ROFL. What a massive fraud on the public and media. Gads.

Had Palin conducted her business on the up-and-up (read legally) it would be so much cheaper. This is the famous Sarah Palin's real-life version of honesty, integrity, transparency and reform. She is a Maverick, though. No one else has ever tried such a stunt.

I use the CA Open Records Act all the time for information and I know just how valuable a tool it is for the public. I have likewise use the federal Freedom of Information Act on many occasions, including their appeals process. The media should never be denied access regardless of right, left or center and neither should the public.

Yet McCain/Palin scream, accuse, yell and whine that Obama should reveal every single point of every single contention. What hypocrisy.

A recent comment by the whack-job Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachman who said that Obama is anti-America, says liberals in Congress should be investigated for their Anti-American stands...and invoked McCarthyism at its finest likewise suggests that every jot and tittle be covered by Obama when the BIG stuff is being hidden by McCain/Palin. In case you have not seen her diatribe, watch this... it is actually super scary but you really should experience what a Palin look/act alike says when not on the national ticket. The anti-American nonsense (which she implies is characteristic to ALL liberals) begins at about 4:00:

The Why of What Palin is Doing in Attacking Obama

Much has been said in the last week about the hateful invective continually delivered by Sarah Palin in her campaign stops across the country. She delivers it so cunningly, and so deliberately. Her convention speech reference to "community organizers" gave us a clear picture of her capability to use a scalpel to excise and lay before the public her version of worthy and not, and now we see this applies to evil and terrorism. Palin can elicit strong hate responses, and one can only do that if one can personally connect to the issue themselves.

I have contended--and still hold--that Sarah Palin was chosen as VP to solidify the evangelical vote within the GOP. It was not about attracting the women's vote, though handy she was female. And she has certainly solidified that base. Recent Pew polling (September 9-14, 2008) shows a 10 percent rise in support of McCain by Evangelicals from June 2008 to September 9, 2008.

But Palin has also done something else, as well, and hardly by accident: She is playing on fear, pointing to Obama and saying terrorist in the same sentence. Why? Well consider this Pew chart from 2004:

*****

Now, let's switch gears slightly for a moment to discuss a September 9, 2008 talk given by Jonathan Cohen, Director of Polling, Washington Post. (You tube video in entirety, below.)

According to Cohen (about 16:00), in 2004 terrorism reigned as the issue with voters according to exit polling data. 49% of voters polled indicated this in 2004 election exit polling saying they trusted only George Bush to handle terrorism. 97% of these 49% voted for George Bush. Do the math. That is 48% of the electorate. Bush won against Kerry with 51%, needing only 3% of additional voters (voting on other issues) who did not believe terrorism was the issue to win the election, which he did.

But here is the clincher:

What Cohen says, after this (see point about 17:26), is that "(...) It remains a core GOP belief that they can win on terrorism, and I will get to later McCain's advantage on the issue over Barack Obama..."

Cohen then goes on to cite that as of September 2008, fear of terrorism (domestic) has dropped to almost 1997 levels, levels extent well before 9/11 (19:00), though noting that 2/3 of those polled remain apprehensive about the possibility of another major attack.

Cohen then goes on to show there has been more decoupling between the war on Iraq and the war on terrorism (19:43), noting, nonetheless, that McCain holds a polling advantage on the war on Iraq and on terrorism (21:00), which he says has been a consistent lead... and is a 20 point lead over Obama (this would be part of the post convention polling, which, he suggests, is similar to other polling of late August).

September 9, 2008 Berkeley, CA talk, Jonathan Cohen, Director of Polling, Washington Post.
13:20 about the next 45 days from 9/9/08.

*****

While no one can say for sure what is going on behind the doors of the McCain campaign aside developing scenarios to knock Obama off his game, what people do know is that the McCain campaign, like Obama's, poll constantly. This gives the campaigns information on where they are falling down, where they have a leg up, and can serve as the basis for the tone and issue preference the campaign will set in the immediate and/or long term future. We are talking immediate future now, with 24 days to go.

McCain has nose-dived, is doing poorly in many battleground states, and Palin's favorability ratings have plummeted as well. Obama, depending on the polling, shows a 6 to 11 point national lead, with a commanding number of electoral votes in hand as of today if polling is anywhere near correct.

So, does McCain believe he can harvest votes through Palin's invective about Barrack, using in the same sentence, over and over, Obama and the word terrorist? Of course. Was this just a personal attack? No.

The one area where McCain leads Obama in the polls--and has consistently--is on his credibility and trust on the Iraq war and on terrorism. This is precisely WHY Palin is bringing it up, and why McCain isn't apologizing. It could make or break his presidential bid.

Palin never had to say Obama was of Arab descent. Terrorist and Arab, in the post 9/11 world, go hand in hand and a recent spate of hate crimes against Islamics underlines this, as well as its seeming connection to Palin's rhetoric.

John McCain did correct that notion at one campaign stop--with an audience member accusing Barack of being of Arab descent--but barely. And don't look for other corrections or for Palin to change direction. If it isn't terrorism, it will be another polling vulnerability.

McCain's campaign has rightly come under considerable heat from both the public and media for the oft hate spewing crowd Palin seems to be whipping up for him while he stands doe-eyed behind. And no doubt his campaign is playing from the internet nut playbook which has accused Obama of everything short of being a space alien.

This is nasty politics, but it is politics.

McCain knows he has to pull every single string to hope to unweave the web Obama and his supporters have carefully woven and he, and only he, can make the decision whether a principled loss or an unprincipled stab at winning are more important.

I think we all see what he has concluded.

Palin Supporter Advocates Killing: Palin Over The Top

My worst fears are coming to fruition.

Now that the "R" word is being more discussed by the press (as though it wasn't extent this entire time), Palin is stirring it up on the "sly" through use of words designed to instill fear and hatred. Sadly, it seems to be working for some of her more brain-dead supporters.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.
--Washington Post, October 7, 2008

And did that man get plucked out of the crowd for a talking to by the FBI? Apparently not.

Did Palin correct him? Of course not.

Now imagine someone doing that at an Obama event. Double standard?

Her goal is to foment hate and fear. Apparently, this is what she is good at and used to. And one can only wonder if she learned it at church.

Palin's Wasilla Church, an Assemblies of God church where she attended until just a few years ago from the age of 12, knows a thing or two about advocating hate and fear.

They have had guest speakers who have broadsided Judaism. The church's pastor has laid claims to 911 as a war contending for your faith and has stated that Jesus was in war mode.

The same Pastor has assigned hell to those that didn't vote for Bush later saying it was questionable whether Kerry supporters could enter into heaven. I sure hope someone reports this louse to the IRS. If that isn't supporting a candidate from the podium I don't know what is. And if that isn't instilling hate and fear, I don't know what is.

The trash on the net aimed at Obama is no accident. Some people will believe anything, especially if it suits their hateful or racist purposes. This is precisely why Palin has gone nuclear (or nucular in her pronunciation) in attacking Obama.

I have said it time and time again that Palin is neither qualified to be vice president let alone president and she is an embarrassment to intelligent women, regardless of party. Palin's moral ground has not shifted. Rather, it is just beginning to come into the light and it ain't pretty.

Last spring, McCain said that mudslinging and dirty campaigning wasn't something the public wanted. Apparently he has changed his tune. Please read THIS to get a good feel for what those in campaign positions are now foisting on the public.

Here is McSame vowing to run a clean campaign, as well as his wife doing the same... amid their attack adds:



I can tell you right now that if anyone in the Obama campaign dared do such things they would be fried by the mainstream media. Why is Obama held to a higher standard?

It doesn't get more vicious.

Yes, it angers me to no end. It reminds me of the crowd asking to let a thief go free and for the crucifixion of Christ instead. It's an eerie parallel. Not that I am equating Obama with Christ, it's the crowd that concerns me. A charismatic leader can be a God-send, or stand for evil.

There is a long list of them, historically. We know their names.

Now we can add one more. Sarah Palin.

Here is a rather gruesome, if telling, You Tube video on some of Palin/McSame's supporters. It is jaw-dropping.

Spit it Out: The Election and the "R" Word

Having traveled a lot within the United States, and having worked in a number of states as well as having lived in several, I have never doubted that racism is alive and well. I also know it rests heavier in some states and regions than others.

I have heard it, seen it and felt it. I am fairly certain you have, too. Statistics on the current presidential election show it potentially effecting the next election.

What is racism?

Racism is racial prejudice that has been incorporated into the activities and procedures of major institutions, corporations, social systems (such as those related to housing, education, and health), and other arenas of major social activity (such as politics, the media, finance, and banking). Racism serves both to discriminate against ethnic minorities and to maintain advantages and benefits for White Americans.

--American Psycological Association

I started to write on this topic a month ago but found it so personally depressing, I stopped and left my draft to simmer. After some shocking comments I heard yesterday from an acquaintence, I cannot remain silent.

But nobody -- well, hardly anybody -- acknowledged their own prejudices. Both blacks and whites instead blamed "they," a vague and unaccountable surrogate for their own racial attitudes.

*****
Four of every 10 white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, calling them "lazy," or "violent" or blaming them for the ills of black America, according to the AP-Yahoo poll. Such surveys draw criticism from whites who say the numbers are exaggerated and from blacks who say the numbers are too low.
--Associated Press, 9-28-2008

And it's not just African Americans, it is Arab Americans, Mexican Americans, Latino Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and what are generally referred to as European Americans. Each doles it out, each gets it back. And this doesn't even begin to cover classism or sexism.

How might this effect the election?

"What kind of choice do guys like me have? A black guy or a woman," Coccia says. "It's a lesser of two evils."
--Associated Press, 9-28-2008

An Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted with Stanford University has some telling statistics. In the linked article, you can go to the PDF and look at the questions and various stats. The segment on racial beliefs begins on page 12.

But the bottom line is this: Race DOES make a difference in elections and in the case of Obama, perhaps a 6 point difference something the "Bradley Effect" seems to agree with, at least on paper. In a nutshell, the Bradley Effect is a theory about outcome when a white and non-white candidate are running against one another for the same position.

A May 14, 2008 article in the Huffington Post concludes that not only is West Virginia the most racially prejudiced state in the union, but that exit polling shows that 17% of voters had a racial element in their voting deliberations, noting this topped the previous Arkansas standing of 13.7%.

The Republican Party's rise to power in recent decades has largely depended upon the fact that impoverished whites blame blacks rather than corporations for their problems. Without these racist whites, Republicans such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush could never have won. The biggest hope for the future of the Democratic Party is the dying off of the old racists who helped bring the Republicans to power. But West Virginia skews very old, and poorly educated, which is the worst possible demographic for Obama.
--Huffington Post, May 14, 2008

I know racism is a factor because I personally hear it from folks who surprise me and don't. Interestingly, I hear more of it from men than women, and far more from my age group than 18-30 year olds (who hold my greatest hope in helping to conquer racism, sexism, classism, ageism and all the other isms and gender identity issues that drag us down as a nation).

I know I am not alone. And it comes through in other respects, as well.

Anyone that scours the net daily as I do, sees another alarming trend: Increasingly hostile racist comments, and more internet sites dedicated to the white nationalist movement and its variations.

"The truth is, we're finding an explosion in these kinds of hateful sentiments on the Net, and it's a growing problem," said Deborah Lauter, civil rights director for the Anti-Defamation League, which monitors hate group activity. "There are probably thousands of Web sites that do this now. I couldn't even tell you how many are out there because it's growing so fast."

Neo-Nazi and white power groups acknowledge that they have little ability to derail Obama's candidacy, so instead some have decided to take advantage of its potential. White-power leaders who once feared Obama's campaign have come to regard it as a recruiting tool. The groups now portray his candidacy as a vehicle to disenfranchise whites and polarize America.

--Washington Post, June 22, 2008

This Palm Beach, Florida online new site, PalmBeachPost.com, carried a July 26, 2008 article that is almost a must-read on the issue as a primer. The largest white nationalist group in the country is located in Palm Beach (yes, eh hem, that Palm Beach!), and several others, likewise, hearken from Florida.

Remaining silent about the elephant in the room does little to supress its behavior, something I have argued with myself about for a month. We cannot change it in others, each of us, but we can remain vigilant for it's appearance and each of us can let it be known that this kind of talk and thinking is neither appreciated or tolerated. It can be done kindly, but it must be done.

The bottom line is this: We must not stop working for Obama until the polls close on November 4. The race is close if the Bradley Effect and polling are right, and even if they are not it is extremely close at this point with 37 days left.

Please, as Brave Net Films says..."pssst... do something."

And On The Domestic Side of Life...

The musician ex is in town for a few days, so am tending to domestic affairs. Hope to be back blogging tomorrow night. Had a plumbing melt down, so had to do that today... plumber left
at 11:30 tonight, returning at 7am. Sheesh! Old houses. Only one old house, BTW.

But for now...

*****

What is P up to now? Well, in brief, she has agreed to testify before a board she appointed instead of the investigative body she told she would cooperate with. Details, details. She, as gov, can fire each of these three folks she wants to testify to. Knowing her alleged tendency and reputation for retaliation, you tell me how this works out. Would be like Nixon being investigated by his own cabinet. Or Bush by his own DOJ--and we know how well that worked out.

The economic meltdown is not being taken lightly. Well, at least not by the dems. McCain still cannot figure out how to make his causal anti-regulation stance wash. And if you haven't yet figured out the big deal, well oil went up by $20/barrel in the last four days, and future prices (against the euro) is further diminished meaning that whatever you buy will, in the future, cost a WHOLE lot more. Those in poverty now... well, that class will expand likewise. Anyone up for a 'war on poverty'?

Here's McCain's nonsense... listen carefully. Did he every answer the questions? Um, no.



On the melt down, Obama is holding steady and has done very well through the econ crisis consulting the best of the best. Yes, we can. He is positioning himself right--and thoughtfully. God help him, he is going to have a bizarre first term.

Bill Clinton is making some headlines--and as far as I am concerned, he is walking a curved line. What is this, the year of living nicely? He should know better. When canvassing, however, never mention her. She does arouse some strong emotions which might be what he is going after (though I confess to not knowing one woman that likes her). It is, and should be, about policy, but given she has none, hard to go after that. And yes, it really is about McCain and his anti-regulatory stance. So Bill is right, but he is also wrong.

Equal Pay for Equal Work: Lilly Ledbetter (31 sec)

This is the new Obama add. It made me cry. I grew up in a single parent home, my parent a woman. My father refused to pay child support, my mother taking the jobs she could until she started a business on a whim and a prayer. There were days she had no idea what we would eat. We had no money.

That scourge McCain voted against equal pay for equal work.

I faced the same battle in 1980.

Palin's Favorability Ratings Plummet

Photo is of a McCain stop today... Home alone, John? Palin is campaigning alone in another state.

I refer you here and here to read, and they offer a bit of analysis on the figures.

Also a great new Obama ad, hard-hitting, on McCain's dirty campaigning. Super add. And backed up by the calls of the major media. Obama is keeping on track, he's back on message post GOP convention/Palin hubris, he's keeping his ads clean .

Four debates are coming up. They will be important. Obama will actually have a chance to respond to McCain. So will Biden to Palin.

My thoughts, for what they are worth:

1. I have always believed, and remain believing, that the sole purpose of Palin's pick was to energize and solidify the evangelical right. I think, now, many agree... and then there's the AND she is a woman part.

2. I thought they would heavily hit the maverick and change issues. They did. Now they are adding "reformer", or Maverick Reformers for change. Just remember and keep saying McCain--Bush. McCain--Bush. That's what this is all about.

3. They will continue with all the sexist nonsense. That won't be stopping, but not subjecting Palin to general media will continue to piss everyone off and at some point (as the NY Times has probably figured out, based on their whopping article of yesterday) if you aren't in a position to get one of those really special interviews... then perhaps you really ARE free to tell the truth (as they did a damn good job of!). Their strategy will backfire in a lot of ways.

4. Fox news' interview, as a reader points out, will be to reinforce her in the eyes of the public given she did not really do well through the Gibson pieces, especially on foreign affairs. Gibson wasn't nearly as squishy as people thought he would be.

5. She is campaigning separate from McCain right now--they need to cover a lot of bases. But whether she will be made available to the press, I really seriously doubt it. She cannot deal with press. It is a huge risk in the states where they need to press. Campaigning separately will also show that no one really likes McCain... he is alone... very alone most of the time at his stops especially in comparison to Palin. It also--as happened during time of her Gibson interviews--allowed for inconsistency of remarks/message given at or near the same time by the two candidates. (John said one thing on the view, palin said another in interview, both about HER position.)

6. They lost their momentum on Palin when she went back to Alaska (where there was a really nifty anti-palin protest) only to do the Gibson interviews which didn't help. If polling is indeed related to the interviews, and who knows if that is the case, one could argue they hurt her--badly. She should not have taken that break, but I am glad she did. Guess she had to memorize some new lines?

7. Will she be able to regain some of that momentum? Some, certainly not all. As more truth comes out, the non-evangelical vote will tip away (all things being equal!), which is what is starting to happen. Picking her so late gave them an advantage in her being unknown. But as time goes by--and media does their work--evidence is highlighting her truth stretching, lies, spins and her lack of knowledge. It may not shift much of anything in the evangelical vote, but it will shift others and already is shifting others. I take the view that we have two great people to go after here... both are very vulnerable.

8. 527s are starting to come out with their own hit pieces (e.g. on the topics of choice and ariel slaughter of wolves, for instance). Don't think for a minute that won't happen on McCain's side as well. There are already articles out there about millions set aside to swift boat Obama at a strategic time. Probably won't start right away given what I expect to see at the end when there is no opportunity to properly vett all the adds and educate the voters.

9. The GOP is at it again: already caging activities in purple states. If you get an absentee ballot in the mail, my suggestion is do not use it. They are sending out VERY tricky things including ballots with wrong return addresses, a wee little box at the bottom that, if missed, invalidates your votes, etc. Take your absentee ballots to your registrar and your media if you get them and you can find things wrong with them. I hope the national media will start doing some serious hit pieces on this. It will be a mess and could cost the election, which is, afterall, the whole point of their continued ballot box dishonesty.

10. With the announcement of economic gloom and doom--certainly helped along by Greenspan's comments, including the one that Iraq was just a political lie (and this by a 'pub)-- it will force the issue of economics onto the campaign stops more and more. The Lehman Bros. failure (not to mention the upcoming predictable failure of several major banks) will just add to the fire. Palin doesn't know economics. Obama does. Their messages will be VERY different, and no amount of "government reform" Palin proposes will fix that. Obama will shine here, and almost every expert who has looked at his tax plan, v. McCains says that Obama's is better for everyone BUT the extremely wealthy. McCain's favors the extremely wealthy (shocked, right?). The economy is not going to get better in the next 50 days. That will help Obama. He isn't the one that voted 90% of the time with Bush. Keep saying McCain and Bush in the same line. That's what this is all about, except farther to the right.

11. Bill Clinton and Hillary and others are hitting the trail for Obama. Great! Hillary has some work to do in the purple states.

12. Watch Rove carefully. He doesn't like McCain and is sending out some really weird messages. But given what we know about him, he is completely untrustworthy and always has a plan.

13. Remember, Palin is McCain's "best" pick and an example of his judgement. THAT is why we actually can go after Palin... and McCain. I love my dog, but I would want him driving a school bus.

Finally--Don't panic, remain calm, and work for the Obama campaign calling, or whatever they need! Send money. They have to flood with adds in important states. If you can get to a neighboring purple state to work, get with their campaign office to do so. (e.g. California to Nevada).

I really believe we can win this. Yes... I do. I really do believe it.

PHOTO CREDIT: Huffington Post