6 posts tagged “obama”

My apologies to all of my devoted readers for being so slack with the updates the past couple of months. I won't waste your time with excuses of fatherhood and election-oriented activities (I have posted some cute new baby photos!), but, instead will catch-you up on my current projects.

If you haven't checked out ObamaTravel.org, it has been more successful than we could have hoped. There are nearly 250 with profiles on the site and a good chunk of them have received the resources they needed to get to swing states and make a difference for the election. A huge "THANK YOU" to Kevin, Kelly and RIchard who donated their valuable time to help make the site a reality.

I have also been working for CREDO Mobile (part of Working Assets) on two election projects: One, is running CREDO's Election Day immediate response text message network. You can sign up to be on alert to help protect the election here: http://act.credoaction.com/election/

The other project I've been involved with has been creating a mobile version of FiveThirtyEight.com, the polling site founded by Nate Silver. To check out the mobile 538 site, check out: http://credomobile.com/538. And to sign up for daily text alerts about polling data, simply text keyword 538 to shortcode 30644.

I promise to resume writing regularly after the election. In the meantime, let's keep our fingers crossed!

Once again, the presidential race will be determined by the outcome of a few key states (commonly known as swing states or battleground states). I'm pleased to announce the launch of ObamaTravel.org, a swing state project that Moira and I have been working on with three very dedicated web geniuses for the last couple of months.

ObamaTravel.org is a platform that connects volunteers who want to travel to a swing state (like Virginia or Colorado) with financial sponsors and swing state host families. It's sort of a political hybrid of Craig's List, Team-in-Training and Kiva.org - volunteers post profiles and solicit sponsorship from their family and friends. Sponsors can see their donations in action by following the activities of their volunteers.

In order for this project to have a real impact, we need to spread the word as far and wide as we can. So please volunteer or sponsor someone on the site. And forward this post to everyone in your address book who might want to travel to a swing state or who lives in a swing state (actually, just send it to everyone who supports Barack Obama!).

To learn more, please go to: http://www.obamatravel.org

"It's over" according to CNBC's money man: Kudlow
"It's semi-official" according to Reason
We're past the point of no return according to Headline Junky
Texas Rules may favor Obama
Barack's Brain Trust and their stance on Israel

Learn more about tonight's debate moderator Campbell Brown and her Republican strategist hubby Dan Senor

Do you have any conservative friends? I, admittedly, still have a few. Well, today's links should provide you with ample ammunition:

Here's a piece of ridiculousness from everyone's favorite, David Brooks: NYT: David Brooks. In the article, he trots out this gem:
"Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?"

Get the real scoop here on Obama's public financing "pledges" here: Barack Fact Check

Yesterday, my conservative friend echoed the latest talking point to me, that Obama is "the most liberal senator" according to "the very serious and very non-partisan, National Journal." Luminaries such as Karl Rove and Pat Buchanan are hell-bent on perpetuating this allegation as "fact."  Amazingly, John Kerry was the Journal's "most liberal senator" of 2003!  Read more about the National Journal's criteria for being a liberal senator here and here. As Steve Benen (c/o Brian Beutler) writes, "this is philistinism masquerading as social science."

Still ready on Day One: Clinton Fails to File Full Slate in PA
And here's a bit of encouraging polling data from Gallup: Obama Gaining Among Middle Aged, Women and Hispanics

---------------------------------
"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don’t care about you until you reach military age. Then you’re just what they’re looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."
                                                                                                 - George Carlin

Here's a thoughtful response to my recent post from a faithful reader. I'll post my reply shortly:

Some good points here. And while I'm not exactly thrilled with the prospect of a Hillary presidency (of the three, I'm mostly with Edwards, and he's not out of it yet), I can think of a number of reasons why the choice is not as obvious as this makes it sound, as far as Hillary vs. Obama. I don't ignore her obvious deficiencies but let's not pretend Obama is the Second Coming either.

First of all, Hillary does indeed have significant strengths. She is already the most vetted woman in history. The GOP slime machine has spent almost 20 years digging into every possible part of her past and she has survived it all - they've come up with nothing, except maybe that she's 'cold'. There will be no surprises with her. Plus, whatever
Bill's shortcomings, she has the formidable Clinton Machine behind her, and they are the most experienced GOP fighters the Dems have (she herself goes all the way back to the Watergate impeachment effort). Nobody knows how  to fight back against the GOP like they do. She will not be a Kerry or Gore in that respect. Did you see her put Tim Russert in his place on MTP two weeks ago? Textbook demonstration of how to shut down right-wing attacks. And although some are turned off by a potential Billary II White House, he did after all leave office still with 70% approval, despite the unprecedented witchhunt, and she garnered the lion's share of the sympathy from that.

As for Obama, we simply don't know how he will hold up under fire. Yeah, he looks like a decent bet right now, but already even less so than he did three weeks ago- and he ain't seen nothing yet as far as attacks go. He has taken some shots in the last few days and the effect is already showing. The Clinton camp has knocked him a little off balance and any impartial observer would have to admit that his relative campaigning inexperience has been made obvious. How will he fare against the GOP attack dogs, who will be much harsher? Unfortunately, we just don't know, and that's a huge leap of faith. After all, this is politics. It's blood sport - it ain't tiddlywinks. Perhaps the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know.

And that leads to the overall question of experience, which should not be trivialized, especially regarding foreign policy in this dangerous age. Hillary wins hands down. She famously spent 8 years as 'co-president', not to mention her Senate committee work since then. Despite the numbers of Americans who don't like her, the rest of the world already knows and loves the Clintons. And that would go a long way towards repairing the damage BushCo has done on the world stage. Whereas, by contrast, Obama touts his brief time living oversees as a young child. The difference simply cannot be brushed aside.

Regarding the media's infatuation with Obama, I don't trust it at all. He has gotten more or less a free ride so far. Ever wonder why? Don't forget that the media is almost exclusively a tool of the GOP. Look at how they've ignored Edwards and ridiculed Kucinich, among countless other examples. I suspect that the GOP is quietly licking their lips at the thought of an Obama nomination, and if you think the race card has been played by Hillary (which is another media
fabrication), just wait 'till you see what the GOP pulls on him. I suspect that they WANT to run against Obama, and I guarantee you they fear the Clintons a lot more (they're the only ones to have kicked the GOP's ass in our lifetime- and they did it twice!). The media regurgitates GOP talking points. Look at how Chris Matthews, for example, has slimed Clinton and praised Obama, and he's nothing if not a GOP whore (and that tactic backfired on him in NH, as bloggers called Matthews out on it and helped throw the contest to Hillary, largely just to spite the media). Even FOX
has been swooning over Obama. Don't believe it for a second. If he gets the nomination they will all be on him like a pitbull on a poodle. (Too conspiratorial? How do you think we got into Iraq in the first place, if not for the media's parroting of the GOP sales pitch?) How will he hold up?

Regarding the polls so far, even though Obama has high favorables and seems to get independent and even some
GOP support, don't discount how inherently racist the country unfortunately still is, even though many would
never admit it. There is a legitamate question as to how many of those people who say they like him would
really vote for him once in the privacy of the booth. Again, we just don't know. Which ties into the question
of all these opinion polls in the first place, which seem to show how favorably he is viewed and how hated
Hillary is. If NH proved anything, it's that these polls and their results are often bullshit. They can easily be skewed in the questioning, and spun in the analysis. Remember Obama was supposed to win NH handily, and all the media was trumpeting Hillary's demise (but she surprised everyone, as she has done many times in her career). Again, makes you wonder who the GOP really wants to run against.

And yes, Hillary has a high unfavorable rating, but that can and probably would change to some degree. She
has a strong track record of winning people over. I live in Upstate NY, which is very Republican, and they
were not psyched about her being their Senator. But she has won over alot of converts and was re-elected
by a landslide. Even many republican foes in Congress, who had their knives drawn for her from day one, have
grudgingly had to admit that she has been a very skilled Senator and has been able to reach across the
aisle.

Also, there is this tendency to paint Hillary as GOP-lite, and to praise Obama as some kind of progressive knight in shining armor. But when you look at their voting records, they are almost identical. And even though he gave a great speech against attacking Iraq before he was in the Senate (and therefore didn't have to vote either way and defend
that vote in a climate of rabid war-fever), since getting elected he has voted for every war appropriation that she has. What little experience Obama does have on the national stage is not exactly revolutionary, despite his great oratory skills. Conversely, Hillary does indeed have a lifetime history of fighting for progressive causes and social justice, as evidenced by the fact that she gets even more support from black voters than Obama does(!).

The fact is that Obama is a great speaker, very charismatic, and he may indeed be more able to bring new voters into the process, but as far as his record goes he has voted with Hillary every step of the way. Show me one significant difference in their voting records. Bill Clinton is right about Obama's anti-war reputation being somewhat of a fairy tale. She may have to defend her Iraq vote (and she'll do a much better job of it than Kerry did), but Obama will just
as well have to defend his consistent votes for funding since then.

In the end, they both have glaring strengths and weaknesses. This contest is by no means the slam-dunk
your email makes it out to be.  But the best course of action would be for them, and indeed for all Dems, to stop attacking each other over stupid, petty shit about who said what and when- stick to the issues, ignore the media, and let the voters decide. And no matter what happens, EVERYBODY MUST VOW TO SUPPORT THE DEM CANDIDATE NO MATTER WHO IT IS, BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT ANY ONE OF THEM WILL BE A MILLION TIMES
BETTER THAN ANY OF THE GOP FASCIST BASTARDS!

Peace bro.