From Anne in Chicago:

From: ROBERTASG@aol.com
Date: February 7, 2008 5:47:33 PM CST
To: jsawyer@insight-inc.net, mqdelaney@gmail.com, waydoj@earthlink.net, SNS660@aol.com, rebecca.a.shapiro@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Petition to DNC




Please sign & circulate this petition. Thanks.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness


Subject: Fwd: Petition to DNC



Friends,
Hilary Clinton’s campaign is currently encouraging the Democratic National Committee to roll back its decision to take away Florida and Michigan’s delegates. During the fall of 2007, the DNC decided to strip these two states of their delegates because they chose to move their primary’s up to take place before Super Tuesday.


I believe strongly that what this country is most in need of right now is integrity. In my mind, integrity and respect comes from making informed decisions and then sticking with those decisions – no matter which way the wind blows. This decision would benefit Hilary Clinton and hurt Barack Obama’s campaign. But, no matter what is your candidate of preference, please consider that this decision would provide unfair honor disrespectful tactics. The Clinton Campaign was the only candidate that campaigned at all in these states, or even be listed on the ballot in Michigan despite DNC’s requested all candidates not to be listed and abstain from campaigning in the states.
No matter your political preference, please stand up for integrity in this country by signing onto this petition to the DNC and pass it onto others
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Give-Us-Fairness.
Thanks!
“We should be kind to each other. Be civil. And appreciate the good moments by saying ‘If this isn’t nice, what is?’ - Kurt Vonnegut

From Stephanie in Westchester:

This is an argument for Cliinton's advantage:
"The superdelegates will pick the nominee — the party honchos, the deal-makers, the donors, the machine. Swinging those people takes a level of cynicism even Dr. Retail can’t pretend to understand. That’s Tammany Hall. That’s the court at Versailles under Louis XIV." David Brooks, NY Times

[And, might I add, that's the current Bill Clinton and Terry MacAuliffe?]
The following (Timothy Egan, NY Times) is an argument for Obama's electability:
Obama: The Shock of the Red
Take a look at what happened on Tuesday in the nearly all-white counties of Idaho, a place where the Aryan Nations once placed a boot print of hate — “the international headquarters of the white race,” as they called it.

The neo-Nazis are long gone. But in Kootenai County, where the extremists were holed up for several decades, a record number of Democrats trudged through heavy snow on Super Duper Tuesday to help pick the next president. Guess what: Senator Barack Obama took 81 percent of Kootenai County caucus voters, matching his landslide across the state. He won all but a single county.

The runaway victory came after a visit by Obama last Saturday, when 14,169 people filled the Taco Bell Arena in Boise to hear him speak – the largest crowd ever to fill the space, for any event. It was the biggest political rally the state has seen in more than 50 years.

“And they told me there were no Democrats in Idaho,” Obama said.

Okay, so Idaho is the prime rib of Red America. Ditto Utah, where Obama beat Senator Hillary Clinton 56 percent to 39 percent on Tuesday, including a 2-1 win in arguably the most Republican community in America – Provo and suburbs, a holdout of Bush dead-enders. These states would never vote Democratic in a general election.

But those numbers, and exit polling across the nation, make a case for Obama’s electability and the inroads he has made into places where Democrats are harder to find than a decent bagel. Yes, Hillary-hatred is part of it. But something much bigger is going on among independents and white males, something that can’t all be attributed to fear of a powerful woman in a pantsuit.

Having gone through their Hope versus Experience argument, Democrats are moving on to the numbers phase, looking for advantages in the fall. If they want to parse the Geography of Hope, they can do no better than study what happened in red counties on Tuesday.

Overall, Obama won some big, general election swing states: Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, and a tie in New Mexico, where they may still be counting votes from the 2004 election. All will be crucial in deciding the next president.

His victory in Colorado, by a 2-1 margin, defied most predictions. Four times as many Democrats turned out as were expected, typical of the passion level elsewhere. In Anchorage, Alaska, for example, traffic was backed for nearly a mile from people trying to get into a middle school to become part of an Obama avalanche.

But back to Colorado. Obama won the liberal enclaves, as expected, but then he nearly ran the table in the western part of the state – ranch and mining country — and he did it with more than Ralph Lauren Democrats. In booming, energy-rich Garfield County, for instance, Obama beat Clinton 72 percent to 27 percent.

“We won in places nobody thought we could win,” an exultant Federico Pena, the former Denver mayor, told a victory crowd on Tuesday night. Obama’s audience a few days earlier – more than 18,000 — was so big that thousands who couldn’t get in huddled on a frozen lacrosse field to hear him.

Now broaden the picture and look at the vote among white males, traditionally the hardest sell for a Democrat. While losing California, Obama won white men in the Golden State, 55 to 35, according to exit polls, and white men in New Mexico, 59-38.

Looking ahead to Saturday, when Washington State, Nebraska, and Louisiana hold contests, Obama should add another three states to the 13 he won on Tuesday. They’re all caucus states, each with distinct advantages for Obama.

His problem – and it’s a big one – is among Latino voters, and older women. He got crushed by Hillary among Hispanics in California and New Mexico. To win the West, Latinos have to be in your camp.

Only slothful thinkers still view Democrats in the West as Prius-driving latte-sippers along the Left Coast. The larger story is about home-grown identity. Eight of the 11 Western States have Democratic governors. The Democrats picked up two Senate seats in the West in the last two national elections, and are poised to pick up two more this year, in Colorado and New Mexico.

Early on, Obama took a chance on the West, sending paid staffers to places like Boise, Idaho and Wenatchee, Washington. And the Alaska office for Obama – that was a knee-slapper at the time, but no one’s laughing now. He won the Last Frontier state by a 3-1 margin Tuesday.

Obama has made cynics wilt, and stirred the heart of long-dead politicos in places where Democrats haven’t had a pulse in years. Cecil Andrus, the eagle-headed eminence of Idaho, a former governor and Democratic cabinet member, nearly lost his voice introducing Obama in Boise on Saturday. He recalled a time when he was a young lumberjack who drove down the Clearwater Valley to see Jack Kennedy speak in Lewiston, a day that changed his life.

“I’m older now, some would suggest in the twilight of a mediocre political career,” Andrus said. “I, like you, can still be inspired. I can still hope.”

This kicked off the second biggest political rally in Idaho history. And the first? That was when President Dwight Eisenhower came to visit. Last week his granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, made a small bit of family history on her own. She said that if Obama is the nominee, “this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected.”

From John Shields KCMO:

Until we face and correct the issues of race and gender this country isn’t going anywhere. America is in trouble; our government is simply not acting in the best interest of “The American People”.

Hilary probably is better suited and connected to keep the same old cycle of nothingness but what Baraak has is the ability to inspire the American people to get up and get busy working toward the change we need.

Until you and me get in the same boat and begin rowing all in the same direction we are going to remain dead in the water. There is only one way forward at this time and that is together, not as liberals or conservatives but as Americans.

This is not for Barack it’s for U.S., believe, work and it shall be! If you hold on to your fears expect more of the same.

I took my granddaughter to the pools with me Tuesday and when done (having a short memory), she asked a simple question. Who’d you vote for grandpa, I told her I voted FOR AMERICA. And in voting for Barack that’s exactly what I was doing. Everyone stay positive and strong and trust in the will of our Lord and Savior.

John Shields KCMO

From Judy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

February 7, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Who Is More Electable?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
It’s increasingly likely that the Republican presidential nominee will be John McCain, who is also the Republican most likely to win the November election.

Senator McCain has unusual appeal among swing voters, and polls show him running stunningly well in general election matchups — even in a year that one might expect would be a Democratic romp. So that raises the obvious question: Who would be the stronger Democratic candidate?

The answer isn’t certain, partly because Barack Obama’s shine could quickly tarnish. In July 1988, Michael Dukakis was hailed as a Democratic hero with a 17-percentage-point lead over George H.W. Bush; four months later, he was a loser.

But one clue emerged in Tuesday’s balloting in 14 “red states” that were won by President George W. Bush in 2004. Mr. Obama won nine while Hillary Rodham Clinton won four and is ahead in the fifth.

“Obama would appeal much more to Republican voters,” said Susan Eisenhower, a lifelong Republican and granddaughter of the late president. “Not all Republican voters, but certainly those who might be somewhat in play.”

Ms. Eisenhower is supporting Mr. Obama and said she would be glad to enlist in a “Republicans for Obama” organization.

When pollsters offer voters hypothetical matchups, Mr. Obama does better than Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain. For example, a Cook Political Report poll of registered voters released this week found Mr. McCain beats Mrs. Clinton, 45 percent to 41 percent. But Mr. Obama beats Mr. McCain, 45 percent to 43 percent. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results.

Mr. Obama also has the highest approval rating of any major candidate among independents, 62 percent, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll. He also has unusually low negatives, which gives him upside potential.

Mr. Obama does surprisingly well among evangelical Christians, an important constituency in swing states. For example, Relevant magazine, which caters to young evangelicals, asked its readers: “Who would Jesus vote for?” Mr. Obama was the winner and came out 27 percentage points ahead of Mrs. Clinton.

Politicians from red states have seemed likely to endorse Mr. Obama because many see him as the Democratic candidate who will do better in their states. Politico.com canvassed Democrats in potential swing states and concluded:

“During extensive interviews in recent weeks in Republican-leaning states, Politico found widespread belief among current and former Democratic statewide officials that Obama is the more electable candidate with their electorates. These politicians also frequently registered a fear that Clinton’s personality and past history make her too polarizing to win independent and Republican-leaning voters.”

Another way of looking at electability is to wonder whether it’s more of a disadvantage to be black or to be female. Shirley Chisholm, the black woman who ran for president in 1972, argued in effect that there were more sexists than racists in America. “I met more discrimination as a woman, than for being black,” Ms. Chisholm once said.

And recent polling and psychology research seem to back that up.

Moreover, my hunch is that a conservative woman like Margaret Thatcher may have a better chance of being elected than a feminist with a distinguished record of standing up for women’s rights. For the same reason, Mr. Obama probably has a better chance than a black candidate who emerged from the civil rights movement.

Granted, a general election campaign could shuffle judgments of electability, and it may be unwise — even offensive — to cast votes in part on how people with different political philosophies, even bigots, would cast their ballots. It’s also true that Mr. Obama has received more gentle press scrutiny than Mrs. Clinton, and if he were the nominee, he would be buffeted, investigated and swift-boated in a way that he hasn’t been (but that Mrs. Clinton has).

Then again, voters in many states have only just begun to be acquainted with Mr. Obama, and more familiarity may breed more comfort — and dispel some of the savage myths about him, such as the one claiming that he is a Muslim who doesn’t pledge allegiance to the American flag. Such lies will become harder to sustain.

Moreover, Mr. Obama’s charisma has stood up surprisingly well since he first sprang upon the stage in 2004. Some old hands believe that if he casts a spell upon many voters in red states, it’s not because of some momentary dazzle, but because he truly possesses an exceptional and enduring political talent for connecting with independent voters.

“I’ve worked for three presidents and known two or three others,” said Michael Blumenthal, who started his public career under President Kennedy and served as Treasury secretary under President Carter. “And Obama is just about the only politician I’ve ever seen who compares to Jack Kennedy.”

I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, www.nytimes.com/ontheground. On the blog, you can also see readers setting me straight about previous columns and read posts from guest bloggers, including a Chicago teacher, Will Okun, and an aid worker in Bangladesh, Nicki Bennett.

From Lorriane in CA:

Everyone,

I must say I was divided until the very moment I stepped into the voting booth. Both obama and hillary are so similar in their positions on all the issues and both are solid candidates. Hillary is easily accused of being ruthless, a bitch, striking deals with her husband so that she can run for pres. I saw that as simply a woman maneuvering herself in the brutal world of dirty politics and succeeding well to reach the height she has. Most other folks in the white house have done far worse and far more evil.

She did vote for the war, and she did back ‘no child left behind’ knowing that it was terribly flawed. But she has seen the dire fuck ups (excuse my language) of this past presidency and is ready to clean it up.

Because we are in such a bad state, things are so low and messed up, Obama appears to be this ‘savior’ of sorts. I feel like the population is infatuated with his charm, influence, swooned by his speeches. Illusions of JFK arise in our glassy eyes. But I sincerely wondered if he is truely capable of bringing back the U.S. from such a dark dismal state. And this is clean up on a global level.

After my back and forth indecisiveness, something so simple occurred to me. Something that I really haven’t heard discussed much – and that was time. I sat down and did my own math. I counted. I counted all the years of the Bush – Clinton years. Big Bush=4, Clinton + 8, Little Bush + 8 = 20 years. That’s 20 years of power between the Bush’s and the Clintons. If Hillary wins, we are now up to 24 –28 years of power between two very influencial families – Bush/Clinton. A Dynasty perpetuating the same power, the same cronyism, the same mess.

I voted for Obama.

Obama Music Video "Yes We Can"

By Kathy from MO

Have you seen this wonderful video? It is Barack's speech "Yes We Can" being sung along with him by various celebrities. It is really beautiful. The Black Eyed Peas said they didn't even know if Obama knew of its existence. They just felt compelled to do it being so moved by his words.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/CGBMy

New Celeb-Filled Music Video for Obama

Song from Black Eyed Peas' will.i.am Inspired by Obama Speech

Celebrity-filled music videos have been used to support many social movements, from famine relief for Africa, to support for American farmers, to opposition to apartheid in South Africa.

Video

Exclusive: Obama Inspires Black Eyed Pea

But rarely have celebrities and musicians banded together to create new music in the heat of a presidential campaign.

The Black Eyed Peas' frontman, songwriter and producer known as will.i.am, along with director and filmmaker Jesse Dylan, son of another socially active musician, Bob Dylan, released a new song Friday that attempts to do just that.

The music video "Yes We Can" premiered on ABCNewsNow's "What's the Buzz" on Friday. It was inspired, will.i.am told ABC's Alisha Davis, by Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign and in particular by the speech he has gave after the New Hampshire primary.

"It made me reflect on the freedoms I have, going to school where I went to school, and the people that came before Obama like Martin Luther King, presidents like Abraham Lincoln that paved the way for me to be sitting here on ABCNews and making a song from Obama's speech," will.i.am said.

"The speech was inspiring about making change in America and I believe what it says and I hope everybody votes," Dylan said.

The music video includes excerpts from the Obama speech and appearances from a range of celebrities including: Scarlett Johansson, John Legend, Herbie Hancock, Kate Walsh, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Adam Rodriquez, Kelly Hu, Adam Rodriquez, Amber Valetta and Nick Cannon.

When word got out about the song, will.i.am and Dylan said people were eager to participate.

"I'm blown away by how many people wanted to come and be a part of it in a short amount of time. It was all out of love and hope for change and really representing America and looking at the world," will.i.am said.

Dylan and will.i.am say they did not coordinate the production or release of this video with the Obama campaign and the filmmakers say they don't even know if Obama is aware of the video.

From Sunny:

I am proudly voting for Barack Obama on Tuesday. I’d like to tell you why and encourage you to join me in supporting this inspirational, caring, qualified candidate who will make a difference in America.

First and foremost, Barack had the judgment to oppose the Iraq war from the start. Hillary voted for it. He will be right from day one on Iraq and is against the mind set that got us there in the first place. Hillary voted with Bush for the war and for the resolution naming the Iranian National Guard as “terrorists”. Being President is about judgment. Obama has been right from the beginning.

Obama brings some unique perspectives to our foreign policy since he has lived abroad and experienced global poverty. As a community organizer, he has worked with the poor and jobless. To quote Michelle Obama, he lives by the creed of “those to whom much is given, much is expected.”

Perhaps the most powerful reason to support Obama is his talent for bringing people together. He has inspired a whole new generation of voters. This is huge for the Democratic Party and the country. His talks, rallies and events are made up of participants that are young and old, black and white, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican. We want and need change in DC, and Obama will be that bridge to the 21st century we have all been seeking.

As you can see, I am throwing all of my support to Barack Obama. I believe he is the kind of candidate that comes along once in a lifetime. He can deliver change and hope and unite our badly divided country of red and blue states to the United States. To quote Dr. Martin Luther King: " We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late.” Please do not let our country be too late. The time is now for Barck Obama. This is not a time for patience, but a time for action. Please consider joining me in giving Barack Obama your support this Tuesday. Thanks for letting me take your time!

Love,Sunny