As an Obama precinct captain, I plan to print and distribute a double-sided one page flyer today and tomorrow. On one side of the flyer, I am using the standard Barack Obama on the Issues flyer from the website.
On the back, I am creating a Local FAQ to encourage and help get out the vote for Obama. In the FAQ, I've attempted to provide (local) answers to some tricky questions, such as:
In the last 5 or 6 years, we've seen many Republicans turn against their party and proclaim I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me! Some said this because they disagreed with the war while others were disappointed with Bush's limited achievements in creating a theocracy. Many resented the bigger government and some mourned the lost opportunities for more wars and invasions. These former Republicans had little in common except that the truth: The Republican Party had changed so fast and so quickly that they did not recognize it anymore. For some like me, it was a change from bad to worse, but a change nonetheless.
Voter suppression, race-baiting, xenophobia and Islamophobia, fear mongering, deceiving voters, distorting candidates' positions and politics of personal destruction are some of the reasons why many of us never considered being Republican.
Tonight on the January 25th edition of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", Keith asked the following question of Dana Milbank:
Senator Clinton and Iraq and the New York Times endorsement: If she can overcome with them this seemingly insurmountable problem of, she was behind the war at its beginnings, at least in terms of an option, and we can nuance that forever as what that actually meant. If she can overcome that sense that she was for the invasion, or at least the perception of that, is there something she cannot overcome in terms of the general election or even the rest of the nominating process?
Mr. Milbank's answers were reasonable, but it is the premise of this question that I would like to challenge.
Along with significant advances in technology, the 21st century has also forever changed our understanding and perception of what our government does and should do. I write this, hoping other confused citizens will find it helpful.
President (aka The Decider): The POTUS is elected by a plurality vote of the Supreme Court, to serve no more than two terms. His primary role is to distribute American weapons such as missiles, bombs and bullets to those less fortunate than us. This delivery happens by air when possible and through ground shipment if necessary. These donations are financed by selling worthless pieces of paper, known as bonds, to the unsuspecting Chinese.
Vice President: As the name clearly states, this official presides over the vice. He is also known as the vice in chief and his main responsibility is to coordinate government activity with rank and file Vice.
You may be thinking, the AEI? Why would you listen to anything they say, and why should I care?
When George Bush was reelected in 2004, I remember the shock and horror most of my friends expressed. Who voted for Bush? I certainly didn't know anyone who was voting for Bush and I'm sure the majority of you didn't either. I read salon.com very frequently those days and when a writer dared suggest that Bush may be reelected, his fellow colleagues and readers would bash the absurdity of his suggestion.
No more, I said. I now try to hear other arguments and understand those you can't understand with reason... here is looking at you, gut! I even watched Ann Coulter the other night, the self-described "Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second". It is very informative to hear her talk, you get a better sense of the people you're dealing with. But I digress...
This diary mainly compiles and summarizes information from Project Vote Smart. Interest Groups, as used in the title and the referenced website, refers to single issue groups such as "NARAL Pro-Choice America" and "National Right to Life Committee". Some are progressive and some conservative; if not their names, the support (percentage) of the candidates will help you tell them apart. Where other sources are used, links or notes are provided.
In the interest of brevity and focus on the most likely nominees, I have only included Clinton, Edwards and Obama. To keep the diary as short as possible, I have only included issues I considered most important and groups I thought most prominent for each issue. I have also excluded data where the position of all 3 named candidates has been identical (e.g., Clinton, Edwards and Obama supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 100 percent while in the US Senate). In attempt to make this an "apples to apples" comparison, I am only comparing candidates' records in the US Senate, and where possible, Clinton vs. Edwards and Clinton vs. Obama for the identical periods of time.
November 2000, that's an election I will never forget. Don't you sometimes wonder where the country would be today, had things turned out differently? Whether walking down the streets of an inner-city neighborhood, watching a hardworking immigrant fighting the odds in the suburbs, imagining the thoughts crossing the mind of a foreigner as he or she notices your American passport, or hearing tragic stories from our ever-growing number of international battlefronts, it's hard to not daydream of an alternate reality where our president's last name is Gore.
Where did we go wrong? How did we elect George Bush? But we didn't, many of you will argue, it was the Supreme Court that did! That's not my point; just a few thousand more votes and Gore's victory would have been indisputable.