I just got off the phone with the Obama campaign

I have been on the fence as far as this Presidential election goes.  Initially I leaned towards John Edwards because I am wary of Hillary Clinton's history.  The issues of those FBI files she said she never saw only to have her fingerprints on them forever changed my perception of her.  I do not view her as honest or caring, but rather cold and calculating.  Today, after John Edwards dropped out I called both campaigns asking them flat out, "Why should I vote for your candidate?"  Hillary's people said they would call back, but the Obama people talked with me for over twenty minutes.

We talked about Obama's opposition to the Iraq war from the start.  We talked about ethics reform in the senate.  And we also talked about the torch being passed from the Kennedy's to Obama.  I asked about medical marijuana and this staffer laid out that Obama would not raid medical marijuana patients because "resources are wasted going after the sick."  This is an important issue to me as I am a medical marijuana patient for chronic back pain.

Clinton's people were not personable and did not make me feel important when I called.  It seemed they had no time for me.  As soon as the Obama people answered and I told them I was undecided they were absolutely wonderful.

This is perhaps an anecdotal happening or perhaps it says something more about Obama and Hillary.  Hillary's staffer was cold and distant.  She just responded to me tersly saying "Can I call you back?"  Obama's staffer treated me like my support meant as much as Ted Kennedy's.  I felt they really cared and were also very knowledgeable to their candidates positions.

I am now supporting Barack Obama!

YES WE CAN!

•  Good idea

  to call the campaigns and ask them to make their case. Good for you for doing your research, and welcome aboard the Obama train!

  by democrattotheend on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM PDT

  •  glad to hear

    one of the tenets is to treat everyone with respect. voter contact will win this election, im glad that you had such a good experience talking with the obama staffer!

    by worldtrippers on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:33:51 PM PDT

    •  Welcome aboard.

      by christine20 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:00:59 PM PDT

    •  Simple Magic, Baby!

      The simple magic of one-to-one human contact, w/a sincere feeling that the other human being actually gives a shit!  Most people want to be connected to something good, something they believe in.

      I just got back from seeing Barack here in Phoenix, and...that whole hope thing?  It's real!  I predict he will win Arizona next Tuesday.  Raul Grijalva Caroline Kennedy, Janet Napolitano, and Barack Obama---now THAT's a winning hand in Arizona.  

      Watchate, Pues!

      by serrano on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:27:13 PM PDT

      •  wow

        It must really be something to see Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of JFK, standing next to Obama saying she feels in him what our nation felt in JFK.  That is powerful.  

        by secondnextlast on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:52:28 PM PDT

      •  I hope you're planning on diarying this serrano.

        I'd love to hear all about it.  I'll bet it was thrilling to be there.

        by vernonbc on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:00:01 PM PDT

      •  Who is Raul Grijalva Caroline Kennedy?

        A transsexual Hispanic Irishman?  :P

        Commas are your friends!!

        by DC Pol Sci on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:46:10 AM PDT

        •  Too Sick, DC....

          I chalk that up to keyboard malfunction--I'm usually a stickler for that stuff, too!!!

          By the by, tho, there is a chain of Mexican Restaurants called Carlos O'Brien's here (Phoenix), and I'll share a little-known bit of American border history:

          As the young US found itself embroiled in conflict w/Mexico along the border regions, there was a group of newly-arrived Irish folk that surveyed the situation.  They concluded that they shared more, actually, w/the Mexicans, including their Catholic faith and a fondness for drink.  They took up arms w/the Mexicans, and became known as the San Patricios, after St. Patrick.  

          To this day, a group, composed of both Irish and Mexicans and sporting that name, exists here in Phoenix.  They always participate, w/a magnificent group of steeds (courtesy of the Mexican Patriarch of the group, Felix Corona, who owns a Mexican Rodeo Venue), led by the other "Brother", Bill O'Brien, in the St. Patrick's Day Parade.    

          I am proud to say that, for the past 7 years, a school-aged Banda de Guerra (War Band, literally, actually a Drum and Bugle Corps) from Sister City Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico has also taken part in a demonstration of friendship.

          by serrano on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:50:52 AM PDT

      •  Yo tambien!

        Last week, before Edwards got out of the race, I got a call from the Obama campaign.  The woman who called  was quiet, well-spoken, made her arguments respectfully, and asked me to consider her points.  There was no negativity at all.  Then yesterday, my husband got a phone message from another person working for Obama.  Same thing.  And I was impressed that they were trying to round up the Edwards votes so quickly.

        Still haven't heard from Hillary.  But at this point, I've been turned off by her remarks, and her supporters here at DKos haven't helped her cause.  

        by dhfsfc on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 04:53:41 AM PDT

    •  respect, empower, include! n/t

      by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:59:55 PM PDT

  •  did the Clinton campaign ever call you back?

    Also, how do you go about getting medical weed? I have pains too!

    by iowaworker on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:39:24 PM PDT

    •  Unfortunately,

      you have to move to one of the few states that have actually legalized it and then get a doctor's prescription.

      by PrgrsvArchitect on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:42:28 PM PDT

      •  Does little good so long as feds ban it

        If Obama wants to be relevant on this issue, he has to actually drive changes in federal law.

        The feds have constantly been pushing to close medical marijuana facilities in California.  They can do this because federal law trumps state law.

        by CA Libertarian on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:53:35 PM PDT

        •  On a practical level, it does fine

          The state laws prohibit state enforcement, and the feds only take interest in the high volume cases.

          by Drummond on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:03:10 PM PDT

          •  From what I've heard the feds won't prosecute

            unless you have more than 100 plants.

            by MikePhoenix on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:58:37 PM PDT

            •  That's true

              And actually, they're really occupied with the huge grows in the thousands of plants.

              by Drummond on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM PDT

        •  and the feds...

          ...will only conduct raids and prosecute if higher-ups tell them to.  

          Obama may not want to issue a huge press release on this one, but it would be really easy for him to quietly tell his A.G. that going after sick people is a waste of time, and that our FBI agents should be chasing terrorists, not pot smokers.

          by willy mugobeer on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:29:50 PM PDT

          •  I'm sick of hearing about terrorists

            The FBI should be chasing after real criminals that are terrorizing this country, like murderers, leaders of organized crime syndicates, and people defrauding the public out of billions of dollars.

            There's a much easier way of dealing with terrorism, which is to get the hell out of Iraq and push for a real Israel-Palestine solution in accordance with 40-year-old U.N. resolutions that Israel has been thumbing their nose at ever since.

            by CA Libertarian on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:57:06 PM PDT

            •  you're right.

              sorry, I was unclear.  

              By "terrorists" I mean not only people like Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh, but also healthcare executives at Blue Cross who retroactively rescind coverage after you get sick, and Halliburton execs making ginormous profits while serving rancid food and contaminated water to our troops.  That's pretty terrifying, at least to me.

              by willy mugobeer on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:28:02 AM PDT

            •  I say,

              why not do both?

              Matt

              by Cixelsyd on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 07:29:37 AM PDT

              •  Because chasing terrorists excuses incompetence

                Every federal agency, including the FBI, is too busy chasing terrorists to be doing its real job.

                And how many high-visibility prosecutions do we have to show for it?

                How many Guantanamo inmates have gone to trial?

                How many credible Al Qaeda cells have been broken up?

                Sorry, I don't buy it.  I think it's all just a whitewash for federal incompetence plus a gigantic federal jobs program for the well-connected.

                by CA Libertarian on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 08:37:45 AM PDT

          •  Doesn't even have to be quiet.

            Just issue an EO telling law enforcement to respect state medical marijuana laws. Not arresting sick people isn't going to be a problem for most people.

            by Nick Blas on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:04:20 PM PDT

          •  Exactly. the AG will be the one who drives the

            policy.  Usually, but not always, Presidents set basic principles for the AG to follow and then the AG makes the specific calls on how to handle cases.  If Obama told his AG not to waste federal resources busting medical marijuana facilities that would probably be it.  

            by cheforacle on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:58:57 PM PDT

      •  In California...

        we don't even need a prescription.  Just a note.  And it doesn't have to be a doctor, just a health care provider.  Chiropractor for instance.  Massage therapist maybe?

        by Drummond on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:02:17 PM PDT

        •  Are you sure about that?

          My brother is in Tahoe and I thought he told me he needed the prescription

          by PrgrsvArchitect on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:18:59 PM PDT

          •  Just a certificate

            It's not a recognized medication so there are no guidelines for prescriptions.

            by Drummond on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM PDT

    •  The Clinton people have not called back yet, but

      perhaps they will tomorrow and I will of course post about it.

      I am from California and we have a liberal medical marijuana program.  I told my doctor about my pain and said I had a fear of traditional pain medications because many are physically addicting.  I then recommended trying medical marijuana.  He was initially skeptical, but has been amazed with how much it has helped.

       

      by secondnextlast on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:43:51 PM PDT

      •  Demonstrating TRUTH will do that to people

        Like all the courageous people who come out about being gay. Nothing has helped gay people more than that.

        And I think the same about those who come out about using and benefiting from marijuana.

        We live in the land "of the free" goddamnit!! So why aren't we free??

        by TX Unmuzzled on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM PDT

        •  it is a legit medicine

          not addicting
          takes away the pain
          little side effects besides hunger and stress relief

          by secondnextlast on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:55:43 PM PDT

          •  New study shows lung cancer...

            ....carcinogens 20 times cigs if you smoke it...

            ...but not if you don't.

            Just one study. So far.

            And again, you're right, not addicting and less toxic than alcohol.

            by MNPundit on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM PDT

            •  It has the carginogens...

              But there has never, EVER, EVER been shown to be a link between marijuana and lung cancer. Not ever a correlation.

              The carcinogen stuff is just propaganda.

              by slash196 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:21:23 PM PDT

              •  That's what they said about cigarettes

                It's not really necessary to smoke it, unless you are taking it for nausea and can't eat.

                by dianem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM PDT

                •  In the case of cigarettes

                  "They" were the tobacco companies, and "they" were also lying.

                  In the case of marijuana, "they" are trained medical science professionals publishing their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

                  by slash196 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM PDT

                  •  Carcinogen = Cancer

                    1. Somebody (in a scientific study) identified carcinogens in marijuans

                    2. Carcinogens in smoke are known to cause cancer

                    3. Cannabis does not need to be smoked to be effective

                    4. ...

                    by dianem on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:31:57 PM PDT

                    •  I should state here...

                      that the level of carcinogens is in the smoke, or the act of burning, IIRC. The reason it is higher than tobacco is two fold. First, most marijuana is either smoked in an unfiltered cigarette form, or in a pipe.

                      If the carcinogens were in the plant matter itself, it wouldn't matter how the carcinogens were taken in (eaten, smoked, etc.) it would just impact where the cancer showed up. This is why you see more cancer of the tongue and jaw among snuff and cigar users than cigarette users.

                      And, not to start a pie fight, but THC has been shown to be addictive. The question is not whether it is addictive, but rather is the addiction at such a level as to cause destructive behavior. It is when one has to pursue illegal behavior to obtain the cannabis that is the problem.

                      I'm a recovering addict (cocaine and amphetamine) and alcoholic and current cigarette smoker. 12 steps a day at a time have netted me 12 years of sobriety. June 18, by the grace of the fellowship and my higher power will mark 13 years.

                      by RiverCityMadman on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:28:38 PM PDT

                      •  congrats getting off the drugs

                        it takes a lot and I know it is hell, so you deserve all our respect

                        by secondnextlast on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:02:31 PM PDT

                    •  Check

                      this out. Study out of UCLA, most comprehensive yet, shows marijuana actually wards off lung cancer

                      by doc2 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 10:08:50 PM PDT

                •  Agree w/Slash about non-danger of smoking it

                  There are a lot of well-designed, well-controlled studies that clearly show that smoking tobacco causes a big increase in the odds of lung cancer (and mouth cancer, etc.).

                  But I certainly agree with you, Diane, that eating it works for a lot of folks. Mmmmm, spaghetti sauce! :-)

                  -Jay-

                  by JayBat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:44:52 PM PDT

                  •  Man Boobs.

                    by Flippant on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM PDT

                    •  Excellent, well constructed argu--wha..?!

                      I really don't have a clue what a no-text message with the title "Man Boobs" is all about. :)

                      by OutOfManyOne on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:51:29 PM PDT

                      •  I've got to use that

                        If I'm ever in a debate, either verbal or written, in which I can't keep up,I'm just saying "Man Boobs".  

                        Then in the midst of the stunned silence I'm declaring victory.

                        by jaslusher on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:27:12 PM PDT

                        •  I endorse your idea for president

                          Man Boobs!!

                          runs away

                          by OutOfManyOne on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 12:38:33 AM PDT

                      •  Irrelevant yes, but funny

                        I believe it's some sort of myth that frequent marijuana smokers (men, of course) develop man boobs.

                        I searched but this is all I've
                        found:

                        Many young boys are having problems with, how they call it- "the ban boobs"! The condition is medically known as gynecomastia! Gynecomastia is a condition in which firm breast tissue forms in males.

                        by OwlMonkey on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 01:20:41 AM PDT

              •  Study In Jamaica Of Long Term Cannabis Smokers...

                ........showed no increase in rate of cancer. Many studies like the one quoted previously are bankrolled by tobacco and alcohol beverage companies who are looking for results to keep cannabis illegal.

                by frandor55 on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:38:37 PM PDT

                •  Which is absolutely nuts.

                  The legalization of marijuana and hemp would be an incredible boon to the exact same regions where tobacco was previously grown.  My state, North Carolina, has seen a massive decrease in the number of hectares devoted to tobacco.  (A lot have switched to corn, actually, at least in the alternate years, and grind the stalks into the soil after harvesting.)

                  The tobacco industry would be in a prime position to become the suppliers of both crops, obviously with a fair amount of government control.  The only thing that seems to scare these businesses more than the end of their product, is changing to a new one.  

                  by Wayward Son on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:30:03 AM PDT

                •  Was the Study Sponsored by Doritos? ;)

                  by JPZenger on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 06:53:48 AM PDT

              •  Most of the carcinogens in cigarettes

                come from the pesticides and chemicals used during the growing and processing of tobacco.

                (I did my doctoral research in a cancer lab.)

                by TexasLiz on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM PDT

                •  Tobacco smoke....

                  ....contains polonium-210 which tobacco leaves accumulate.

                  by LakeSuperior on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:25:24 PM PDT

              •  carcinogens

                OK, 20 times the carcinogens of a filter cigarette.  

                but does anyone know somebody who smokes the equivalent of three packs a day of joints?  or inhales and holds each puff of a marlboro for ten seconds?

                the idea that there is a one-to-one comparison is ludicrous.

                by zeke L on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:28:23 PM PDT

            •  Citation?

              All the marijuana/lung cancer study summaries I've ever read showed the opposite; no significant increase in risk of lung cancer. Presumably because (almost) nobody smokes 2 packs a day...

              Washington Post (UCLA study)
              WebMD (Johns Hopkins study)

              The researchers always say "I was really surprised" at the lack of significant correlation, which I always think is funny, because these studies have been coming out for years. And when you take into account that studies with negative outcomes are far less likely to be published than studies with positive outcomes (the famous Publication Bias effect), it's likely that there are a ton of such no-effect studies that have never seen the light of day.

              Reading your comment carefully, perhaps your study just shows "there's stuff that ought to be harmful in the smoke", and that's true for any smoke. But the fact is that marijuana smoking (done by normal people, in the quantities and frequencies that normal people do it) does not increase your chance of actually getting lung cancer.

              -Jay-

              by JayBat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:39:12 PM PDT

              •  I read an interview w/Tony Curtis a few years ago

                in which he stated that he smoked 30~40 joints a day in the late 60's early 70's.

                I have to say, even I was impressed, he must have had staff to roll them for him, lol.

                My thought about the harmfulness of pot smoke is the same as yours, theoretically it probably would be harmful, but who smokes that much? Even if legitimately self-medicating for nausea/pain, I don't think anyone smokes at anything like a 2 pack a day rate.

                by Independant Man on Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 05:43:49 AM PDT

            •  Got a link for that? Because...

              here's mine... (It's a long article, so I believe I'm within fair use).

              Smoke from tobacco and cannabis contains many of the same carcinogens and tumor promoters [20][21]. However, cannabis and tobacco have additional pharmacological activities, both receptor-dependent and independent, that result in different biological endpoints. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in smoke are procarcinogens that are converted to carcinogens by the enzymatic activity of the cytochrome P4501A1 oxidase protein (CYP1A1 gene product). Benzo [a] pyrene is converted to its carcinogenic metabolite diol epoxide, which binds to specific hypermutable nucleotide sequences in the K-ras oncogene and p53 tumor suppressor [22]. Recent work by Roth et al. demonstrates that THC treatment of murine hepatoma cells caused a dose dependent increase in CYP1A1 gene transcription, while at the same time directly inhibiting the enzymatic activity of the gene product [23]. Thus, despite potentially higher levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found in cannabis smoke compared to tobacco smoke (dependent on what part of the plant is smoked), the THC present in cannabis smoke should exert a protective effect against pro-carcinogens that require activation. In contrast, nicotine activates some CYP1A1 activities, thus potentially increasing the carcinogenic effects of tobacco smoke [24].

              In theory, THC can protect you from some cancers.

              SNIP...

              The impact of receptor and downstream activation is complicated. Both nicotine and cannabinoids have been shown to effect angiogenesis in a receptor-mediated manner [13]. However, nicotine and tobacco have opposite effects on angiogenesis. Nicotine promotes neo-vacularization along with associated tumor growth, atheroma, upregulation of VEGF, and cell migration [38]. In contrast, cannabinoids promote tumor regression in rodents and inhibit pro-angiogenic factors [39]. In fact, clinical trials to treat human glioma with THC have resulted in decreased levels of VEGF [40].

              Cannabinoids restrict blood vessel growth to tumors. No blood supply = no tumor.

              SNIP...

              In conclusion, while both tobacco and cannabis smoke have similar properties chemically, their pharmacological activities differ greatly. Components of cannabis smoke minimize some carcinogenic pathways whereas tobacco smoke enhances some. Both types of smoke contain carcinogens and particulate matter that promotes inflammatory immune responses that may enhance the carcinogenic effects of the smoke. However, cannabis typically down-regulates immunologically-generated free radical production by promoting a Th2 immune cytokine profile. Furthermore, THC inhibits the enzyme necessary to activate some of the carcinogens found in smoke. In contrast, tobacco smoke increases the likelihood of carcinogenesis by overcoming normal cellular checkpoint protective mechanisms through the activity of respiratory epithelial cell nicotine receptors. Cannabinoids receptors have not been reported in respiratory epithelial cells (in skin they prevent cancer), and hence the DNA damage checkpoint mechanism should remain intact after prolonged cannabis exposure. Furthermore, nicotine promotes tumor angiogenesis whereas cannabis inhibits it. It is possible that as the cannabis-consuming population ages, the long-term consequences of smoking cannabis may become more similar to what is observed with tobacco. However, current knowledge does not suggest that cannabis smoke will have a carcinogenic potential comparable to that resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke.

              It should be noted that with the development of vaporizers, that use the respiratory route for the delivery of carcinogen-free cannabis vapors, the carcinogenic potential of smoked cannabis has been largely eliminated [47][48].

              by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:52:16 PM PDT

              •  Dr. Donald Tahkin (UCLA Med. School) study...

                Pulmonary specialist and Federal Government researcher from UCLA Geffen School of Medicine finds that marijuana does not cause lung cancer in his study on the effects of cannabis and the lungs. Results of this study are discussed for the first time.

                http://www.youtube.com/...

                Check it out.

                by crogmobulon on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:31:47 PM PDT

                •  Ah, perhaps I should try to embed it now......

                  Learn something new every day.  Maybe.

                  by crogmobulon on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:47:45 PM PDT

                  •  Thanks for that... :) rec'd viewing... nt

                    by Clive all hat no horse Rodeo on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:47:37 PM PDT

          •  Our brains have more cannaboid

            than opiate receptors.

            I'm looking for a source link but can't find one. I might have read it in Michael Pollan's "The Botany of Desire."

            by tethys on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:47:12 PM PDT

        •  We also live in

          "the home of the brave," but it is up to each one of us to be brave.

          by NogodsnomastersMary on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:50:20 PM PDT

      •  Hey!

        Was that you I talked to?!  Just kidding, the undecided voters I spoke with did not bring up medical cannabis in particular, just healthcare in general.  I am hopeful that Obama will claim a victory in my state (CO)!!!

        by Mannabass on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM PDT

      •  You ARE as important as Ted Kennedy...

        Secondnextlast,

        You both only have one vote in your states' respective Feb. 5th primaries (as do I in my 2/5 state).

        He may have name recognition, a Senate seat and leadership position, and a certain aura... but he, like you, has only one vote in our democratic republic governed of, by and for a people of equals.

        I'll be curious to learn of the Clinton response to your request also.

        by thesill on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:54:21 PM PDT

        •  Well, he is a superdelegate, so he really

          has about the equivalent of 10,000 votes at the convention, but that's another story.

          by Mother of Zeus on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM PDT

          •  details, details :) -eom

            by thesill on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM PDT

        •  I expect the Clinton camp to call tommorow

          or I will call them again.  Of course, I will post here that outcome.

          And you bring up a good point regarding one vote for everyone no matter how much money or power they got.

          by secondnextlast on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM PDT

          •  I voted early Monday morning in Ca

            Ca49 to be exact, early by mail. The campaigns should know, timing is everything...

            by kck on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:34:18 PM PDT

            •  1 diary...7 comments...

              and at least 1 screw up.

              Tread lightly...just saying.

              by kredwyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:02:49 PM PDT

          •  About that fingerprint thing...

            You know, of course, that the FBI didn't find any of the First Lady's fingerprints on the files, right?

            Here's the report on it:

            Tests Find No Proof First Lady or Top Aides Touched F.B.I. Files
            By DAVID JOHNSTON
            Published: November 3, 1996
            A fingerprint analysis, requested by Senate Republicans, of personnel files improperly obtained by the White House turned up no evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton or top Presidential aides had handled the records, law-enforcement officials said today.

            So tell me...what about this bothered you? The fact that the fingerprints weren't there? Or the fact that you thought you heard something about them being there from someone and never bothered to follow up on finding out if they were there or not?

            by kredwyn on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:00:20 PM PDT

          •  Where in CA are you?

            Hillary is going to be at San Diego State on Friday. Although I lean toward Obama, I think I ought to take a trip down there and at least hear what she has to say.

            by Tam in CA on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:26:54 PM PDT

            •  North San Diego County

              Me too. I'm hoping to go.

              by kck on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

          •  Well, now that you have writen about

            their response on Daily Kos, I expect them to call you and be really charming and solicitous of you, however their initial unguarded response most accurately reflects how they feel about one actual voter; which is sad, and unfortunately all too representative.

            by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:12:24 PM PDT

      •  I had the opposite experience, almost completely

        the Obama campaign called me four weeks ago and asked me if I had made up my mind.  I replied that I had not.  Then the volunteer said "Okay, thank you!" and hung up!  I work in banking and insurance sales, so I was floored.

        The Clinton campaign called me a few days later.  When I told them I was undecided, the volunteer asked me if she could have a couple minutes to tell me why she was supporting Hillary.  It was mainly platitudes and didn't speak to my issues, so it really wasn't a great pitch, but at least she tried.

        If I were running a campaign I would at least train every phone volunteer in rudimentary salesmanship.  If you find an undecided voter who actually admits it, that's like if you work at the Chevy dealership and you see a guy get off the city bus and walk onto your lot.  If you can't sell a car to that guy, you're in the wrong business.

        by SuperCameron on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:58:08 PM PDT

        •  Who called who

          This is a rather larger point than the diarists.

          The individual who called you from both campaigns had the role of convincing you, at a time of their choosing, and failed to do so.  Not a great start to convincing you since it doesn't look like they even tried.

          Having staffed a phone bank you never want to let the person off the phone if you can convince them to vote for your candidate.  On the other hand, when a phone bank is slammed, overworked, or um nature is calling, it's not unreasonable to ask to call someone back.  Of course failing to do so in a timely manner isn't a good idea, but I don't think you can hold the actions of ONE PERSON, and probably an overworked volunteer at that, as representative of an entire campaign.

          by Yil on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM PDT

          •  I don't think they were "slammed"

            Hillary's campaign is notorious for ultra-tight message control. No one is allowed to speak for the campaign off the cuff; everything has to go through official channels. Probably the person who answered you call wasn't cleared to answer questions and couldn't be trusted not to commit some kind of off-message gaffe.

            Somebody once said that the reason smart people are mistrusted is that their talents lie not in being right, but in avoiding being wrong. That's HRC in a nutshell.

            by Blank Frank on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM PDT

            •  I believe you, and thats why people hold her

              accountable for what her surrogates say.

              Hillary's campaign is notorious for ultra-tight message control.

              by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:16:05 PM PDT

        •  Where are you?

          The Obama precinct captains were working in the Super Tuesday states with a very basic script and no training.  It was more of a polling call than a persuasion call.

          by Webster on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:12:29 PM PDT

        •  It's possible that the person calling you

          was a complete volunteer, calling you using the online phone banking tool, and didn't have any resources available to them on how to "convince" you.

          The phonebanking tool is really cool, but it puts complete novices on the phone, so there is a little bit of a continuity problem at times.

          by Bule Betawi on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM PDT

        •  You misunderstand why they call you

          Those phone banking operations are generally trying to identify their supporters so they can target their GOTV efforts on primary or election day, plus hit them up for donations.  Of course they're happy when they can convert an undecided, but the math of the situation dictates that's a secondary concern.  In the 20 minutes candidate A spent getting your 1 vote, candidate B might have located 5 or 6 supporters and targeted them for further calls and GOTV, total gain of 3 or more votes instead of just one.  Welcome to industrial politics.

          Me, I hate this phone banking stuff, I've done the calling and canvassing side of it a few times, but I refuse to disclose my own phone number to campaigns.

          by clyde on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:15:30 PM PDT

        •  Yikes

          I hope that wasn't me! ;) Kidding - I tried very hard to persuade all of the undecideds that I reached, but I can see how someone who was was just starting to phonebank might screw up the script. (Gods know the script flew right out of my head for the first few calls I made.)

          by lirtydies on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM PDT

        •  I have done phone calling for Obama in the

          Atlanta area and they do coach you and give you materials to use to answer questions accurately.  While you can certainly stray from the method they advise you to use (and I'm sure a few do) most of the volunteers I've enjoyed meeting seem pretty conscientious and seem to stick to the game plan.  Its difficult for me to know for sure because when I do it, I'm engaged in what I'm doing not what all the others do though I have taken a few breaks for bathroom and munchies - and no these have not been cannabis-induced munchies.

          by cheforacle on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 07:04:16 PM PDT

        •  two different types of calls

          the call you got was from the obama campaign was an ID call.  the sole purpose was to find out how you were voting.  if you said you were completely undecided, you were listed as a 3, and you are on the list for a follow-up call, but that won't happen until they've ID'd the rest of the voters in your area.

          OTOH, what you got from the clinton campaign was a persuasion call (either by intent or by virtue of an enthusiastic volunteer).  the idea there is to bring you around.

          not every volunteer is suited for persuasion work, and in terms of priorities, it's better to go through the whole canvass universe and count heads on your supporters before spending the extra time needed to swing undecided people like you.

          that's just field ops 101.

          by zeke L on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 09:38:24 PM PDT

      •  I had a minor (but similar)

        experience with the two campaigns in Iowa in December.

        I was collecting a few campaign buttons to send to my German "daughter" and went around in person to the campaign offices in town to ask for one. (I did not reveal why I wanted the buttons.)

        At the Hillary office they reluctantly gave me one.

        At the Obama office, they quickly asked, "How many would you like?" They gave me three, and I handed on two of them to two people that caucused for Obama.

        At the Edwards office, they were completely out of them and apologized.

        by murasaki on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:13:40 PM PDT

      •  Did you call the 877 number

        or did you call directly to your local office.

        The reason I ask is because I was taking calls today at my local HQ

        by BlackBox on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:37:38 PM PDT

    •  this:

      Today, after John Edwards dropped out I called both campaigns asking them flat out, "Why should I vote for your candidate?"  Hillary's people said they would call back[.]

      to me, speaks volumes. I don't think any more needs to be said.

      by blueness on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:52:29 PM PDT

      •  That says more about you than anything else

        by Angry White Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 04:59:28 PM PDT

        •  Wow. Your screen name says a lot about you. nt

          by DaveV on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:04:00 PM PDT

          •  Apparently

            you don't understand the concept of snark.

            by Angry White Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:07:40 PM PDT

            •  Apparently

              You don't do snark very well.

              by DaveV on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:08:42 PM PDT

              •  Don't blame me

                if something goes over your head. That's on you.

                by Angry White Democrat on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:17:15 PM PDT

      •  It would have worked...

        ...it went like this:

        "Today, after John Edwards dropped out I called both campaigns asking them flat out, "I'm a powerful lobbyist for Corp Inc, why should I vote for your candidate?"  Hillary's people said they would call back, with a time and place for a dinner date[.]"

        by Deltones on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM PDT

        •  Now, that is Snark!

          LOL

          by Tex Kosmaniac Dem Lady on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:04:10 PM PDT

          •  Well thank you my dear :) (NT)

            by Deltones on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 08:20:02 PM PDT

  •  Hillary is my senator but I no longer support her

    and I will tell you why. Before the vote to authorize the war in Iraq, I called her office and begged her not to vote for the war. I stated all my reasons, and told her I had lived in the Middle East for a few years. I told her what exactly would happen if we pursued this tactic and all the problems that would follow. I was told that she was better to make this decision than I was. Well she did. She made the wrong decision and did not even read the briefings. I was right, everything I told them came true, and she was wrong. I can't vote for someone who isn't even as smart as I am.

    by ronnied on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:39:56 PM PDT

    •  I actually called Dodd before his vote

      his staffer was nice, said that Bush had absolute proof that he was going for nukes and that we didn't have much choice but to go to war to prevent it.  I asked the staffer to repeat, and, she laughed nervously realizing that I was going to point out how stupid the premise was.  Anyway, she said that she'd take down my name on the "long long list of others who believe as you do".  Anyway, the point of my story, is that I got an email about 2 years later that recognized that I had called and objected and thanked me for the objection.  It was a very late letter, but it was apologetic, and won me back into being a Dodd supporter.  I think he truly was niave to believe in Bush, and I think he's furious that he was so gravely mislead.   I didn't call Clinton or Edwards... but I was down in D.C protesting and I'm sure both of them had to go by us on numerous occasions -- although post-911 we had a big barricade   between us and them.   The anger that I felt that they didn't even look or listen, they just walked straight ahead careful to not look right or left less they see the face of Americans in protest.

      by Great Uncle Bulgaria on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 05:51:05 PM PDT

  •  tough to judge

    ...each candidate or campaign by how you're treated by one single supporter you get on the phone. every campaign has a couple jerks and even one flat out bigot volunteering, it seems.  and every candidate has at least a few good caring people helping out.

    nevertheless, i can say that in my neck of the woods, the clinton campaign is pretty much represented by one or two dedicated women, who have been active and paid their dues in local politics for the last couple years... meanwhile the obama folks are core staffed by the most dedicated progressives over the past couple of years, the dean folks, et