John Edwards Endorses Barack Obama

Please vote with your voice.  Share your thoughts, predictions, dreams of what might be possible, or perchance, you wish to express your fears.

At the beginning of the race for the Democratic nomination in early 2007 I said my dream ticket would be Edwards/Obama. It would be two strong Democrats who could bring change to this country. Edwards was a great leader and Obama would get some experience and be ready to make a run for the Presidency in eight years. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum, Senator Obama proved that experience was not important and took the race for the Democratic nomination by storm. Soon it was down to him and Senator Clinton and I had to think of a new dream ticket. I didn't consider Senator Edwards because I did not think he would be interested in the Vice-President's spot again. But I now have changed my mind.

According to CNN, both Clinton and Obama reached a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee called the "Democrative White House Victory".  This comes after Clinton's $20 million and growing debt becomes a growing public concern of the Clinton Campaign, the media and many voters.

The agreement, announced Wednesday, creates a new entity, the "Democratic White House Victory Fund" — a move which will allow both candidates to fundraise for the cash-strapped Democratic National Committee, and to help shoulder some of their primary and general election expenses. John McCain has already created his own Victory Fund with the Republican National Committee – but those funds are usually created after a nominee has been decided.

CNN

From Clintonopedia, the encyclopedia of denial

A Hail Mary pass or Hail Mary play in American Politics is an election strategy made in desperation, with only a small chance of success. The typical Hail Mary is a very long, tedious plan executed near the end of a primary where there is no possibility for any reasonable plan to work. This plan is unlikely to be successful, because the general inaccuracy of the plan and the defensive team's preparedness for the plan makes it likely that it can intercept or knock down the desperate candidate’s assault -- the plan is executed and a prayer is said, hoping the leading candidate’s electability somehow disintegrates.

As we are getting close to the end of primary season, speculation is increasing as to who the vice president candidates will be.  I will present a strong argument why lieberman will be the GOP pick.

I know many pundits have argued that McCain needs to pick a conservative to energize his base.  Romney has been mentioned (though he wasnt always conservative), Rob Portman from Ohio (to secure support in a swing state), Governor Crist (same as above).

In this game of chess, Obama picks his VP first and then McCain can counter. And the outcome of this game could lead to picking Hillary as Obama's VP.

Eight years ago, at the age of 29, I ran for elective office for the first time.  While living in the city with the largest population of female-female couples in America, I was, nonetheless, the first openly-LBGT candidate to run for office.

(KaplanforOakland.org)

The first news article about my candidacy was titled: "This Green Lesbian Wants Your Vote."   I ran a grassroots campaign against a long-term wealthy incumbent, and was out-spent by 10-to-1.  I was honored to receive over 44% of the vote.  Not enough to win, but enough to surprise many people.  And -- at that time, I was a member of a political party that had only 3% of the registered voters.

Now, eight years later, I am a more experienced policy-maker and elected official.  And I am a Democrat.  And proud to be running for the Oakland (California) City Council at-large seat in the June 3rd election -- with the endorsement of the Democratic Party!

And so I want to thank DailyKos -- since it was you, and the Obama campaign, which inspired me to re-join the Democratic party....

As the general election campaign fast approaches, every non-naive Democrat knows what to expect from the opposition.  Namely, an onslaught of attacks and negative advertising of the kind that we now call swiftboating.  After what happened to John Kerry in 2004, candidates and supporters alike have vowed "never again" to let a swiftboat campaign bring down a candidacy.  It's great to say that and its great to have fight and resolve, but the real question is how exactly are we going to deal with or counter swiftboating this time around?  The tricky thing about swiftboating is that it appeals to parts of the American psyche and American ignorance in which things such as facts, truth, and important issues have little relevance.

There's only one way this ends, and it's not going to be pretty.  Hillary Clinton has deliberately driven a stake through the heart of the Democratic Party, and not because she's a sportman's and refuses to leave the field of play until the last whistle, it's because she want to position herself as completely indespesible to Barack Obama in the all.

She's been more than willing to pander and try and bribe the electorate with her gas tax holiday scheme.  She's been willing to bait and pander to poor, ignorant West Virginian's like these...

Listen to this Hillacrat dreck, "Obama's a Muslim - he's doesn't know the Pledge of Allegiance or the Star Spangled Banner - he doesn't believe in America the way Hillary or McCain do..."

Why is Hillary willing to win on the back of this swill?

It can all only be for one reason.

Fans of the groundbreaking videogame Portal know that the game reaches its climax when you face and destroy GLaDOS--a patronizing, condescending, sarcastic and potentially deadly supercomputer with a female voice and a penchant for cake.

I know the game only for its exquisitely catchy ending credits song, "Still Alive," sung by a defeated but nevertheless defiant GLaDOS.  Songwriter Jonathan Coulton's tune is infectiously catchy and a wondrous display of passive-aggression by GLaDOS.  (Coulton's talents go far beyond videogame scoring, and his quirky tunes are a hit with the college scene).  

Listening to the song last night I was struck with the notion that Hillary Clinton is the GLaDOS of those closing credits.

Check it out.

I understand the fact that Hillary being elected president would represent an enormous achievement in the eyes of women and those who subscribe to feminist thought.

The problem is that Hillary isn't that woman for me and I'm guessing many of my fellow feminists agree.

Could it be that I'm a 3rd waver?

From Wiki:

Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's "essentialist" definitions of femininity, which often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized experiences of upper middle class white women.

Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females.]

But how does that contrast second wave feminism?

Well we have broken down it down multiple times. But it will not be Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Webb, McCaskill, or the beloved yet evil Hillary. Its not Al and its not a woman. And here is why.

Dodd and Biden: Old
Edwards, Webb, McCaskill - Said No
Hillary - We cant tolerate her.
Any woman - None appear strong enough in my opinion and would be seen as another Ferraro pick.
Al Gore does not want to be part of anything.

I got the idea from my buddy Cwech, a fellow Daily Kos blogger, to do an entry on if they made a movie on the 2008 Democratic Primaries who would be the actor’s cast. Yes this is a silly thing to do but I am in a silly mood right now. I’m not going for which actor looks exactly like but ones who I think could do a good job portraying the main players from this primary season. Feel free to come up with you own suggestions.

Man, I tell ya, this Democratic primary season sure has been different.  The long-running nature of the contest certainly has a lot to do with it, and I think that's a factor in seeing a side of the Democratic party and America in general that we don't usually get to see, since usually by now we're paying attention to all the tricks Karl Rove is pulling out of his Lee Atwater Do-It-Yourself Mudslinger's Manual.

Let's face it, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio all have something in common, more or less, and it isn't normally associated with the central tenets of the Democratic Party, unless you count the dwindling supply of reliable union voters, who've been reliable in a clinging to guns and God way since 1980, and voting Republican.

What this can't-quite-put-my-finger=on-it thing might be, why this looks like a big fat rhinocerous in the room, and why it really isn't, upon landing from the jump...

By 2001 the National Council on Disability noted:

4 million people of voting age who have a disability are unregistered voters
People with disabilities vote at a rate 11 percent lower than the general population
81 percent of voters who are blind or have visual impairments rely on others to mark their ballots
An estimated 20,000 of the nation’s 170,000 polling places are inaccessible to voters who use
wheelchairs"

More below, please...

A majority of Americans say they want us out of Iraq. A majority of Americans want universal health care. A vast majority of Americans wanted Congress and the President to extend health care benefits for children of poor and lower-middle-class families - even if it meant raising their taxes.

House Republican leader John Boehner and his colleagues have heard their calls, and responded...by crafting a marketing slogan that tells Americans what idiots they are.

In the latest USA/Gallup poll, the glaringly obvious omission is the Obama-Clinton percentages.  However, it does reveal the following facts:

73% of Clinton supporters want a Obama-Clinton ticket
43% of Obama supporters want a Obama-Clinton ticket
55% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want an Obama-Clinton ticket
537 democratic and democratic-leaning independents polled

A small bit of grade school algebra deduces that the Obama-Clinton split is 60% Obama, 40% Clinton.

Grade 5 math on the jump.

I have to admit I was slightly heartened to hear James Carville admit that he believes that the nominee of the Democratic Party will be Senator Obama and even went so far to say that once he is the nominee he'll send a check and make his commitment to work for him.  A true democrat (even if I disliked his comments about Senator Richardson).  His quote:  

"I'm for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee."

"As soon as I determine when that is, I'll send him a check," he added.

John McCain had the eager press lined up on this one for weeks.  He was going to take a stand and differentiate himself from Bush by offering his solution to climate change.  And today was the momentous day.  McCain made his speech and no less than the New York Times dutifully trotted out an article titled McCain Differs With Bush on Climate Change.

Senator John McCain sought to distance himself from President Bush on Monday as he called for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. ... In what his campaign promoted as a major speech on climate change, the Arizona senator renewed his support for a "cap-and-trade" system in which power plants and other polluters could meet limits on greenhouse gases by either reducing emissions on their own or buying credits from more efficient producers.

The plan that McCain offers turns out to be an extremely weak one, one that's even less effective than the completely inadequate Lieberman-Warner Bill.

Mr. McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate this year to call for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, but his target for reducing those emissions over time is lower than that of his Democratic competitors, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, and even lower than that in a bill proposed by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia.

So what is in McCain's proposal that differentiates him from Bush?  Not much.  In fact, the same article notes that McCain's positions puts him "slightly right of center" on the climate change issue, which apparently means that McCain is willing to admit that climate change is a problem, but not willing to make any substantive suggestion on how to address the issue.  

What the Times article doesn't mention is that back in 2000, candidate Bush also said the climate change was an issue and pledged to regulate CO2.  It wasn't until after his election that that cuddly, caring, compassionate conservative Bush's positions gave way to the standard GOP line.  

Under strong pressure from conservative Republicans and industry groups, President Bush reversed a campaign pledge today and said his administration would not seek to regulate power plants' emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas that many scientists say is a key contributor to global warming. ... As recently as 10 days ago, Christie Whitman, the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, had described Mr. Bush's campaign promise as if it were already policy.

So what's the difference between Bush and McCain?  One is a Republican who is already in office, the other is a Republican running for office.  Far from making him different from Bush, McCain's empty promises make him exactly the same as the man whose administration he's running to extend.  

What evidence is there that McCain would break Bush's flip-flop record if he gets the chance to sit in the Oval Office?  How about this: McCain is being advised on these issues by Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, who just this morning put out an op-ed explaining how we can't let the environment get in the way of cheap energy.  And of course the proposals McCain put forward today don't align very well with his other big push for a gas tax holiday.

But since he started running for president last year, McCain has largely downplayed climate change. He hasn’t declared support for a tougher and more detailed bill, proposed by Senators John Warner and McCain ally Joe Lieberman. And his top domestic policy recently suggested that McCain might not even stand by his own weaker bill, telling a reporter: "He wasn’t so much committed to the bill as to an issue."

So, McCain proposes a weak, pointless bill.  One of his advisers suggests he won't even stand by that proposal, while another argues that cheap energy trumps environmental concerns.  Boy, that sure is different.

As has already been demonstrated time and again, "maverick" McCain's difference from the hard right extends as far as his words, and stops well short of his deeds.  Coming from McCain, any promise on climate change is nothing but hot air.