I don't know what Wes has been doing with himself, but I do hear his name as veep-candidate on this or that show. One anti-Wes point seems to be that he didn't "play well with others" - something about how he got along in his high commands with others . . .
From my experience donating, you may as well start small - believe me, you will get an e-mail every day from the campaign on this or that topic - here, call these 25 people in OR or KY was my last one - and every time there is a donate button. Sometimes, a specific amount for a specific purpose is asked for. Then you can become a repeat donor! Maybe that will put you in a special class!
- - Ing, May 19, 2008
I'm not hoping for the perfect moment - I'm just saying - he should know better. I already back him for the most part. Once Hillary *gracefully* exits the stage I'll be donating (an even bigger donation if Wes Clark ends up as VP) :)
Have you heard anything re: Wes Clark’s whereabouts lately?
- - Fair, May 19, 2008
Every candidate I can remember has small gaffes - all that can be said is better to make them now and learn how not to make them in the future. For some, the carry-over will last till fall, but for many, these gaffes will be forgotten. If you are going to "withhold your affections" waiting for perfect play, you will be disappointed ;->
- - Ing, May 19, 2008
I was thinking the same - she will win KY, Obama in OR. I have a feeling Obama will have a lopsided win in OR - I am curious to see by how many percentage points Clinton wins in KY.
You know, I really want to "GOBAMA" 100% but he keeps making what I will call stupid mistakes. The Peggy Agar Channel 7 reporter "Sweetie" incident in Sterling Heights is another example. Such a small gaffe, but since Obama has relatively little history on which he can be judged, any mishaps get magnified to a ridiculous, unreasonable extent. Between the "Sweetie" comment and the infamous San Francisco comment about rural folks I really think he will have a hard time with the "Reagan Democrat" crowd... not all, but enough to cause us headaches in November.
- - Fair, May 19, 2008
Things seem to be winding down in the Obama/Clinton race. Clinton isn't attacking Obama too much - really not at all - she's focusing on McCain, and still saying the race should go on, all states should count, she is ahead in the popular vote. As to the latter - she counts Florida and Michigan but doesn't count some of the caucus states where I understand the popular vote was not completely tallied. But it's more like going through the motions . . . she is sure to win KY while he is sure to win OR . . . will be interesting to hear what the speeches and spin are tomorrow night.
- - Ing, May 19, 2008
I think hypocrisy sums it up best. I actually have a bit more sympathy toward the conservative postion on abortion (I still totally disagree with it) than that on gays. In the 21th century there is just no excuse for anti-gay hatred and discrimination. I always feel that the biggest screamers on this topic are personally threatened by their own ambivalence. Speaking of big screamers - have you seen the 20 year old video of Bill O'Reilly from when he hosted Inside Edition and he was frustrated with some sign-off process for an episode? Last night, Keith Olbermann had this hilarious send-up, an analysis of O'Reilly's body language. Turned out the expert was a fake and former member of the Daily Show writing staff. Don't know if this link will work for you (or if you have time):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24657668#24657668
- - Ing, May 16, 2008
The republicans seem, from past events, to have a few confused members among their ranks (Larry Craig, Mark Foley, etc...). Double talk if you ask me.
- - Fair, May 16, 2008
It's not often lately that I have anything nice to say about Hillary, but yesterday it was postively good of her to find Bush's comment in the Israel Knesset (sp) outlandish and appalling or words to that effect. Bush said that "some" (read Obama) say we should talk with terrorists and radicals but that is the delusional path of appeasers, as in Neville Chamberlane and Hitler and Nazis. Obama struck back swiftly, saying that Reagan and Nixon and JFK spoke to adversaries but he, Obama, would never speak with terrorists, including Hamas. McCain came out with the statement that Obama is naive and inexperienced.
Based on what the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday, gay marriage is probably going to be a big topic this election year.
- - Ing, May 16, 2008
Even if that Democrat attempted to "run away" from Obama - the margin of his win was surprising and probably puts others supporting his candidacy at ease about being called an uber-Liberal, Rev. Wright-loving lefty. Didn't the Bush team (Karl Rove) get many House republicans elected (and Bush) by painting any Dem. candidate as a pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, etc... person?
- - Fair, May 16, 2008
The Dem. who won in Mississippi ran as a conservative Democrat and - in the words of the pundits - he "ran away" from Obama, saying he had never met the man, nor Rev. Wright. Won't be able to run away as easily in November. Still, there is time between now and then to try to educate . . .but not THAT much time. That is why I'd like the Obama/Clinton race over sooner rather than later. Enough lessons have already been learned - time to end it now. I'm afraid of what will happen in and after Kentucky. Of course the Obama team knows what they are doing, but I'm sure they did not expect so huge a defeat in West Virginia - we don't need a repeat of that in KY. I hope they campaign there more, or send Edwards as a surrogate.
You know me - spontaneous road trips are pretty much a thing of the past. But if Obama comes to Lansing or East Lansing or Jackson, I'll try a lot harder to make it. I am easily swept up in the emotion of things - I'm sure I would be moved beyond measure by an in-person experience of the Obama oratorical magic!
The Republicans are *polite word for* screwed!
- - Ing, May 15, 2008
I wondered if you drove west to Gd. Rapids for the rally. I'm not sure I have an opinion about the West VA results - does not change too much to me. What the extended campaign is doing is providing a lot of free media time to Obama and Clinton. I still think Clinton is doing Obama a favor by keeping the race alive and making all of her Obama issues "old news" now and not fresh material for republicans in a few months. As long as she keeps positive like she has the last few days.......
The race I was watching was the special election in Mississippi held to replace a republican congressman that was won by a democrat... a democrat the republicans tried to tie to Obama AND the Rev. Wright, if I'm not mistaken. The dem won in what I hear is a conservative southern area - "if they can't win there, where can they win?"
Race may not be so much of an issue, as I hope. I was concerned about this - not so much after the special election results.
I wonder what is going through the minds of republican strategists!??
- - Fair, May 15, 2008
So - what do you think of the West VA. results? Sure would have been nice if Barack's percentage had been a bit higher - being beaten by 41 points is rather embarrassing. On the other hand, if there have been unpublicized racist incidents against Obama campaign offices and volunteers in Indiana and so on (as reported recently in the Wash Post), I would expect even more of that kind of sentiment in the hills of West Virginny. Hillary kept comparing her situation to that of JFK and how he was behind when he campaigned in West VA.. He won - getting them to overlook their prejudice of Catholicism. I'm afraid that racial prejudices are just a mite more deep-seated than those among the Christian denominations.
- - Ing, May 15, 2008
I too think it was great that the endorsement came in Michigan!
- - Fair, May 15, 2008
Sounds like Obama's visit to Warren went pretty well - except for calling a female TV reporter, "Sweetie." Obama has since apologized, calling it a bad habit of his. Terry used to call any woman in a service capacity - waitress, cashier, etc. - "babe" and it bothered me because I thought some ladies would take offense. None did in our presence - who knows what they said behind his back ;-> Just can't be "endearing" any more - it is politically incorrect.
Edwards' endorsement was a relief yesterday - wish I could have been in Grand Rapids - I got an invite! via e-mail. I get e-mail nearly every day now, from the campaign.
- - Ing, May 15, 2008
I will have to read up at lunch to see what City Council is doing.
The intolerant fools causing trouble with the Obama campaign are the folks that will vote for McCain strictly for race reasons - but perhaps would have voted for Clinton because she is white. This race issue will not go away... Just wait until the republicans air TV ads with the former Rev. Wright saying he will be "knocking" at the White House door for some sort of payback when Obama is elected (or similar) – whatever the comment was. Feeds right in to the fear of this demographic.
It may haunt republicans in more independent, educated suburban areas; but will play right at home in some parts of the country. I'm sure this was accounted for in the November contest map or superdelegates would be staying on Clinton's side.
- - Fair, May 13, 2008
I just read some stuff in the Washington Post about racism experienced by Obama campaign street-level workers - things shouted at them (N-word, whether they are white or black), vandalism to campaign offices, etc. - and then, even from local officials, like mayors of small towns, statements about Obama being a half-blood American, brought up muslim, etc. - and these are all Clinton supporters. That's what she attracts with her statements about her hard-working American white supporters!
Kwame is under fire - the council is voting on censure and removal from office, etc.
- - Ing, May 13, 2008
It will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign spins tonight's (and the upcoming KY) win. Maybe she wants to go out on a high note - or whatever the current thought similar to that is.
- - Fair, May 13, 2008
Subject: Hillary Widget - Down to 1.6% - yeah!
Terry McAuliffe was on MSNBC this morning going through this whole scenario where she wins West Virginia, Kentucky, Puerto Rico and maybe Montana - racks up more popular votes than Obama and on she goes to the nomination! The pundits weren't really buying it . . .
- - Ing, May 13, 2008
No wonder I didn't hear about it - I've almost entirely limited my attention to Obama v. Clinton, paying attention to McCain only if he's said or done something about Obama. . . .
- - Ing, May 13, 2008
Re: #2 - Ron Paul supporters caused the chair of the Nevada republican party to cancel or postpone the "going-through-the-motions" state convention proceeding to formally endorse John McCain. This was about two weeks ago. From what I remember hearing, Paul supporters (and those unhappy with McCain) showed up to cause chaos... and it worked.
- - Fair, May 12, 2008
1. Yes - I try not to be, because I get too emotional, but it's not really within my control.
2. I guess I don't remember about Ron Paul and Nevada - did he do quite well there? Second to Mitt-ney?
- - Ing, May 12, 2008
You are truly invested in Obama's candidacy :)
Bob Barr is, in my opinion, using the Libertarian ticket as a platform on which to run. I think he is more aligned with the Christian fundamentalist crowd as opposed to being a true Libertarian. Perhaps his candidacy is the first major public protest by far right republicans to the mainstream maverick. Look at the votes for Huckabee after he suspended his campaign - and the Ron Paul incident in Nevada.
- - Fair, May 12, 2008
You don't know the half of it - when I'm home watching TV and she comes on, I use another word . . .but once she has dropped out the race and begun campaigning for Obama - as she has promised that she and Bill will - I will like her again alright ;->. But if he's elected and she tries to unseat him in 2012, all bets are off!
- - Ing, May 12, 2008
Now... be nice. (Hillary-the-albatross)
- - Fair, May 12, 2008
Yes, it could work out that way . . . but if Barr portrays himself as a true Libertarian (as opposed to just using that as a convenient ticket to run on), then he would need to espouse certain get-government-out-of-our-lives positions that conservative Republicans would not care for. For example, I think true Libertarians are pro-choice (by definition, they want maximum choice for everything) and are unlikely to align themselves with Christian fundamentalists. I think the main reason people are attracted to Libertarians is their stance on taxes - as low as possible to fund defense of the country against outside attact, and police to protect against crime . . . I think most everything else could be private, according to them.
I think once Hillary-the-albatross is off Obama's back, he will surprise everyone in how many states he brings into play!
- - Ing, May 12, 2008
Alright... I was at CNN.com at lunch and saw that former GA Rep. Bob Barr is running for President on the Libertarian ticket. He may be McCain's "Ralph Nader." I think there are enough McCain-suspicious conservative republicans to vote third party and have that make an impact (could GA now be in play for Obama?).
- - Fair, May 12, 2008
What I have heard is that Hillary needs to make a graceful exit - "her" superdelegates want to allow for that - they mostly feel that if she wants to campaign till the last primary on June 3, it won't really hurt the presumptive nominee, Obama - UNLESS she goes negative. The much replayed remarks she made in the interview with US Today, where she said she "quoted" the AP and talked about having the support of hard-working white people - these gave some of the pundits (and presumeably, the superdelegates) pause that she was going to revert to old habits.
I've also heard that after her foregone-conclusion win in West VA. tomorrow, she will go out later in the week, on a high.
The best comprehensive site on superdelegates which I have seen is at the New York Times website,
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/superdelegates/index.html
I posted at the blog yesterday - about Michigan, the stupid Jan. 15, primary, how it doesn't matter, we'll still vote for Obama. . .
- - Ing, May 12, 2008
I'm getting to the Post website more and more. I still check the Free Press website just as much as the Post website.
It will be interesting to see how the media treats Sen. Clinton's win tomorrow - headline or non-headline news. Either way I have a feeling it is going to draw out her campaign.
One question I have is what is keeping the superdelegates from, en masse, questioning the viability of Clinton's campaign. Is it strictly loyalty or do they see some true "risk" with Obama. Time will tell.
- - Fair, May 12, 2008
I'm glad to see you looking more and more at washingtonpost.com - be sure and look for the link to Media Notes - that is name of my favorite political/media blog by Howard Kurtz.
It just doesn't seem like there are any great visionaries anymore. Louisiana and Mississippi needed some visionary leadership after Katrina in order to tackle rebuilding in a manner which acknowledged the past but also looked forward, being in the 21st century - but no such person has arisen. The transportation crossroads discussed below is another example - I'm sure it is too big for any one person, but a visionary president would help. I think Obama could fit that bill, much more so than McCain or Clinton. But so far the presidential campaign discussion has been focused on energy supply and prices, not so much on infrastructure.
Hopefully, the pundits won't renege on their analysis - Hillary will win West VA. big, but it just won't matter, because it won't alter the math. If they start saying she has a chance, I don't know what I'll do. . .
- - Ing, May 12, 2008
A Transportation Crossroads [from May 9, 2008 www.washingtonpost.com ]
By Judith Rodin
Friday, May 9, 2008; A27
All the gas tax talk has stirred up a storm. Whatever you think about the candidates' proposals, however, their debate has illuminated an urgent reality: If the U.S. government continues with its current transportation policies, it will undermine the social and economic security of our workforce and accelerate global climate change. We must chart a new course, rebuilding America's overburdened and, in many cases, obsolete transportation infrastructure while addressing these two 21st-century imperatives.
The good news is that we can tackle these challenges head-on -- with immediate benefits for our lagging economy. In the short term, "fix it first" strategies can repair existing infrastructure rather than beginning new construction, thus containing our carbon footprint. The Economic Policy Institute, for example, determined that, within 90 days, repair work could begin on 6,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country for about $30 billion, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Over the long run, policymakers must also develop a more comprehensive plan. This is heavy lifting, and we're just getting started. The Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program, the Regional Plan Association's America 2050 initiative, the Bipartisan Policy Center and others are framing a national infrastructure vision. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg just launched Building America's Future, a nonpartisan coalition focused on advocating best practices and new ideas. And today in Washington, public officials and business, labor and civic leaders from across the country are gathering for a summit, Rebuilding and Renewing America, to draft a blueprint for 21st-century investments.
Just how dire are the risks? The collapse of the Interstate 35-W bridge in Minneapolis last August points to a fundamental crisis. Transportation systems and structures are outmoded and stressed beyond their capacities. This is not an abstraction; we suffer the consequences during our commutes every day. Traffic congestion in 2005 drained $78 billion from our economy, according to Texas A&M's 2007 Urban Mobility Report, adding 4.2 billion hours to Americans' commutes while wasting 2.9 billion gallons of gasoline.
Another critical danger is environmental. Today, the transportation sector consumes 90 percent of the United States' imported oil while producing one-third of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions -- and one-twelfth of the world's. Yet the federal government clings to a backward funding formula: The more a state's residents drive, the more money that state receives. In fact, projected increases in automotive travel will release so much greenhouse gas by 2020 that environmental protections achieved through higher gas-mileage requirements and anticipated advances in low-emissions fuels will be completely negated.
A less visible danger is economic. Transportation costs, now the second-highest household expense, are pricing families out of the American dream -- preventing them from saving, buying homes or investing in their children's educations. A 2006 Center for Housing Policy report indicated that working families in large metropolitan areas spend nearly a third of their incomes on transportation. A study by the American Public Transportation Association clarifies the connection between these challenges and the country's critical need for investment in mass transit: Two of every three regular users of public transportation earn less than $50,000 a year. The federal government, meanwhile, directs only one of every five gas-tax dollars to automobile alternatives.
As we look to the future, we must expand affordable, accessible and environmentally sustainable transportation options: high-speed and light rail, rapid and mass transit, and walkable, bikeable streets. Washington must provide new incentives for states and cities to promote greener land use, cleaner cars and decreased automotive dependence.
Fortunately, an extraordinary opportunity is on the horizon. Regardless of who wins in November, the new president and Congress will come to a crossroads when the highway bill is up for reauthorization next year. We must prepare to seize this moment by investing now in the search for solutions.
A half-century has passed since President Dwight Eisenhower signed the legislation establishing the United States' interstate highway system. That was among the most daring ideas of its time. It was a road map for the infrastructure that enabled 50 years of unrivaled economic prosperity and opportunity. Today, we must again dare to think and act boldly, but in a different way, because the world has dramatically changed.
The writer is president of the Rockefeller Foundation, which has provided funding for the America 2050 forum, Rebuilding & Renewing America: Toward a 21st Century Infrastructure Investment Plan.
- - [article posted by] Fair, May 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment