Together we can! This is what Obama has stressed since the beginning of his campaign and he continues to stress this throughout his presidency! We have to come together and unite! We are the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and we owe this to ourselves! For way too many years we have stood by and let big corporations move our jobs to other countries, and selfish and greedy people take and it is time that we unite and say "NO MORE"!!! I am 43 years old and this is the first campaign that I had ever voted in because honestly, I didn't trust in our government, but Obama gave me that trust - he gave me a hope - and I know I am not the only one because I worked the campaign and have seen hundreds in my area get out and vote for their first time as well!!!
Let's continue this support! Gift Treasure Shop, a little local Ohio business, has agreed to give 25% of all profits obtained through this blog to the Obama Movement, plus, on checkout, if we enter the coupon code barack - they will give 10% off your purchase! The coupon code is important - that is how they track sales generated from this promotion so they can calculate the funds to send at the end of the month so please be sure to enter the coupon code barack!!! If by chance you have a coupon code that gives you a bigger discount (I know I have one), there is a place for customer notes on the order, simply place the word barack in the notes and your order will be added to the Help the Obama Movement Campaign!
You can go to their site at www.GiftTreasureShop.com - they even sell some neat Obama merchandise so you can portray your support everywhere you go! You can see that merchandise by following the link http://www.gifttreasureshop.com/index.php?keyword=obama&Search=Search&Itemid=1&option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.browse
This post is intended to promote funds for the Obama Movement - if you know of another business that is willing to donate a portion of their profits to help the campaign, please post the information! Also, if you have some great stories at what Obama has done for you or how he has inspired you, please share! LET'S GO AMERICA!!!
John McCain loves to cite his support of a 'surge' in Iraq that was ultimately made a part of Iraq War policy in 2007. "I've supported the surge from the beginning, even when it was not supported by others in my party," he's fond of saying, tying this line to his claim of being a party "maverick."
But his claim is utterly, patently false. Where was the maverick in February 2003 when General Shinseki put forth the initial "surge" argument before Congress that we needed between 300,000 and 350,000 soldiers in Iraq? Take a look at this article from Feburary 28, 2003, citing testimony from Shinseki's appearance before Congress--19 days before the U.S. invaded Iraq with barely over 100,000 troops:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm.
The only congressional leaders who dissented from Wolfowitz' assurances that we could do the job adequately with barely over 100,000 troops were two Democrats. Senator McCain had nothing to add to the discussion, either during or after the hearing. It wasn't until 2005 that McCain began to seriously question the direction the war was headed.
So my question is: Exactly where was Senator McCain's supposed leadership in military decision-making at this critical moment? Where was this self-styled and much-hyped "maverick"? Had McCain supported Shinseki's claim, which General John Abizaid later said was the correct "surge" to have employed all along, it would have carried considerable weight during these deliberations. It could have helped end the war sooner, saving hundreds or possibly more than a thousand American troops who where then forced in to clean up the mess at a date four years down the road. And if Senator McCain is such a knowledgeable and strong military leader, why didn't he have the foresight and the courage to stand alongside this general who was quickly eliminated from future policy decisions?
Or better yet, why didn't this "experienced" senator have the clarity of vision and the courage to speak out against the manufactured claims being thrown around by the Republican administration to wage an unnecessary war?
One answer: Because he isn't the maverick he claims to be. There were a few mavericks in the senate at the time--23 to be exact. One of them was a Republican. It wasn't John McCain. It was Rhode Island's Lincoln Chaffee, who is supporting Barack Obama for president.
Barack Obama . . . oh, yeah. He's the presidential candidate who said we should never have been in Iraq in the first place--before we sacrificed nearly 4200 soldiers to discover that.
Senator McCain may have supported the surge of 2007. But it didn't exactly take a maverick to do that. By then the war had disintegrated into total chaos. A better position would have at least advised against beginning the war undermanned--and preferably, it would have advised against this unnecessary war, period.
One 2008 presidentaial candidate did take such a position. He's the guy in our party. And we still have a chance to elect him.
Excellent advice from a volunteer in Texas who just registered one thousand new voters! Worth reading, printing, and using as a reference guide.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/23/132922/423/583/555718
Wesley Clark (General-Oklahoma)
Pros:
Cons:
Chances: Low/Moderate. He would be a good choice except for the fact that he's called Obama unfit to be Commander in Chief...kind of a deal breaker. If he can explain himself, however, he might have a chance.
What do you think?
Be sure to check out the other candidates on my short list!
Michael Bloomberg (Mayor-New York City)
Chances: Low. Michael Bloomberg is one of my favorites but while he fits in nicely with the campaign's post-partisan message he doesn't add much else.
Be sure to check out the other candidates on my shortlist!
Chris Dodd (Senator-Conneticut)
Hillary Clinton (Senator-New York)
Chances: Poor. Hillary Clinton's chances has probably always been poor and have grown even more so as the primaries dragged on. Her comments about assassination and her defiance will probably cost her. There is some doubt that she and Bill Clinton will even pass the vetting process due to shady business deals and Bill's affairs. She may very well be the best and the worst choice for Vice President. The Obam campaign has hinted that she wiill probably not be chosen...thank God.
Be sure to check out the other candidates on my short list. Also, more to come later.
Kathleen Sebelius (Governor-Kansas)
Chances: Good. As with Bill Richardson their is a risk with choosing someone from an "oppressed group" for Vice President but her potential strength amongthe three Ws: working class whites, Western States, and women might be more than enough to override that concern.
Be sure to check out the candidates on my short list.
John Edwards (Fmr. Senator-NC)
Chances: Poor. Edwards would make a good choice but he seems genuinely opposed to taking the spot again. He also does very little to bolster Obama's foreign policy credentials or combat his "elitist" image.
Chuck Hagel (Senator-NE)
Chances: Moderate. Do Democrats really want to ensure that a Republican canddiate will have the tie-breaking vote in the Senate? Probably not. It's unkown as to whether Hagel would agree to run as Vice President but if he does, expect to see him near the top of the list.
Be sure to check out the other candidates on my short list.
Bill Richardson(Governor-New Mexico)
Chances: Moderate. Though the thought of two minorities on a ticket might scare some, Obama has already shown that race is not the biggest factor. He would be a good balance to the ticket and help shore up support among Hispanics. He has a shot.
1. Jim Webb (Senator-VA)
Chances:Low. Though Jim Webb is a favorite among many supports I doubt he'll pass the vetting process. His problems among women and the long paper trail of his weird and discordant views are a deal breaker.
Update 6/10: Webb's paper trail gets in the way again. A new article looks at his views towards the Confederacy. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080610/pl_politico/10994
Is it just me or are a lot of the names being floated around for VP less than thrilling? Obama has recently started his Vice Presidential search but the names being generated aren't generating much excitement as far as I'm concerned. It seems we have bagged the biggest star in the Democratic Party to run for President and we are scraping the barrel to find someone that even comes close as a running mate. I recently read an article about John McCain's search and it would appear that he has plenty of relative young charismatic right-wing religious conservatives from which to shore up his conservative credential and offset fear about his age. Jindal of Louisiana, Crist of Florida, Romney (yeah right), to name a few. I feel less than satisfied with the pool Obama has to pick from and I've come to realize it's because of the odd nature of our primary and our candidates.
We are a party divided. We are a party that has a black candidate. We are a party that has a young relatively inexperienced candidate. We are a party that will undoubtedly upset a lot of women when Hillary Clinton drops out. There has been a lot of talk about Barack Obama choosing a candidate with experience in foreign policy. It seems then the best choice should be Bill Richardson but as much as I believe that our country is ready to elect an African American President; I have not been able to wrap my mind around the idea of Americans electing an African American-Hispanic duo. If he is the best choice, however, than I think Obama shouldn't hesitate to choose him. I'm willing to knock down a few more barriers and glass ceilings.
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and former Senator Sam Nunn have also been suggested because of their foreign policy experience. The former, however, is a Republican and although he is one of the few in his party to oppose the Iraq War he falls into line when it comes to social issues. It's not going to do a great deal to shore up the woman vote by choosing a pro-life VP. Sam Nunn, though a Democrat, was behind several anti-gay measures and the LGBT community would take up arms if he were chosen. So for the sake of argument let's scratch Richardson, Hagel, and Nunn.
Maybe Barack Obama should choose a woman to somewhat offset the anger brewing over Clinton's defeat. He could choose Clinton...but a lot of his supporters (myself included) wouldn't like that. He might also alienate some of the independents who support him but hate her. And if Barack chooses anyone but Hillary a lot of her supporters will be upset. Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas has been tossed around as a prospect a lot lately. She's Governor of what could become a swing state (though it doesn't account for much as far the Electoral College goes), and she's originally from my state of Ohio, where her Father was Governor. Still she doesn't have that necessary foreign policy exepreince. Neither does Claire McCaskill, the Senator from Missouri.
John Edwards might be a good choice if he dared to run for Vice President again. Yet he is almost just as young and inexperienced as Barack. McCain would have a field day. It seems the best option I've heard so far is Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He's a former Republican, turned Democrat from the important swing state of Virginia. He's served in the military and his son has served in Iraq. He might also appeal to those working class whites with which Obama allegedly struggles. I don't know much about his views on social issues but as a former Repblican and a well-known moderate I don't hold out much hope.
Lastly, there's Michael Bloomberg, the Democrat, turned Republican, turned Independent Mayor of New York. Usually being a Mayor doesn't provide one with any foreign policy experience...but this is New York after all. He doesn't have much name recognition though and as a Billionaire he doesn't help soften the idea that Obama is somehow elitist.
I've realized that we're not going to find a Vice President that is going to solve all our problems nor should we expect to. Some of us are going to be unhappy no matter who is picked but I urge everyone to remember what we're fighting for...change. As Barack Obama reminds us, in the end this is not about the candidates, it's about us. This seems to have been the campaign of hurt feelings an I hope that no one pouts and stalks off because they didn't feel the right person was chosen for VP. We must all work together for change. I hope everyone keeps that in mind as we move closer to the General Election.
