Barack Obama has dedicated his life to public service as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and leader in the Illinois state Senate. Obama continues his fight for working families following his election to the United States Senate. Senator Obama is focused on promoting economic growth and bringing good paying jobs to Illinois. Obama serves on the important Environment and Public Works Committee, which oversees legislation and funding for the environment and public works projects throughout the country, including the national transportation bill. He also serves on the Veterans ’ Affairs Committee where he is focused on investigating the disability pay discrepancies that have left thousands of Illinois veterans without the benefits they earned. Senator Obama also serves on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Whew! Good to see the Obama campaign liaison is back on the job at The Swamp!

The student vote is something Boy Wonder should have locked up. If he doesn't have this demographic (that's group of people for you John E) by Christmas, then it's over.

Speaking of soeone saying its over:

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/09/27/news/local/doc46fb31e2f3021710970352.txt

U of I grad student,

If only Obama had experience like Cheney, Rumsfeld...er, never mind.

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.
By BOB HERBERT - NY Times

I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: “No way, baby.”

They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush — they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, “All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you.”

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It’s time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.

Go Barack Obama AND Hillary, we need to take our country back from the Republican fascists.

Whew! Good to see the Obama campaign liaison is back on the job at The Swamp!

Posted by: Formerlyanonymous | September 27, 2007 2:22 PM

Son,
You are either a racist or you have an unhealthy obsession with Mr. Obama's demise, people like you make me sick.

Republicans Trail Democrats in Fund-Raising
By ADAM NAGOURNEY - USA Today:

DES MOINES, July 3 — Two more Republican presidential candidates disclosed new fund-raising totals on Tuesday that underscored the tough political environment for their party and the big money advantage that the Democrats have built.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who led the Republican field in money raised in the first three months of the year, said donations to his primary campaign had dropped by a third in the second quarter, to $14 million from $20.5 million. Mr. Romney lent his campaign another $6.5 million out of his personal fortune to soften the impact of the decline in donations.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, raised more in the second quarter than he did in the first: $17 million including $2 million that he can use only if he wins the Republican nomination, versus about $15 million. But unlike the first quarter, when his fund-raising operation was just getting up and running, his campaign was fully operational in the second quarter.

And while his performance from April through June put him in first place among Republicans, Mr. Giuliani trailed substantially behind the record sums raised by two Democrats, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Mr. Obama raised a total of $32.5 million in the second quarter, and Mrs. Clinton about $27 million.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani released the figures a day after Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, reported that he raised less money in the second quarter than in the first, and said he would slash the size of his staff and focus his campaign on a few early voting states.

Put together, the results for the three leading Republicans amounted to a stark indication of a gap in enthusiasm and confidence between the two parties, driven in part by President Bush’s low approval ratings, the war in Iraq and the failure of any of the Republican candidates to emerge as a clear front-runner, strategists in both parties said.

The top three Democrats, including former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, raised $68.5 million over the past three months, compared with $48.7 million for the top three Republicans, according to the reports. Since the start of the year, the Democrats raised nearly 50 percent more than the Republicans, $144.3 million compared with $101.7 million. That includes money that the candidates can use in the primary and in the general election.

Historically, the second-quarter receipts tend to grow for presidential candidates as donors get more involved and take sides in the race. Aides to the Republican candidates — as well as Republicans not involved in the race — said that this year might be an anomaly because the campaign had gotten so intense so early, but they nonetheless expressed deep concern at the reports and what it said about the health of their party.

“It’s a combination of the president’s historically low approval rating and the overall state of affairs in Washington that is demoralizing Republicans and energizing Democrats,” said Scott Reed, who managed the 1996 Republican presidential campaign of Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. “It doesn’t mean it’ll make it all the way to 2008 Election Day, but that sure is the climate we are in now.”

Charles Black, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain, suggested that part of what was happening was that some donors were holding back to see if another Republican — in particular, former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee — would enter the race, as Mr. Thompson is expected to do formally in the next few weeks.

“The general mood is bad throughout the party,” Mr. Black said. “There are some donors that are used to giving money all the time, and there are a whole bunch of people who are more casual donors who need to be fired up. The Democrats on the other hand are totally fired up, intensely fired up against the president.”

Beyond the symbolism, the divergence in the fund-raising performance of the two parties — which also extends to the Congressional campaigns, where Democrats have also built a big cash advantage — is likely to influence basic strategic decisions by Republicans on matters like when to begin television advertising and where to compete.

In an early example of this, several Republicans said it was now clear that Mr. Giuliani and Mr. McCain chose to skip the straw poll in Iowa — a high-profile nonbinding vote by party activists in which Mr. Romney is investing heavily — because it could easily cost each campaign $3 million to compete.

Aides to Mr. McCain, offering new details of his campaign’s financial woes on Tuesday, said that the shortfall had forced them to dismiss 80 members of a staff of 120, putting him at a marked disadvantage in states like Iowa, where he had hoped for an early victory in the caucuses to propel him to the nomination.

Mr. McCain’s staff in Iowa has been cut in half to eight, compared with a staff of 16 in the state for Mr. Romney. Mr. McCain’s situation here has been aggravated by what his associates described as a clash between Mr. McCain’s national and Iowa headquarters that resulted in his state director, Matt Strawn, leaving the campaign.

One McCain aide, requesting anonymity in exchange for discussing the dispute, said that some of the people who had left the Iowa headquarters had done so in support of Mr. Strawn, and that the campaign was hoping to expand the staff here should money start coming in. Mr. Strawn declined to comment.

Mr. McCain’s aides said Tuesday that the senator was shutting down his Michigan state office. Given his financial difficulties, the aides said that Mr. McCain was almost certain to accept public money for his campaign, despite the sharp restrictions it would place on his spending in the primary and in the months leading up to the general election, as a way to be able to afford television advertising early this year. They said that would guarantee an infusion of about $6 million, based on what he has raised so far, and perhaps a total of $15 million by the time the caucuses start here in January.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said they were hoping he would, over the next six months, be able to raise $25 million, matching what he raised in the first half of the year. They acknowledged, though, that that would be difficult because donors would be reluctant to write checks to a campaign that appears to be in crisis.

“I wouldn’t be straight with you if I didn’t say there would be a significant initial drop-off from this,” said John Weaver, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “But our finance people are confident that if we show the kind of movement that we think we can, that we’ll get back on track.”

Some of the Democratic advantage appears to stem from the success the party’s candidates have had in tapping into grass-roots enthusiasm for dislodging the Republicans from the White House. Mr. Obama’s campaign has reported receiving donations from more than 258,000 contributors this year and raising $10 million online in the second quarter. More than 80,000 donors contributed to the Romney campaign in the second quarter, 50,000 of them for the first time; in the first quarter, 32,000 people contributed to his campaign.

For years, Republicans prided themselves on having a large base of individual donors while Democrats relied to a large degree on unregulated soft money donations that have now been banned. So far in this cycle, Democrats appear to be building vast databases of new individual donors who could be called on by the party for years to come.

Mr. McCain reported Tuesday that he had just $2 million in the bank to cover the operations of his campaign; Mr. Giuliani’s campaign said he had nine times as much, or $18 million, and no debt. Mr. Romney has about $12 million in cash on hand for use in the primary.

Mr. McCain’s aides declined to say what outstanding debt he would report. Mr. Romney’s decision to again invest his own money into the campaign — he lent it $2.35 million in the first quarter — was clearly intended to signal he was prepared to use his wealth to offset the bad fund-raising environment his party finds itself in. Mr. Romney has been plowing through his money rapidly, pouring much of it into an expensive early advertising campaign focused on Iowa and New Hampshire that has helped him to leads in recent polls there.

My fellow Republicans,
We have lost our way and this who I think will serve us (ALL of us) best as our next President, Barack Obama and here's why:

As many of you know, there are just over a dozen people in Colorado who know right now that they will be attending the Democratic National Convention next year as delegates: they’re commonly referred to as “Super-Delegates”. And although I haven’t been issued my cape yet, my status as a Democratic National Committee member qualifies me as being in that select group.

Accordingly, I will be called upon to vote for somebody next August. Of course, the conventional wisdom is that the nomination will be all sewn up by the time the delegates reach Denver – in that case, I will likely vote for the presumptive nominee. However, if he is still in the race, I want to let all of you know that I intend to vote for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and I will be working to support Senator Obama in the weeks and months to come.

Why Obama?

One word: Inspiration. After eight years of one of the most dismal and divisive Presidential administrations America has ever seen, America needs to believe in our leaders again. After a Presidency marred by a quagmire in Iraq, an inability to respond to our own people’s needs in the Gulf Coast, and scandal at every turn in the Republican Party, America needs to believe in our government again. And after a loss of respect in all corners of the world due to an arrogant and indignant foreign policy, America needs to believe in our Nation again.

We need a fresh start.

If there’s one thing that folks can agree upon, it’s that Senator Obama knows how to inspire. Obama is a true leader – one with vision. His plans to end the Iraq War, to ensure health care coverage for Americans, and to protect our environment while tackling our dependence on foreign oil are all just the tips of the icebergs. Senator Obama understands that “business as usual” in Washington isn’t working, and that we need to move forward with new ideas and new plans to solve America’s problems.

In watching Senator Obama and his campaign, I’ve been impressed with his commitment to the West and to paying attention to Western issues. Senator Obama is among the first campaigns to have paid staff in Colorado, with key union organizer and Coloradan Ray Rivera arriving here recently. Senator Obama is committed to growing the Democratic Party in Colorado and all 50 states, and recently signed a pledge to continue to support the DNC’s “50-State Strategy” if he is the nominee and elected President. As a leader in the Democratic Party, I’m convinced that success for Senator Obama means success for the Democratic Party long-term.

This has not been an easy decision. I’ve been torn at times among the candidates running, especially by how much I like what Senator John Edwards and Governor Bill Richardson have to say to Colorado. But in the end, I think that Senator Obama will be a critical leader for Colorado Democrats, and his nomination will help us win this state – and this Nation – for the Democratic ticket in November 2008.

I’m sure many of you have a number of questions. First, it is not against State Party rules for officers or DNC Members to endorse Presidential candidates, nor is it unusual. In 2004, my predecessor, Julia Hicks, endorsed Senator Edwards (as did I as State Party Secretary). Nearly every other DNC Member from Colorado has endorsed a candidate: Mannie Rodriguez has endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton, while Ramona Martinez, Debbie Marquez and J.W. Postal have endorsed Governor Richardson (Chair Pat Waak has not endorsed a candidate, and I don’t believe Maria Handley has, either).

For those of you upset by this decision, don’t fret: DemNotes will not become “DemNotes featuring the Obama Campaign.” (I will note, as I have in the past, that DemNotes is not a State Party blog nor is it owned by the Colorado Democratic Party; instead, it is wholly owned and operated by myself, as the bottom of each page on www.DemNotes.com indicates.) I will still report, hopefully objectively and positively, on events sponsored and attended by other Presidential candidates. And I will still go around the state tirelessly working to organize Democrats in my role as State Party Vice Chair.

For those of you who want to know more about the Obama Campaign in Colorado, I encourage you to sign up at http://www.barackobama.com.

...Senator Obama is our last hope for change, and he has proved that he's the candidate of change, america cant afford to keep running inside of this political circle (Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton)
we need changement and it is not this circle that will bring us change. Democrats have the chance to break this circle in choosing Senator Barack H. Obama in the democratic primaries.

Regarding the article in Quad times Mrs Obama was misquoted per ABC and NBC:

UPDATE: That appears to be a misquote. ABC and NBC both have a slightly different, and slightly weaker, version:

“If Barack doesn’t win Iowa, it’s just a dream. If we win Iowa, then we can move to the world as it should be."

"A lie can get around the world before the truth gets out of the door"

Lyn,

Working with the updated quote where Mrs. Obama says what you quoted. In other words, if they lose Iowa, its over!

A Swamp reporter finally found a "poll" they could publicize. Because it is good news for Obama.

Or is it?

First off, this isn't really a poll. Polls involve random samples of people. This is one of those phony online surveys that anyone can barge into and vote on. The best proof of this is Democrat vote in the online "GOP" survey.

The Swamp won't report the Gallup or Rasmussen or Harris polls on Clinton-Obama, but they report on this?

If this is the best the Obama PR Department at the Swamp can do, then we know Obama is on trouble.

No wonder only 4.4% of the public find the media trustworthy.

Working with the updated quote where Mrs. Obama says what you quoted. In other words, if they lose Iowa, its over!

Posted by: Terry | September 27, 2007 3:44 PM

Trickle Down Terry,
That's not what your wife told me last night.

John E,

First of all, several people have asked you to post links instead of copying and pasting entire articles. You're wasting blogspace when you do that... well you always waste blogspace, but I mean more than usual.

Secondly, if you're going to accuse people of something as serious as racism, you have an obligation to back it up. Cite an example of racist speach. Otherwise you just look like a malicious fool... well, so what else is new?

You confirmed to everybody (yet again) that you are a malicious fool with this latest bit of incisive wit:

"That's not what your wife told me last night."

Posted by: John E | September 27, 2007 6:23 PM

Wow, Mensa... That's brilliant!

I thought Obama was awkward and halting. He struck me as someone who was out on a limb, and lacking experience. Clinton did OK defending herself, but lacked clarity. I am concerned that if she receives the nomination that she will not be as electable in the "real" race as Edwards or Biden. Biden was very impressive, and struck me as fairly focused and he showed a very good grasp of complicated issues. I like a lot of what Kucinic and Richardson had to say, but they do not come across as presidential. I have admired how effective Richardson has been in NM and on the international stage, but I don't think he could beat Guiliani in the general election. Biden seems the best bet to stand up to him, although he doesn't seem to have the "popular" vote in the democratic party. Dodd doesn't come across as well as Biden, but he strikes one as a man of character. Gravel had his moments as a side show, but needs to bow out.

"That's not what your wife told me last night.

Posted by: John E | September 27, 2007 6:23 PM"

To the blog editor, comments like this should be edited out, they are personal attacks.

To the blog editor, comments like this should be edited out, they are personal attacks.

Posted by: The Original BZ | September 27, 2007 9:36 PM
Post a comment

It's a safe bet that most of the bloggers here agree with you. And it's not just a personal attack, it's an especially stupid one. It's the sort of "zinger" used by pimply, not-too-bright juvenile boys who are insecure about their own sexuality.