Help spread the truth about ACORN: the real fraud is the RNC's voter suppression scam

ACORN: It's a community group that registers voters, for goodness' sakes. LEGITIMATE voters. This scares the heck out of the RNC, which doesn't want YOU to vote.

Sign the petition supporting ACORN here.

Dear Barack Obama: Protect Our Right to Vote

I wrote this recently at Progressive Blue. Well, not that recently. I forgot to crosspost it here. But, I'm doing that now, because I just saw a very encouraging sign that the Obama campaign may actually do something useful on this issue. For that, see the Keith Olbermann video at the bottom of the post.

I’ll admit it. I’ve been moping. Although I know this election is extremely important, I’ve been burnt before (we all have).

In 2004, I worked really hard for John Kerry, volunteering online every day during the general election. I did this even though I thought Kerry wasn’t a great candidate, wasn’t a strong enough progressive, wasn’t the candidate I wanted. I made financial sacrifices to donate to his campaign, too.

I worked hard, then I waited with baited breath for the election returns to start coming in. I watched those election returns as they trickled in that night. Initially, it looked like Kerry was winning, but suddenly everything started to change. By the following morning, I knew we had lost, and likely to election theft.

My suspicions have since been confirmed. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Bob Fitrakis, and many other activists have carefully investigated the 2004 election results, and there is clear reason to believe there was election tampering that probably changed the result.

In 2007, I worked relentlessly all year as a volunteer blogger for John Edwards, in part because I believed he had wanted to contest the 2004 election result, but had been overruled by Kerry. I felt strongly that Edwards would stand up for our rights in the event of a stolen election in 2008, especially after he made strong statements about voting rights during his campaign.

Barack Obama was eventually chosen as the nominee. Now, Obama’s been doing really well on the campaign trail, and I was impressed with his answers in the most recent debate, but he’s not always the strong progressive candidate I had hoped for. Here’s one specific complaint: I haven’t heard Obama address what he is doing to prevent a stolen election, and what he would do to contest a stolen election, if such a theft happens.

Here’s the truth. I haven’t gotten involved in the Obama campaign because I’m tired of working hard for disappointingly moderate candidates and then finding out those candidates have no backbone when the election is stolen. This is the reason I’ve been moping.

If I could talk to Barack Obama directly, here’s what I would say:

Mr. Obama, I hope you win. I know the Republicans have made a real mess of things, and we can’t afford another four to eight years of that. I’ve signed up to be a poll worker in my home city, because I want to make sure EVERY voter has the right to vote and have their vote count. But I have no illusions; I can’t make that difference alone.

Mr. Obama, all over the country you have thousands, maybe millions of people supporting your campaign. Many of them are working tirelessly for no money, even paying you for the privilege. Don’t you dare let them down.

Mr. Obama, I hope you win. But if the unthinkable happens, if you lose, don’t you dare concede until all the votes have been counted and counted fairly. If the specter of election theft haunts us again, you need to stand up. You need to stand up and demand justice. You need to stand up and demand that the will of the people be recognized. I know the many election integrity activists will stand up for our votes, but if you don’t also stand up, I fear the activists will be ignored as they were before.

Mr. Obama, I’m tired. I’ve worked hard to defeat the Bush agenda for several years now. I’m tired of working hard for politicians who don’t live up to their end of the bargain and fight for us.

Yes, I’ve signed up to be a poll worker, but that’s about all I have the energy to do. I wish you well, but I can’t get heavily involved in your campaign. I’ve been neglecting my career to support politicians who don’t live up to their end of the bargain for years now. I’ve got work to do in my own life. I need someone like you to prove to me that what you’re saying is sincere, by showing me you’re willing to fight for it. Maybe then I’ll be ready to make sacrifices again.

Mr. Obama, if you want me to believe again in the possibility of political transformation, all you have to do is show you are willing to fight for us.

Mr. Obama, I urge you to sign the No Voter Left Behind pledge.

Now, this is somewhat encouraging:

I saw John Edwards and Barack Obama at the DNC Fall Meeting: an adventure

On Friday, I went to the DNC Fall Meeting with a friend of mine to see John Edwards. It was an adventurous, though not altogether pleasant, kind of day. Here's my story of a trip to a political event that was unexpectedly eventful. I'll also discuss John Edwards' and Barack Obama's very different approaches to change.

The event on Friday was supposed to be in Baltimore, which would have been convenient for me, but the workers at the original hotel location were on strike, so the DNC moved the location three weeks ago. I say kudos to the DNC for respecting the picket line, and I hope last minute planning helps explain some of the chaos at the event.

My friend Scott and I got up super early to drive to Tysons' Corner, VA, outside DC for the event. Neither of us are morning people. Such dedication!

When we arrived, there were already quite a few people waiting outside, but we were immediately greeted by friendly Edwards staffers. Unfortunately, we had to wait in line for hours; about half of that time was spent standing outside in the cold.

We were told the ballroom access would be first come first serve, and there was only room for maybe 150 supporters (in addition to the DNC members who had a guaranteed seat). There were a whole lot more than 150 guests of the various campaigns there. I kind of think each of the major campaigns had that many of their own supporters there, actually.

The event seemed disorganized. All the major campaigns had a lot of supporters there, including a lot of people from the mine workers union for Edwards. It seemed like the campaigns must have been told they could bring a lot more guests than would actually fit in the room. This could have been because of the change of venue, I guess.

I had heard that they were going to let in about 150 people, but unless they were getting them from somewhere else other than the line we knew about, I don't think they did. I think we would have been in there if they had. Most of the Edwards supporters that were there early, as well as certainly any that came at all late, like some other friends of mine did, were not let into the event. They pretty much cut off the number of people they were letting into the ballroom when they got to the mine workers for Edwards, who were standing a few feet in front of me and my friend.

They let the next couple hundred people into an overflow room, where there was a TV. Some of the Edwards supporters ahead of us, many of them mine workers, had been taken out of the line by one of the Edwards staffers to go and shake hands with John when he arrived. We didn't really know that was what was happening until later, or I would have tried to follow them. So they were no longer with us, and we ended up in a room with mostly Obama supporters and a few Edwards supporters.

There were a lot of Edwards supporters in total at the event, but a few were let into the ballroom, judging by what I saw later on C-Span, a big group got out of line to go shake hands with John (but they were told they could not get into the overflow room if they got out of line), and then another fairly big group were let into the overflow room, so we were all split up. Anyway, our numbers were a lot bigger than they looked on TV.

There was a big TV in the overflow room, so we were not happy that we had driven all that way and stood in line all that time to watch something on TV that we could have seen on C-SPAN.

Then it gets worse.

Howard Dean spoke at the beginning, briefly. Then someone came up to introduce Richardson, and then the sound for the video system cut out. Richardson was talking, but we weren't hearing a thing! There was nearly a riot in the overflow room. I am not kidding you. It was ugly. People were chanting "fix the sound! Fix the sound!" Any of the hotel staff that came in the room to try to do that were getting yelled at by some people. We missed all of Richardson's speech.

When John's speech started and the sound was still not fixed, what was already verging on a riot kicked into a higher gear. Keep in mind everyone had been made to wait for hours, much of it outside in the cold, for something we could have watched at home on C-Span already, and now we couldn't even hear it. Some people walked out, but we stayed, hoping they'd get the sound fixed.

I kept thinking that if John Edwards knew what was going on in there, he would definitely come in after his speech and say hello to people. I had no way of knowing if he knew that, though.

Eventually, one of the Obama supporters sitting near me stood up and told people that she had just asked one of the DNC people very nicely to please try to send the candidates in after their speeches, because a lot of people had come to see them and waited a long time. That was when it dawned on me that I knew some of the Edwards staffers and there was no harm in at least asking a favor.

I went out in search of a friend on the Edwards staff and found him by the Edwards table. (To clarify, I do not work for Edwards. I'm just an enthusiastic volunteer.) I took my friend's hand and said something like "there are a lot of people in the overflow room, some of whom came just to see John, and now we can't hear his speech, and everyone in there is pretty upset right now. Is there any way that John can come in and at least say hi to people after his speech?" My friend sent a text message to someone, and he and the other man at the table told me that if it could happen, it would. I thanked them and went back in the room.

By then, they had fixed the sound at least enough to hear what John was saying, though the quality wasn't great. We heard maybe about the second half of John's speech, which was excellent, although I had to wait until I got home to watch the whole thing, in the video below.



Here's just a short excerpt from his speech that gives a small taste of his passion for this fight for change:

This is bigger than politics. Bigger than any candidate or political party. Because the truth is that it's not just Republicans who built this wall. Democrats helped too. Too many politicians from both parties are choosing self-preservation over principle, compromise over convictions.

"You have a choice in this election. You have to decide what kind of person you want as your next president. Do you want someone who is going to pretend that wall around Washington isn't there, or defend the people who helped build it? Or do you want someone who is going to lead with conviction and tell you the truth, and have a little backbone? Do you want someone who is going to hope that the people who spent millions of dollars and decades building that wall, and have billions more invested in keeping it up, are going to be willing to compromise, to take it down voluntarily? Or do you want someone who is going to stand up to those people and fight for your interests, when the chips are down, when your backs are against the wall, every single day?

"We have a choice in this election. We can keep trying to shout over that wall. We can keep trying to knock out a chink here and there, to punch little holes in it and hope our voices get through. We can settle for baby steps, half-measures and incremental change, and try to inch our way over that wall and toward a better future. Or we can be bold and knock it down.

The speech was all about tearing down the wall around Washington, and it seemed like we were at that moment experiencing another facet of that metaphor, by being kept out in a separate room where we couldn't even hear what was going on at first. His speech was met with enthusiastic cheers by most everyone, including the Obama supporters.

We only had to wait for a very few minutes after John's speech, and sure enough, he came in and shook hands with as many people as he could reach. Everyone cheered a lot when he came in and while he was there. I think it helped make everything a bit better for all the people in the room. I got a beautiful big smile, a handshake, and a "hi darlin'," which was nice.

He stood up on the platform and waved and thanked people for coming. He didn't stay too long, but Obama's speech was starting soon and I suspect he didn't want to be rude and talk over it. I was having problems with my camera, so my photos all turned out bad, but here's one I downloaded from the Edwards Flickr site (from that day, but not the overflow room).



Then Obama spoke, and by then he had gotten the message that people in the overflow room were pretty frustrated, so he gave a shout out to the overflow room. That was very well received, especially since most of the people in the room were Obama supporters. I was ready to leave after seeing John, but the Obama supporters there had been very nice during John's speech and when he came in the room, so Scott and I felt an obligation to be nice to their candidate.

Obama gave a good speech, but digging below the surface of sweet rhetoric, I didn't like some of the things Obama said in his speech. Honestly, he is far too conciliatory for me. (I could not find a transcript of his speech, but I always think he talks far too much about "bringing the country together" and bipartisanship.)

After the past 7 years, I want someone who will take the Republicans and the corporate interests on and fight them. I don't want someone who will try to make nice with them. Negotiations are a necessary part of politics, but you have to start from a position of strength, not a position of compromise.

You can't settle for less before you even get started negotiating because you think you won't get what you really want. Obama's health care plan, which is not universal and would leave up to 15 million people uncovered, is a great example of how NOT to achieve change.

I think this is the essential difference between the approaches to change that John Edwards and Barack Obama are taking. John is a fighter who will take them on. Obama seeks compromise, negotiation, and reconciliation, as evidenced both by his speech yesterday and by the "Carry" ad he's been running in New Hampshire and Iowa, which touts his bipartisanship.



Contrast that with this Edwards ad from Iowa:



Obama spoke in his speech about attracting Republicans and independents. I want to draw a distinction here between a candidate who entices Republicans and independents because he seeks compromise with them (Obama) and a candidate who appeals to Republicans and independents because he takes a strong stand and offers a bold vision and leadership on problems that affect them too (Edwards). After the recent Republican debate, one of the undecided Republicans in CNN's focus group said she would support Edwards (the most progressive major Democratic candidate) because at least Edwards has ideas.



I know which one I want in the oval office and which one I think will work, and that is John Edwards's more confrontational approach. It's called backbone, and we Democrats have been looking for it for a long time.

I think Obama may very well be a nice guy with good intentions. That isn't the point. What we need now is a fighter. We need someone who has taken on corporate interests and won consistently, and that's John Edwards.

The Obama supporters in the room, however, were really enthused by the end of his speech. One woman, obviously thinking I was far more impressed than I actually was, because of my polite cheering, I guess, asked me if I was thinking about switching. I told her absolutely not.

Obama made his supporters wait quite a long time, but when he did come in, he got mobbed. Scott managed to reach over a lot of people and shake Obama's hand, but I was keeping a bit of distance between myself and the thick of the crowd. I have been in one or two intense crowd situations and crowds can freak me out a bit if I feel it will become difficult to move.

Obama gave a short pep talk and then left, and I think most of his supporters followed him, because the room cleared out quickly.

Scott and I stayed and chatted for a long time with a very nice woman next to him, who I had assumed was an Obama supporter, but it turned out she was undecided. She was concerned about electability, so I talked to her about the fact that John seems to be the most electable Democrat based on head to head matchup polls, and also about some of the reasons why I like Edwards more than Obama.

Since all the Obama supporters had followed their candidate, I didn't have anyone trying to argue with me while I pointed out the flaws in Obama's health care plan (the major one is it's not universal) and pointed out why John would be so much more aggressive in pursuing a progressive agenda (because, as I said above, you can't start from a position of compromise). I also told her about his 80 page booklet on policy and where she could download it. She was definitely listening, so that was a good score! I don't know for sure that she will end up supporting him, but she was very receptive.

After we were ushered out of the room by hotel staff trying to clean during the break between sessions, we saw Kate Michelman near the Edwards table, and I blurted out "Kate Michelman! Hi!" She looked like she recognized me, which she probably did since I've been in a small group where she spoke before, and she greeted me like she knew me, but it occurred to me later that she probably had no real idea who I was. Anyway, she was very nice.

After that, Scott and I were both just about weak with hunger, so we found the nearest tolerable restaurant, which turned out to be Panera Bread. Guess who we ran into there? My friend from the campaign staff! He came right up to me and gave me a hug, and we chatted for a little bit. Really nice guy. He was really very appreciative of the fact that he always sees me at Edwards events.

Anyway, so then we drove home through a lot of traffic, only finding out about the Hillary campaign hostage situation when we got to Scott's house. Like I said, strange day.

It was nice of Edwards and Obama to both come in and greet the people in the overflow room, though, so that made up for the other weirdness of the day quite a bit. Both men seem like nice people. I just prefer John's strong confrontational approach. We need someone to stand up for us. We need someone to help us tear down the wall. We need a fighter.

John Edwards wins Republican debate - without even showing up!

Last night in a surprise upset, Democrat John Edwards won the Republican debate without even showing up! Check out this reaction among CNN's panel of undecided Republican voters.





She's not alone. I've had several Republicans tell me that if John Edwards wins the Democratic nomination, they would vote for him. Electability, for sure!

John Edwards the fighter

While the media appointed front runners preen their superstar images and bicker between themselves, and the corporate media trivializes the issues, the Edwards campaign, from the candidate himself all the way down to the volunteers, fights on in a battle to save America, and by extension, the world.  For anyone paying attention, there is no doubt that John Edwards is correct when he says "Washington, DC is broken.  The system is rigged, and it's rigged against you." Among the presidential candidates, only John Edwards has vowed to fight and beat the corporate lobbyists that now control our government (as opposed to negotiating with them to take away their power, which won't work), and only John Edwards has the needed experience fighting and beating corporate interests repeatedly in his lifetime. Only John Edwards has never taken money from Washington lobbyists or political action committees (PACs) in any of his political campaigns, including his very first one for the Senate.

His fight won't be easy, but he's up to the challenge.  Edwards has been taking on abusive corporations for over 20 years.  His career as a trial lawyer proved that he's not afraid to fight and win battles that others think are unwinnable.  

It's no exaggeration to say that the corporate interests in Washington, and their mouthpiece of a party, the Republicans, noticed this a long time ago and have been trying to take Edwards down ever since.  It's no accident that almost every time the corporate media covers Edwards, they include some slur about his looks or his hair designed to make the former football player and courtroom tough guy look effeminate.  It's no accident that they overemphasize his wealth and constantly remind us that he lives in a big house, inaccurately calling him a hypocrite.  It's no accident that they fan the flames of anti-lawyer prejudice.  Edwards is a real danger to their continued control of just about everything.  They fear him greatly, so they will do anything they can to smear his good name and tarnish his image.  

It's a testament to the man's integrity that they have never, thus far, found anything he has done that is actually dishonest, unethical, or illegal.  They don't have much to attack him on, but they're prepared to be awfully inventive in their efforts to harm John and US.

John Edwards's battle against the corrupt corporate influences in Washington is truly a David versus Goliath struggle.  John is well on his way to winning it, and he can, if enough average Americans have the good sense to help him. A recent Gallup poll showed that three quarters of Americans agree that politicians taking money from lobbyists is unacceptable, but whether or not that translates into support for John remains to be seen.

Democrats couldn't ask for a more perfect candidate.  Intelligent, honest, and well spoken, easy on the eyes and easy to relate to, kind and accessible in person, tough, determined, and indomitable when it counts.  

He's the most electable candidate too. In head-to-head matchups against Republicans, he beats all the potential Republican contenders by the widest margins.

That pretty much sums up John Edwards, and when you add to that the fact that he's from the South, which has produced every successful Democratic presidential candidate in over 40 years, you have a man the Democratic Party would be foolish not to rally behind.

But thus far the Democratic Party has not rallied behind him, and this can be attributed to the corporate media's influence, plus the growing rift between traditional Democrats and DLC corporate controlled centrists.  The battle John Edwards is fighting is not only a battle for the survival of American democracy, but also a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Will the Democratic party choose to represent the people, or the corporations? It remains to be seen. I'm supporting Edwards - the people's candidate.

Edwards slams Republicans on the politics of terror

John Edwards gave a speech today about his plans to combat terrorism. Here's the full transcript:

Remarks by Senator John Edwards
New York, New York
June 7, 2007

For six years George Bush has used the language ‘war on terrorism’ to force through an ideological agenda that undermines our values and does nothing to undermine terrorism. The Bush ‘Global War on Terror Doctrine’ is a political slogan—a political slogan that the president has used to stifle opposition to the biggest uses and worst mistakes of his administration—Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, spying on Americans, torture. None of this has made us safer, and all of it has undermined American values and the perception of American values around the world.

In fact, by the Bush Administration’s own admission, we’re less safe today. Terrorism is on the rise, the Taliban is resurgent, and Al Qaeda is expanding across the Middle East and even into Europe. The Administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq and neglect of the situation in Afghanistan has turned both nations into breeding grounds for terrorists. There’s been a 29 percent increase in worldwide terrorism from 2005 to 2006 according to this Administration’s own State Department. And the number of deaths due to terrorism has climbed 40 percent. That’s an increase of 6,000 deaths for a terrible total of more than 20,000.

And this is actually the worst part of Bush’s ‘War on Terror Doctrine’: not only is it a distraction from the real war of stopping terrorists, it’s actually backfired. Today, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. And I want to say that again. Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. There was no group called "Al Qaeda in Iraq" before this president’s war in Iraq. But there was nearly global support for America in the period immediately following September the 11th.

The Bush Terror Doctrine actually misunderstands the problem and fails to offer an effective long term solution. This is not a war against a fixed enemy at specific locations that we can defeat just through a constant military operation. And because its origins are political and ideological, it leads to decisions imposed on the military that are sloppy, ill-defined and poorly focused, losing sight of the real mission, which is to protect Americans.

It is no wonder that so many generals and military experts and even leading Republicans have criticized this president’s ‘War on Terror’ approach. General Anthony Zinni has called it a counterproductive doctrine and Admiral William Fallon, the president’s Mideast commander, has instructed his staff to stop using the term ‘long war.’ And even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has flatly told an interviewer -- this is a quote -- ‘It is not a war on terror,’ end quote, and said that the doctrine was one of his regrets.

We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a political strategy to shut down debate, which is what this president is engaged in. It actually doesn’t help, by the way, that the Republican presidential candidates seem intent on trying to one-up each other to try to be a bigger, badder George Bush. They want to become George Bush on steroids. I hope they, and all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will direct their attention to offering real plans to stopping terrorists instead of just political rhetoric.

I want to talk for just a minute about my plan, and what I think we need to do, and what I will do as commander in chief.

I’ll strengthen our military so that we can better address the threat that is posed by terrorist groups to the United States. We’re going to strengthen our force structure. I will hold regular conferences with my top military leadership so that they’re advice is not filtered through civilians—it comes directly to me, as president of the United States. And I will give back military professionals control over operational decisions, not have those operational decisions made by civilians.

Second, I recognize what our military commanders have already made clear. Military action is only one of the tools that should be used to fight terrorism. We have to supplant the lore of violent extremists with the hope of education, opportunity and prosperity. There are today thousands who are committed to violence. I fully recognize that. And they have to be stopped, wherever they are, using whatever means are available to us. But there are millions more who today are sitting on the fence. We have to offer them a hand to our side instead of a shove to the other side of that fence. I’ll launch a global—a sweeping global effort to provide education and fight poverty. Here in the United States we’ll create a 10,000-member-strong Marshall Corps, all to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states, which is exactly what is happing in Iraq.

My strategy will actually put America on the offensive footing. We not only will go find terrorists where they are today, using every tool available to us -- military, intelligence, work and information gathered by our allies and alliances -- but also, we’re going to undermine the long term forces of terrorism. We’re going to fight terror—potential terrorists, those who are sitting on the fence, toward us, toward opportunity and hope. And the way we’re going to do it is America is going to lead an international effort that once again reestablishes America as a leader in the world.

I know that there are terrorists who mean us harm today, and they have to be stopped. To suggest otherwise is to do exactly what I have criticized the Bush Administration of doing: to reduce the fight against terrorists to a bumper sticker slogan and use it for political gains. Using fear as a wedge issue may help win elections, but it will not protect Americans. For more than 200 years we have defeated our enemies though strength, through ideas, with confidence and with honor. To win the struggle against terror and uphold the greatness of America, we have to do the same. We have to come together and we have to cast fear aside.

I got the transcript from Tracy Joan's diary on Daily Kos

I particularly love these lines:

And this is actually the worst part of Bush’s ‘War on Terror Doctrine’: not only is it a distraction from the real war of stopping terrorists, it’s actually backfired. Today, we have more terrorists and fewer allies. And I want to say that again. Today, as a result of what George Bush has done, we have more terrorists and fewer allies.

We need a smart national security strategy to shut down terrorists, not a political strategy to shut down debate, which is what this president is engaged in. It actually doesn’t help, by the way, that the Republican presidential candidates seem intent on trying to one-up each other to try to be a bigger, badder George Bush. They want to become George Bush on steroids. I hope they, and all the candidates, both Democratic and Republican, will direct their attention to offering real plans to stopping terrorists instead of just political rhetoric.

Here are some video excerpts: