The Impeachment Hearing Room

Poll: Obama opens biggest lead over McCain| Growing Doubts About McCain's Judgment, Age and Campaign Conduct | Obama's Lead Widens: 52%-38%

 

 

Taking The Measure Of The McCain Palin Campaign: McCain’s “Dead Cat Bounce” Is Apparently Over and now we have to listen to

the howling death throes!

 

As more voters are taking advantage of early voting windows across the country, the pollsters are finding that some voters whom they considered "unlikely" voters have in fact turned out to vote. Zogby gives Obama a 21-point lead nationwide among people who have already voted, and Survey USA and Civitas peg his advantage among early voters in North Carolina at around 20 and 30 points, respectively.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

 

Dem leads rival by 10 points among registered voters in NBC/WSJ survey

 

WASHINGTON - With voters’ increased confidence in his ability to serve as commander in chief, as well as a majority who now believe he would do a good job as president, Barack Obama has opened up his biggest advantage over John McCain in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

 

With two weeks to go until Election Day, Obama now leads his Republican rival by 10 points among registered voters, 52 to 42 percent, up from 49 to 43 percent two weeks ago.

 

Obama’s current lead is also fueled by his strength among independent voters (topping McCain 49 to 37 percent), suburban voters (53 to 41), Catholics (50 to 44) and white women (49 to 45).

 

In early September, after the Republican National Convention, McCain was ahead with independents and Catholics, and narrowly trailed Obama among suburban voters.

 

“To me, the voters have reached a comfort level with Barack Obama,” says Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Neil Newhouse. “The doubts and question marks have been erased.”

 

Newhouse adds, “Obama’s beginning to meet a threshold of acceptance among voters.”

 

Palin’s drag on the ticket?

That doesn’t appear to be the case with McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin. Fifty-five percent of respondents say she’s not qualified to serve as president if the need arises, up five points from the previous poll.

 

In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.

 

That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.

 

Now, Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy - ahead of continuing President Bush’s policies, enacting economic policies that only benefit the rich and keeping too high of a troop presence in Iraq.

 

By comparison, voters’ top concerns about Obama include, in order:

 

• Being too inexperienced.
• Being too liberal.
• Raising taxes on some Americans.
• Being too influenced by people like his former pastor Jeremiah Wright and the ‘60s radical Bill Ayers.

 

Hart argues that voters have turned against Palin. The negative opinions of her have “reflected badly on McCain and essentially hurt the ticket dramatically.”

 

Obama’s strengthened standing

The poll — conducted of 1,159 registered voters from Oct. 17 to 20, and with an overall margin of error of plus-minus 2.9 percentage points — comes after the presidential debates and in the midst of Colin Powell’s public endorsement of Obama on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

 

Those events appear to have strengthened Obama’s standing with voters. Forty-eight percent say they have confidence in Obama serving as commander in chief, which is nearly identical to the 50 percent who said the same of McCain.

 

A month ago, however, just 42 percent said they were confident in Obama’s commander in chief abilities, compared with 53 percent for McCain.

 

Moreover, 56 percent say they are either “optimistic or confident” or “satisfied and hopeful” that Obama would do a good job as president. Only 44 percent say that of McCain.

 

And now 55 percent believe that Obama shares their background and values, which isn’t far off from the 57 percent who believe the same about McCain.

 

Metrics Are Adding Up For Obama - Charlie Cook, National Journal

 

Six Handicaps For John McCain - Edward Luttwak, Forbes

 

Powell Drops the Hammer on McCain - Roger Simon, Politico

 

State Polls: CO, NV, WV, NC, IN, FL, PA / Senate Polls: NC, KY, OK, MN

 

The Power of Powell's Rebuke - Eugene Robinson, Washington Post

 

Why Obama Should Be the Next President - Boris Johnson, Daily Telegraph

 

Senate Dems Don't Need 60 To Reach Magic Number - Bruce Reed, Slate

 

Long Lines, a Few Glitches Mark Start of Early Voting - Miami Herald

General Colin Powell Announces His Endorsement Of Barack Obama For President

Colin Powell Endorses Barack Obama Click Here For Additional MSN Videos

Powell, Former Bush Cabinet Official, Supports Obama (Update5)

By Ken Fireman and Julianna Goldman

Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Colin Powell, a former Army general who served in three Republican administrations, declared his support for Barack Obamain an endorsement that may enhance the Democratic presidential nominee's standing to be commander in chief.

``I think he is a transformational figure,'' Powell said on NBC's ``Meet the Press'' today. ``He is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.''

Until now, Powell, the first African-American U.S. secretary of state, had stayed out of the political race between Obama and Republican John McCain. The endorsement could help allay voter concerns Obama lacks national security and foreign policy experience.

Obama said he is ``beyond honored'' and ``deeply humbled'' to get Powell's support. ``This is a city and a state that knows something about great soldiers,'' Obama told a crowd of 10,000 in Fayetteville, North Carolina, home to Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base. ``A great soldier, a great statesman and a great American has endorsed our campaign to change America.''

Powell's endorsement caps a weekend in which Obama's momentum has swelled. As polls show him with a steady lead, the Illinois senator today announced his campaign raised $150 million last month, more than doubling his previous record. In Missouri, a battleground state that is traditionally Republican, Obama yesterday attracted some of the largest crowds of his campaign, 100,000 at a St. Louis rally and 75,000 in Kansas City.

Record Fundraising

McCain, appearing on the ``Fox News Sunday'' program, said Obama's record fundraising and spending could lead to a ``scandal'' and attacked his opponent for opting out of the public financing system designed to limit big-money donations from private contributors.

He also sought to play down Powell's endorsement, remarking that it wasn't a surprise. He said he will ``continue to respect and admire Secretary Powell.''

In endorsing Obama, Powell said, ``It isn't easy for me to disappoint Senator McCain in the way that I have this morning and I regret that.'' Still, Powell said that he was concerned about the negative direction McCain's campaign has taken recently, mentioning attempts to tie Obama to 1960s radical William Ayers

`A Little Narrow'

``I understand what politics is about -- I know how you can go after one another and that's good,'' Powell said. ``But I think this goes too far, and I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for.''

Powell also criticized McCain for selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. While Powell said Palin is a ``very distinguished woman and should be admired,'' he said, ``I don't believe she's ready for being president of the United States, which is the job of the vice president.''

On the other hand, Obama's choice, Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, would be ``ready to be president on day one,'' Powell said.

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich said on ABC's ``This Week'' program the Powell endorsement is significant.

``What that just did in one sound-bite -- and I assume that sound-bite will end up in an ad -- is it eliminated the experience argument,'' Gingrich said. ``How are you going to say the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, former national security adviser, former secretary of state was taken in?''

Phone Conversation

Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs said the Democratic nominee called Powell this morning to thank him for his endorsement. In a 10-minute conversation, Obama said he looked forward to taking advantage of Powell's advice ``in the next two weeks and over the next four years,'' according to Gibbs.

The U.S. has ``managed to convey to the world that we are more unilateral than we really are,'' Powell said on ``Meet the Press.'' He added: ``The new president is going to have to fix the reputation that we've left with the rest of the world.''

With Powell's endorsement in hand, Obama parried a remark by Palin this week that she was addressing ``very pro-America areas of this great nation.''

``We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this country,'' Obama said in Fayetteville. ``We all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from.''

Powell, 71, a retired four-star general, most recently served as secretary of state during President George W. Bush's first term. He was part of a select group of advisers, known as the Vulcans, who briefed Bush on national security issues when the then-Texas governor was running for president in 2000.

Bush Adviser

Powell's participation in the group was cited by Bush supporters as evidence that Bush, who lacked experience in foreign affairs, was well advised in that area.

Before that, Powell was President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, and was named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by PresidentGeorge H.W. Bush, father of the current president. In the latter post, he had a large role in planning and executing U.S. strategy during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Powell's reputation was tarnished by a high-profile speech he made to the United Nations Security Council in February 2003 during the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He has called the episode a ``blot'' on his record.

Powell made the case for the invasion by offering what he said was detailed evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. No such weaponry was discovered after the invasion, and many of Powell's assertions in the UN address were later found to be inaccurate.

In 2007, in a presentation to the Aspen Ideas Festival, Powell revealed that he had unsuccessfully tried to dissuade Bush from invading Iraq in a conversation in August 2002. ``I tried to avoid this war,'' Powell said, according to a transcript on the festival's Web site.

The Only Viable Choice In Election 2008 YEH…THAT ONE!

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who endorsed and worked for George W. Bush in 2004, is endorsing Obama today, NY1 first reported.


I asked Koch just now what prompted the move.


"The designation of Palin to be vice president," he said. "She's scary."

He said he was alarmed by the report that she'd triggered a conflict with the local librarian in Wasilla, Alaska by inquiring about the possibility of banning books.


"Any time someone goes to the library and says, 'I want to ban books,’ and the librarian says 'no,' and she threatens to fire them -- that’s scary," he said.


(Palin at the time said she was just inquiring about the library’s policy on banning books, with no aim of actually banning any. "It was a rhetorical question -- nothing more," the McCain-Palin campaign said in a memo yesterday. And no books were banned, the town says.)


In an endorsement statement, Koch wrote that "the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America" and that both parties were strong on terrorism.


I have concluded that the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party and protector of the philosophy of that party. Protecting and defending the U.S. means more than defending us from foreign attacks. It includes defending the public with respect to their civil rights, civil liberties and other needs,e.g., national health insurance, the right of abortion, the continuation of Social Security, gay rights, other rights of privacy, air progressive taxation and a host of other needs and rights.


If the vice president were ever called on to lead the country, there is no question in my mind that the experience and demonstrated judgment of Joe Biden is superior to that of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a plucky, exciting candidate, but when her record is examined, she fails miserably with respect to her views on the domestic issues that are so important to the people of the U.S., and to me.

Frankly, it would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency.

Koch said he'd visited six states for Bush in 2004, primarily Florida, but also several others. ("Why they sent me to Iowa, I don't know.")He said he'd be happy to campaign for Obama "if they ask me to."


Koch is a member of a set of secular, swing-voting Jewish Democrats who may have been pushed away by the selection of Palin, and his endorsement may be a marker of an opportunity for Obama to strengthen his campaign among older Jewish voters in Florida.


Koch's full endorsement statement:


Ed Koch
Presidential Endorsement
September 9, 2008


The time has come to declare whom I will be voting for.


When I made my decision four years ago and supported the reelection of George W. Bush, I said at the time the overwhelming issue for me was international Islamic terrorism, including al-Qaeda. The goal of Islamic terrorists was and still is to reestablish the Caliphate encompassing most of the Muslims living in a host of nations from Spain to Indonesia and placing them under a single religious leader with full authority over the civil affairs of the countries, in the style of Iran. That goal includes the deaths or forced conversions of Christians and Jews as infidels or the payment by them of tribute, and the elimination of the State of Israel.


In 2004, I concluded that the one person running for president who understood that danger best and was prepared to fight it and defend America and its allies was George W. Bush. Even though he is now at a low ebb in popularity, I have no regrets for having campaigned and voted for him. I said at the time I didn’t agree with him on a single domestic issue and so far as I can currently see that is still true with the exception of drilling for oil off our coasts and building nuclear energy plants.


I believe that Bush and Tony Blair, Bush’s main international ally with regard to the war in Iraq and against Islamic terrorism, will be redeemed by history. President Harry Truman was reviled when he left office, but is now honored for his courage and vision.


Now, once again, I have to make a decision to either endorse the Democratic ticket of Obama and Biden or support the Republican ticket of McCain and Palin. I am 83 years old. If I am lucky, I may yet vote not only in this election, but in the presidential election of 2012 and perhaps, if luckier, even in that of 2016. I believe I must vote my conscience, and that means for the presidential candidate who in my estimation will best protect the U.S. over the next four years.


I personally know two of those running: Joe Biden and John McCain. I like and admire them both. John McCain is a genuine war hero and patriot. Joe Biden is a friend well versed in foreign and domestic affairs, who had made judgment calls on domestic and foreign policy and legislation that I agree with. I do not personally really know the Democratic presidential candidate, Barack Obama, having spoken to him only once and briefly, or the Republican vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin.


One foreign policy issue that particularly concerned me in 2004 was the security of Israel. I thought in 2004 that issue was better left to President George W. Bush, and I believe I was right. President Bush understood the need to support the security of Israel and did so. I did not feel that way about Senator John Kerry.


That is not an issue in this election. Both parties and their candidates have made clear, before and during this election campaign their understanding of the need to support Israel and oppose acts of terrorism waged against it by Hamas and other Muslim supporters of terrorism.


So the issue for me is who will best protect and defend America.


I have concluded that the country is safer in the hands of Barack Obama, leader of the Democratic Party and protector of the philosophy of that party. Protecting and defending the U.S. means more than defending us from foreign attacks. It includes defending the public with respect to their civil rights, civil liberties and other needs, e.g., national health insurance, the right of abortion, the continuation of Social Security, gay rights, other rights of privacy, fair progressive taxation and a host of other needs and rights.


If the vice president were ever called on to lead the country, there is no question in my mind that the experience and demonstrated judgment of Joe Biden is superior to that of Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a plucky, exciting candidate, but when her record is examined, she fails miserably with respect to her views on the domestic issues that are so important to the people of the U.S., and to me. Frankly, it would scare me if she were to succeed John McCain in the presidency.


I reiterate the question each of us must answer in making our choice, who will best protect and defend America, domestically and with respect to the literal defense of the country? I hope I’ve made the right decision but only time will tell.


Whoever wins should and, I hope, will, following the election, receive the support of all Americans, no matter how they voted, especially in these perilous times. God Bless America and the next president and vice president of the U.S.

My name is Herbert J. Hoffman, and I am STILL running for U.S. Senate as an independent in Maine, running against U.S. Senator Susan Collins and Congressman Tom Allen.


I have today filed my intentions with the Secretary of State to be a write-in candidate on the November 4 ballot.


I am still running at the request of a number of my supporters, who have reported to me they have been insulted, dismayed, disgusted and violated by the actions of the Maine Democratic Party, the Maine Secretary of State and the state and federal court system which collectively acted to remove my name from the list of qualified candidates for office.


These supporters have told me they want a choice other than the candidates of the duopolistic, power-and-money-driven, two-party system that now dominates and controls our life, our liberty, and -increasingly - our ability to pursue happiness. Because of the two-party system our government is broken, and it is only because of the strength of our people and what remains of our Constitution that our country isn't completely broken as well.


If we are to give our people the opportunities they deserve - true universal health care; educational opportunities in a time when knowledge is growing exponentially; an economy that provides a fair day's wage for all those willing and able to do a fair day's work; an environment that our children can live and breath in; peace - if we are to give them these things, then we must fix our government, and fix it fast. I do not believe the two-party system has the will or the desire to do this, which is why I worked very hard to place my name on the ballot.


Now, sadly, even though I submitted enough validated signatures to qualify for ballot access, I must go forward as a write-in candidate because of the extraordinary actions taken against me in the past months by the Maine Democratic Party, the Maine Secretary of State and the state and federal court system.


My Constitutional rights, the rights of those who signed my petition, and the rights of those who planned to vote for me were violated by these actions. A write-in campaign is now the only option left to protect those rights. I think it is significant that I am the only independent challenger to Tom Allen, out of the five he has faced in his federal political career, who has been subjected to such heavy-handed, libelous, and litigious treatment.


Tom has had independent challengers in three of his six races for Congress and there was another declared independent candidate in this U.S. Senate race whose nomination petitions came up short. I am the only candidate Tom Allen and the Democratic Party have gone after in this way. Why?


When a supporter of mine asked Tom Allen that question a few weeks ago at a public meeting, he said simply, "because we want to win." Think about that. I am still running, despite the complicity of the Democratic Secretary of State, who, after I was accepted as a qualified candidate, adopted a new standard for the collection of nomination petitions and applied that standard retroactively to my petitions, and my petitions alone, a standard which he did not apply to any other candidate.


Let me be very clear -- had that standard been applied to the nominating petitions of Congressman Tom Allen, he, too, would not have qualified for the November ballot. I am still running despite what I consider a gross injustice perpetrated by the Maine Supreme Court, in a case where we were neither the defendant nor the plaintiff, but an intervener. A case in which that court refused to recognize the potential unconstitutionality of the retroactive application of that new petition standard, and ordered enough of my petitions voided that I lost my ballot status.


Our final appeal to the U.S. District Court last week was then summarily denied because we did not have the foresight to predict that the Maine Supreme Court would waive away my constitutional rights. Our motion was denied because we had not argued vociferously against what my attorney and I both thought was a constitutional issue so obvious that the Maine Supreme Court would of course render a decision that was protective of my constitutional rights.


That's what courts are supposed to do, right? I am still running for U.S. Senate for the same reasons I jumped into this race last winter - my dismay at the failures of both party candidates, one a sitting U.S Senator and the other a sitting Congressman, to hold this administration accountable for its illegal and immoral actions. And my anger at their dismal records of accomplishment by each in their 12 years in Washington.


They both have shown themselves to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. My anger at Senator Collins' speaks to her vote to authorize the Iraq War, to deny habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo Bay detainees, her vote for the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, not once, but twice, the FISA bill authorizing warrantless wiretapping and immunity for telecoms, and much more.


Her recent feel-good political ads have shown her so concerned about diabetes in children, yet she is opposed to a national health care plan. One ad highlights her efforts to tackle our energy crisis - by voting against an August recess. And one has her literally raising people from the dead, as a result of a bill that put heart defibrillators in the hands of rescue workers. But how many people, how many thousands of our good military men and women and how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, have died or have suffered irreparable and lifelong wounds, both mental and physical, as a result of her complicity with the Bush administration war machine and the implementation of the perpetual war mentality gripping this nation?


And then there's Congressman Allen. After an initial courageous vote against the Iraq War Resolution, one he himself touts as the best vote he ever cast, he repeatedly voted to fund that war -- until, of course, he announced his candidacy for higher office last year. But that's not all. He, along with Susan Collins, voted for the Patriot Act -- twice. Tom Allen says in one of his recent ads that we need a change in Washington. He's been in Congress the past twelve years, and the Democrats currently control both houses of Congress.


Where's the change?


He lambastes Collins for voting with George Bush 81 percent of the time, but he is running on the promise of becoming one of 60 Democratic Senators, so he can vote in lock-step with the other 59 members of his party to pass whatever it is they want passed. And notice in another ad, Tom Allen promises, when elected to the U.S. Senate, that he will get a bill passed to allow a $2,000 tax credit to homeowners to help with their fuel bills. Think about that. If he's elected in November, he won't take office until January, and there is no guarantee that his idea will fly at all in the middle of an economic recession, let alone in time to keep people from freezing this winter. Tom Allen is a sitting member of Congress.


Why hasn't he sponsored and pushed through that bill already, now, before winter? It's just like his health care plan. I have long favored a single-payer health care plan, Medicare for all. It is well past time we joined the other industrialized nations of the world in guaranteeing basic health care for our citizens. Tom Allen told a good friend of mine last September, a year ago, that he had a health care plan worked out, one that wasn't single-payer, but would be an incremental step toward that end. He finally submitted his health care bill in May, eight months later, well into the campaign season and timed so that it had no chance to be adopted before the November election.


But it looks good on a campaign flyer, it shows that he's on top of the issue. Right. But that's not his worst modus operandi. The one issue that almost single-handedly drove me into this race was Tom Allen's position on impeachment, on his refusal to hold this administration accountable for numerous infractions, from the Iraq War to warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, and beyond. The U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives, is the body in Washington where impeachment resolutions are first brought. Tom Allen is a sitting member of Congress who has stated publicly that he thinks this administration has committed "high crimes and misdemeanors." Yet he has refused, as a sitting member of Congress, to sign on to any impeachment bills or to initiate one of his own.


I consider that a dereliction of his duty as a member of Congress, a violation of his oath of office.


So, I am STILL running for U. S. Senate as an independent, now as a write-in candidate. I decided to run as an independent, after 52 years as a Democrat, when I realized that both parties have failed us as a nation. The Democrats elected all across the country two years ago, in 2006, were supposed to stop the war and provide health care for all Americans once they attained the majority. They haven't.


The Democrats were supposed to stop this administration from wrecking our economy, our military, and our standing in the world. They haven't.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi immediately declared impeachment to be "off the table," and thus the shredding of the Constitution continues -- the war continues. Now it's the Democrats' war, even though they insist it's not, as they keep funding it. Susan Collins keeps touting the idea of bipartisanship, as if it does not now exist in Washington. Unfortunately, there is a lot of bipartisanship in Washington.


It takes both parties to keep our invasive wars going. It takes bipartisanship to keep Guantanamo Bay in operation. It takes bipartisanship to prop up this failed administration, even in view of the worst Constitutional offenses in the history of this nation. It takes bipartisanship to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy in place, while the rest of us are denied government services, good roads and better schools for lack of money. It takes bipartisanship to run up the biggest national debt in our nation's history, largely due to our expansive empire building.


So. I am still a candidate for U.S. Senate. But I cannot be, and will not be, a U.S. Senator unless I get a lot of help from four major voting blocks here in Maine. Those voting blocks are


1. True Progressives

2. Greens,

3. Independents who love this country but can't stand the games that political parties play,

4. Disaffected Democrats, and disgruntled Republicans. These days that's a big percentage of the vote.


Progressives, real progressives, are the losers in all this.


If they are still Democrats, they are being forcibly marginalized by their party. Look what the Democratic Party did in 2006 to Ned Lamont in Connecticut, to Jean Hay Bright right here in Maine, and this year, to two members of their own Maine Democratic Party executive committee who dared to express support for my candidacy.


Ned Lamont, you will remember, won the Democratic primary in Connecticut two years ago, defeating long-time Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.


It was an astonishing defeat within his own party, especially for a man who had been the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, on the ticket with Al Gore, only six years before.


What did the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed by New York Senator Chuck Schumer, do in light of this humiliating defeat for Lieberman? Schumer announced that he fully supported Lieberman's run as an independent. Still functioning as the chair of the DSCC, Schumer proceeded to hang his own party's Connecticut U. S. Senate candidate out to dry.


Lieberman of course won reelection as an independent.


He has since gone on to support not only Susan Collins in this race, but he is now the darling of the Republicans. Lieberman spoke at their convention last week, and he was reportedly on the short list of possible GOP vice-presidential picks.


Thank you Chuck Schumer.


And those progressives who were paying attention two years ago here in Maine know that, at the same time, Chairman Schumer, despite record contributions to the DSCC, refused to help Maine's Democratic Party nominee Jean Hay Bright in any way. Why? Because Olympia Snowe's politics were more amenable to the Washington DLC Democrats than were Jean's.


Not wise to have a real progressive in the Senate. She couldn't be trusted to toe the party line. This year, in contrast, the DSCC is pouring money, millions of dollars, into this state in support of Tom Allen. They are even running expensive TV ads on his behalf. What more evidence do you need, other than Tom's own pronouncements that he intends to toe the party line if he is elected in November? Those progressives still within the Democratic Party should wake up, as I did earlier this year, and realize that they do not have a home in the Democratic Party.


You can still be a Democrat and support me, but I warn you, you may well suffer the wrath of your party officials. Two members of the state party executive board were summarily thrown off that board in August for daring to support my campaign. One of the two had collected a mere 12 signatures on one petition, nothing more. The other had circulated a petition for me, but had also collected signatures for Tom Allen, Mike Michaud and Tom Ledue. Didn't matter. They had not toed the party line. Out the door.


Independent thinkers not allowed. As for those progressives not in the Democratic Party, and I know there are many in Maine, I need your help, and I need it now. We will never get the government we know we need if we keep voting for people who don't share our values and expect them to change after they are in office. That's political co-dependency, and it is a losing strategy. Greens. The Maine Green Independent Party is alive and well, and I share their key values.


I understand that party rules do not allow them to endorse non-party candidates, but I welcome support from individual members. Independents. Independents, registered voters who are not enrolled in any political party, are the largest voting block in Maine, about 40 percent of the electorate. Independents are often the ones who pay the closest attention to the issues, to the details, who are more likely to vote for a candidate whose values they share.


Their votes will make or break any campaign. I share their disaffection with party politics, and I encourage their involvement in my campaign. Disaffected Democrats and disgruntled Republicans. Maine Democrats have been contacting me, telling me they do not like what their party has been doing lately, to me and to other candidates across the country. They do not like what their party has been doing, and not doing, in Washington, now that they hold majority status in Congress. I tell them they can express their displeasure and their principles by supporting my campaign. Disgruntled old-school Republicans, who don't like the religious fundamentalist take-over of their party, have a place in my campaign.


I, too, am in favor of rational discussion of our national priorities. I, too, am concerned about the breakdown in the rule of law and the abrogation of our Constitutional rights. And I think it more than a little ironic that the hurricane named after the Republican who warned us about the military-industrial complex, is mad as hell and is headed for our mainland.I urge people in each of these categories to join with me in these final weeks of this election cycle.


If you would have voted for me had my name appeared on the ballot, I want to make it very clear - YOU STILL HAVE A CHOICE. YOU CAN STILL VOTE FOR ME BY WRITING HERBERT HOFFMAN ON THE BALLOT AND CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO IT.


Why would you do that?


Simple. To make a point, to make a statement. TO DECLARE YOUR INDEPENDENCE.


If you really can't see yourself voting for either Collins or Allen, if you are, like me, disappointed in both of them for what they've done, and haven't done, the last 12 years they've both been in office, then let them know. Don't just skip that part of the ballot. Register your discontent - and your support for a candidate who shares your views - by writing in my name and checking the box next to that line on the ballot. Yes, this is an end-run around the ballot access process.


But it's one that has been forced upon me by the actions of the Maine Democratic Party and the Democratic Secretary of State. Think about that, about how they changed the rules after the fact, and applied them only to me. Think about Tom Allen's response when questioned at that public meeting, that they are doing this to me "because we want to win." Consider that they had to do it this way because they knew Tom Allen could not win this race if I were in the race on equal footing with him. "Because we want to win." It's the justification used by sports heroes who use steroids.


The justification for skater Tonya Harding knee-capping Nancy Kerrigan. And it was the justification used by Tom Allen for the Democratic Party's attack on my candidacy. I found out the hard way that we just can't trust the Parities anymore, and I want you to learn from my experience. We now know that we can't trust them to be fair, we can't trust them to be honest, we can't trust them even to play by the rules. And we've learned we certainly can't trust them to run the country in our best interests.


They are not interested in what is best for us. Don't let them get away with it. With your help, we can send the message, the message that it's our country, our vote, our future, and we aren't going to take it any more. If this is going to work, if this is going to be successful in even sending a clear message, we need to get people involved in this campaign, lots of people, and quickly. And we need their involvement, your involvement, NOW. If my name were on the ballot, people who did not know me but knew they did not like either Collins or Allen might just put a check by my name out of frustration.


But without my name on the ballot, I don't get any votes unless people actively write in my name. To do that, they have to know about me. And they have to know that they can actually cast a vote for me, and how to do it. Check Box, write in Herbert Hoffman That's where you come in. I need your help to spread the word.


Tell people about me. Send them to my web page: http://www.hoffmanforsenate.us/ Urge them to contribute a few - or many - dollars to support our effort - a true grass roots effort. The legal battle drained campaign funds, to the point that I had to loan the campaign money to keep the legal case going forward. I firmly believe that that was part of the Democratic Party's strategy, to have me eat up campaign resources in defending myself, and to discourage people from contributing to a candidate who might not be on the ballot.


So the simplest, and easiest way for people to help out is by sending us some money - not just to help pay down that loan, but to pay for basic campaign materials like bumper stickers, palm cards and lawn signs. We're hoping to post a few campaign videos soon, and run them as TV ads if we get the money. Any amount we receive will be used judiciously, I assure you.


Time is getting short. Less than eight weeks until the Nov. 4 election. We still can do this, but we have to make the most of that time. As a recent Democratic Party email said: "We all share responsibility for success in November. Don't look back and wish you had gotten more involved."

I Mean; If This Is All We’re Going To Get, Then I Suggest We Have The Candidates, Media “Talking Heads”, Pontificators Pundits and illegitimate news anchors all get together in a nice pasture, gloves off, no gloves, and pick up the pasture patties and a have real Bull Shit fight on Prime Time TV. Hell if we’re heading for safe scripted debates; a real old fashioned, down home in country shit throwing fight would be more fun and just as enlightening! The winner will be the last one still throwing the bull….


Analysis: Despite Palin, GOP still faces tougher odds


Obama's challenge will be to deflect Republican attacks, repeated frequently this week, that he lacks the experience and accomplishments needed to step into the presidency. McCain's challenges include parrying Democratic assertions that, on the big issues of the Iraq war and the economy, his administration would continue the policies of President Bush. But he also hopes to convince voters that he more than Obama would bring real change and bipartisan governance to Washington.


The other key for both is to take hold of the economic issue, which remains paramount for more voters than any other. Democrats spent more time at their convention on this subject than Republicans did, but strategists on both sides say that neither candidate has taken charge of it.


Earlier in the week, McCain advisers openly acknowledged the steep hill they must climb to overcome the Democrats' advantages. They said that to win the general election, McCain must run past, if not away from, his party, which means winning over voters who do not consider themselves Republicans, making McCain's route to victory more difficult than Obama's.


"We actually have to go find votes because right now if the election were held today we probably don't have as many votes as Barack Obama," Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, told Washington Post reporters and editors Tuesday. But the Palin reception may have begun to redress some of that disadvantage.


GOP Convention Analysis Blacks and Republicans Divided; Only 36 ...Afro American - Baltimore,MD,USACJ Jordan, McCain’s African American Coalition coordinator, said the figures reflect the division of Black conservatives in the primary election. ...See all stories on this topic


Up for election: two competing visions of 'change'McClatchy Washington Bureau - Washington,DC,USAHe added that McCain could fall into the same trap that Hillary Clinton did in the Democratic primaries if he thinks his experience will trump Obama's. See all stories on this topic


Palin may bring more Georgia evangelicals into McCain campAtlanta Journal Constitution - GA, USAThirty-eight percent of Georgia voters in 2004 identified themselves as evangelical, according to an exit poll analysis by the Pew Forum on Religion ...See all stories on this topic


Let’s Bring Sanity Back to America - Let’s Put Obama in the White ...By emiwest By Senator Edward M. Kennedy. The White House is supposed to be sacred ground, a symbol of American pride and power — not a tool for divisive politics. (more…)Massachusetts Impeachment Coalition - http://www.mass-impeach.org











The Reviews are in: America Loves Palin?By kerry It looks like the book banning little fascist from Alaska is wildly popular with the masses. According to Rasmussen, Americans currently have a more favorable than unfavorable view of Sarah Palin. In fact, Yahoo News is reporting that ...Diatribune - Vox Populi - http://www.diatribune.com


Palin Power: Fresh Face Now More Popular Than Obama, McCain


Sarah Palin Republican convention speech watched by 37 million in US


Putting Words in Palin's Mouth
There was a flutter of attention when McCain campaign manager Rick Davis told a group of Post reporters and editors yesterday that his team was having to rework the vice presidential acceptance speech because the original draft, prepared before Gov. Sarah Palin was chosen, was too "masculine." While we all wondered to ourselves what might make a speech masculine or feminine, no one batted an eye at the underlying revelation: that the campaign was writing the nominee's speech before knowing who the nominee would be.











Palin Pick Is GOP Hypocrisy at its Best
Laura Flanders, AlterNet
Election 2008: Will the media test her on substance or let her play "Ms. Congeniality?" It is up to the public to see through the fact-free diet we're being fed.


Pure Sarcasm By ROGER SIMON


ST. PAUL, Minn. — On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry.On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry. We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.

We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin?

What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues?

And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her?

How well did his campaign vet her?

And was she his first choice?

Bad questions.

Bad media.

Bad.

It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn't be.

To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols.

Sarah Palin hit the nail on the head Wednesday night (and several in the audience wish she had hit some reporters on the head instead) when she said: "I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."

But where did we go wrong with Sarah Palin?

Let me count the ways:

First, we should have stuck to the warm, human interest stuff like how she likes moose burgers and hit an important free throw at her high school basketball tournament even though she had a stress fracture.

Second, we should have stuck to the press release stuff like how she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere (after she supported it).

Third, we should never have strayed into the other stuff. Like when The Washington Post recently wrote: "Palin is under investigation by a bipartisan state legislative body. … Palin had promised to cooperate with the legislative inquiry, but this week she hired a lawyer to fight to move the case to the jurisdiction of the state personnel board, which Palin appoints."

Why go there?

What trees does that plant?

Fourth, we should stop making with all the questions already. She gave a really good speech.

And why go beyond that?

As we all know, speeches cannot be written by others and rehearsed for days. They are true windows to the soul.

Unless they are delivered by Barack Obama, that is. In which case, as Palin said Wednesday, speeches are just a "cloud of rhetoric."

Fifth, we should stop reporting on the families of the candidates.

Unless the candidates want us to.

Sarah Palin wanted the media to report on her teenage son, Track, who enlisted in the Army on Sept. 11, 2007, and soon will deploy to Iraq.

Sarah Palin did not want the media to report on her teenage daughter, Bristol, who is pregnant and unmarried.

Sarah Palin thinks that one is good for her campaign and one is not, and that the media should report only on what is good for her campaign.

That is our job, and that is our duty.

If that is not actually in the Constitution, it should be. (And someday may be.)

The official theme of the convention's third day was "prosperity," but the unofficial theme was "the media are really, really awful."


Even Mike Huckabee, who campaigned for president this year by saying "I am a conservative, but I am not mad at anybody," discovered Wednesday night that he is mad at somebody."I'd like to thank the elite media for doing something," Huckabee said, "that, quite frankly, I didn't think could be done: unify the Republican Party and all of America in support of John McCain and Sarah Palin."

And could that be the real point of the attacks on the media?

To unify the Republican Party?

No, that is simply the cynical, media view.

Though as Lily Tomlin says, "No matter how cynical I get, it's just never enough to keep up."

I couldn't resist that. For which I am sorry.


Mark Belling called Gloria Steinem a "grizzled old bag," "old witch"
Summary: Radio host Mark Belling called Gloria Steinem a "grizzled old bag," "old witch," and "embittered old has-been" and also stated that the "previous generation" of feminists "were so ugly you couldn't stand to look at them."


On the September 4 broadcast of The Mark Belling Late Afternoon Show, radio host Mark Belling called author, activist, and Ms. magazine co-founder Gloria Steinem a "grizzled old bag," and an "old witch." Belling made these remarks while discussing Steinem's September 4 Los Angeles Times op-ed, in which she criticized Sen. John McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate.


Belling also asserted: "She [Steinem] was the cutting edge feminism. Feminists prior to her were the old bags, the previous generation prior to the [The Feminine Mystique author] Betty Friedans of the world, the women that were so ugly you couldn't stand to look at them. Here came Gloria Steinem wearing the mini skirts and dating the famous people and being the glamorous representation of what American feminism is. Well now Gloria Steinem is just nothing more than a 74-year-old, embittered, old has-been sitting out in Los Angeles."


Belling's show is carried on News/Talk 1130 WISN-AM in Milwaukee, owned by Clear Channel Communications. Talkers magazine includes Belling in its "Heavy Hundred" list, which it describes as a list of the "100 most important radio talk show hosts in America."










This Idiot Is Typical Of The Barely Literate Media Blow Hards Who Substitute Their Venom For Any Serious Intelligent Discussion. I’d like to See This Guy Debate Gloria. At 74 Gloria has probably lost more brain cells than this idiot ever had!


http://mediamatters.org/items/200809050018


In a September 4 post on Tribune Washington bureau blog The Swamp, Chicago Tribune White House correspondent Mark Silva repeated Gov. Sarah Palin's claim that "the Obama-Biden Democrats have been vicious in their attacks directed toward ... my family." But, unlike ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper, NBC News deputy political director Mark Murray, and Associated Press writer Sarah Kugler, Silva gave no indication that he had challenged Republican aides to substantiate Palin's charge with examples of purported attacks. Tapper, Murray, and Kugler all reported that when asked to provide examples of such attacks, Palin aides, the McCain campaign, and the Republican National Committee did not provide any.

Did you see Barack Obama go on The O'Reilly Factor last night-right into the belly of the beast? While we didn't want Obama to appear on FOX initially, he wisely chose the same night John McCain delivered his RNC speech (the same night FOX received some of its highest ratings) to make an appearance. Talk about stealing the GOP's thunder!

Obama was no doubt trying to appeal to conservative voters, since 88% of FOX viewers voted Republican in 2004. But FOX won't let their conservative base go without a fight. That's why O'Reilly needled and interrupted Obama, trying to get him to simplify many of his answers-a far cry from the softballs O'Reilly lobbed at many prominent Republicans like Rudy Giuliani in the past. And that's why FOX has been attacking Obama with the same relentless smear tactics that they used against John Kerry four years ago. Watch them use the exact same attacks.

Watch the video and spread it to everyone you know.


GOP's Plan for Palin: Reignite the Culture Wars Jay Rosen, Huffington Post Republicans will try to spin Palin's shortcoming into strengths, by revving up the culture wars.


The “P” in “POW” Does Not Stand for “President”
Post by ZP Heller


McCain's Speech: Worst Acceptance Speech in Almost 30 Years?Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on September 5, 2008 at 9:22 AM.


So, I pretty much hated John McCain's speech.
It was boring as all fuck, not just because McCain is a miserable orator who never manages to hit any kind of compelling rhythm, but because it was the same damn speech I've heard at every GOP convention for my entire life injected with a shot of POW, the potency of which had been thoroughly undermined by every other convention speaker having taken possession of McCain's history during their speeches. Even the video package introducing McCain talked about his being a POW. There's a not-particularly-fine line between marketing relevant and evocative personal experience and Tragedy Branding. This convention sailed over that line into farce.

It gives me no joy to say that. And it doesn't change one iota the fact that McCain's service was intrinsically brave and honorable. I'm just really mystified by the decision to use something as intimate and distressing as the details of imprisonment and torture as the primary selling point of a candidate. Which is not to suggest McCain shouldn't have talked about it himself—but doling it out to everyone else to discuss onstage on his behalf had the twofold effect of diluting its effectiveness and disconnecting McCain from his own highly personal experience.

It certainly wasn't a good design for people tuned in to lots of the convention, at minimum.
I won't pick apart much of the actual content, because, quite frankly, it's too dry and dull to require it. There are two passages I wanted to mention, though.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »


Fox News: 'McCain's TV Commercials Contain ... Out-Right Lies'Posted by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly on September 5, 2008 at 2:01 PM.


We talked the other day about a surprising Washington Post editorial, which criticized John McCain's demonstrably false claims about Barack Obama's tax policies. Hiatt & Co., hardly a reliably liberal bunch, didn't pull any punches, concluding that "McCain's ads on taxes are just plain false," and noting his campaign's message is peddling a "phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest" line. The Post indirectly noted that candidates shouldn't "outright lie" about each other's policy positions.

How transparent are McCain's bogus claims? Even Fox News has noticed. Consider this report from Major Garrett:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Republican Priorities: What The GOP Focused On (And Ignored) During The Convention
Posted by Staff, Think Progress on September 5, 2008 at 6:35 AM.

During the Republican National Convention this past week, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign worked hard to put distance between the senator and President Bush. Bush spoke briefly via satellite and Vice President Cheney didn’t address the crowd at all.

Despite these attempts, what was most evident during the convention was how similar the two men’s policies were. New ideas to address the country’s problems and actual policy discussions were given little attention. As FiveThirtyEight notes, instead, much attention was given to “the three P’s — Palin, Petroleum, and POW.”

ThinkProgress has put together an analysis based on the prepared remarks (a total of 38,055 words) of the convention speakers, looking at how many times Republicans said various words. A glimpse at conservatives’ priorities:

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »


Sarah Palin May Be a Pit Bull in Lipstick, but She's No PopulistPosted by Jim Hightower, JimHightower.com on September 4, 2008 at 6:06 PM.


"Perfect populist pitch." That's how CBS political pundit Jeff Greenfield described Sarah Palin's VP acceptance speech.

Excuse me, but real populists don't support profiteering schemes of Big Oil or embrace the extension and expansion of tax giveaways to Wall Street speculators and corporate chieftans. Palin might claim to be a pit bull in lipstick, but she's damn sure no populist. As Greenfield must surely know in his less infatuated moments, she is to populism what near beer is to beer -- only not as close. Indeed, she's the candidate of the plutocrats. Mary Ellen Lease -- a real hell-raising populist from the 1880s and 90s -- would be appalled at the media's perversion of this historic and proud term.