Myriam Koepcke's Blog

Ideal Characteristics for Obama's Running-Mate

Myriam Koepcke — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:08:57 MDT

+ teams well without needing to compete for the front position (I believe the stakes are high for this to be considered most important characteristic, though those listed below are also crucial:)

+ demonstrated ability to govern,
+ strong record supporting middle-class,
+ strong record supporting women,
+ strong record supporting minorities (Latinos being especially important, since for some reason Obama has failed to connect with them as strongly as one might expect considering the positions he supports),
+ strong record of effective diplomacy,
+ nobel peace prize nominations recognizing effective diplomacy couldn't hurt,
+ nobel peace prize nominations recognizing effective guarding of the country's national security wouldn't hurt,
+ intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the DOE couldn't hurt: the DOE is closely tied to the DOD--this knowledge implies understanding the inner workings of our nation's top security issues,
+ close relationships with allied international heads of state,
+ demonstrated peacemaking ability with enemies, while not compromising the nation's security and interests,
+ strong bipartisan connections,
+ appeals to fiscal-conservatives,
+ strong record of effective energy policies,
+ strong record of cost-effective governance,
+ understanding of how energy dependence, Iraq, and our nation's financial crisis are interconnected.

Only one person fits this description: NM Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.

Bill Richardson, alone, was repeatedly asked by the Bush Administration to negotiate with "bad guys" because he, alone, had the DOE/DOD and diplomacy background and expertise to understand how to conduct an effective negotiation without giving away the farm or compromising national security.

Bill Richardson is trusted by Democrats and Republicans alike to represent our national interests.

He has demonstrated governance ability, as one of the nation's most popular governors, maintaining a balanced budget while adding 80,000 new jobs, bringing his state under Kyoto energy emissions levels, and promoting the middle class standard of living, building a multi-million dollar shelter for abused women, replacing the district attorney and adding court advocates for women resulting in raising the percentage of DV cases prosecuted by 20%, and creating a state-wide public non-polluting transportation system that gets anybody, including elderly, homeless, and those who cannot afford to buy cars, wherever they need to go for $2 one-way--while the rest of the nation depends upon increasingly unaffordable fuel, with each individual who drives 10 miles each way to/from work now paying $3630 for gas annually and contributing 5500 lbs of C02 into the atmosphere.

Never in history, I believe, has a crossroads of leadership been so critical in determining our country's future direction. Lacking intelligent leadership, undesirable change will certainly occur.

Scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and other luminaries participating in think-tanks across our country know that diplomacy, not war, is the solution to our country's problems. Brilliant minds across the country, committed to peace, are working overtime developing solutions that our leadership needs to listen to before considering any action, domestic or international. Targeting citizens of our country for financial ruin is not acceptable. There are answers to this. Dispensing with discussion, allowing diplomacy to fail before it is even tried, shooting first, asking questions later, shock and awe, is also not acceptable. War should always be the last resort.

Obama is clearly the most qualified person to lead a team that inspires the country to demand intelligent diplomacy first, war last.

The best military minds in our country should be an integral part of Obama's team. A military person should not, however, co-lead the team, because to a hammer everything looks dangerously like a nail.

http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/

Pen vs. Sword: Richardson is the best Choice for Obama's Running-Mate

Myriam Koepcke — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:57:23 MDT

(Crossposted at: http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/myriamkoepcke/gG5NPF)

My take on the nation's pulse is that this is not just the year of the white woman's revolution. A much larger wave is building momentum offshore.

Hillary has helped to accelerate the white-woman-wave, but we are still, as I see it, just a drop in a larger and more powerful ocean of women and men of every race, national origin, and religious and cultural heritage within our country who have experienced oppression and are demanding, through any peaceful means available, the liberty and justice to all promised when we pledged our allegience.

It is important for white women to speak out now. Our voice must not be lost in the chorus, for we have something to say that is important to all, and must be heard: we have been closest to the oppressors, particularly those of us who live in rich counties (DuPage is the eighth richest county in the nation) and the changes affecting us will soon affect all. The fabric of American culture is being systematically, one county at a time, destroyed. White women have found ourselves first out of work, then fighting a newly impenetrable legal system in both divorce and domestic violence court which penalizes us severely if we have ever earned an income. Many legal protections for white women have been, while America slept, removed. The rest of the country would do well to pay attention, learn from our experiences, and help us to unstack the dominoes before they fall, as we are the canaries in the mine.

White women have, over the past decade, euphemistically said that we "left the workforce to raise our families." In truth, we lost our jobs and couldn't replace them with jobs that even paid for our kids' day-care. Most of us weren't even listed unemployed while we lost status both in the workplace and at home because, let's face it, breadwinners have more power. Why did we lose our jobs and equality in our marriages? Because we were targeted.

Suburban divorce courts have been manipulated, to the point of absurdity, to side with white male domestic abusers. Rich CEOs are adept at changing laws while America sleeps. They did it to make themselves rich, nobody stopped them, and now they don't want to share their assets with outsourced ex-wives who they have replaced with 16-year-olds. Why did we lose the assets that we thought were ours in divorce court? Because we were targeted.

One must understand the emerging culture of the ridiculously rich to see the whole picture and understand how alarming our situation is. The modern underground equivilent of finishing school is called "slave training" (kid you not) after which, in the underground equivilent of a marriage ceremony, rich CEO commits to taking wonderful care of trained 16-year-old for life as long as she obeys him unconditionally and, presumably, remains young and beautiful. She is presented with a collar, like a dog, rather than a ring. Her family is offered priveleges, for example, positioning her dad as a high-level executive in rich CEO's company--explaining (though not adequately) why a parent might support having the daughter they love take part in such an arrangement. According to legend, Anne Boleyn's parents supported her marriage too, and then tried, after Anne's beheading, to convince King Henry VIII to marry her sister.

Though the lives of the extremely rich have always seemed quirky, the rest of us were separated from them by a universe and had little reason to care. Divorce court is the one place where all of our lives intersect. Knowing that the most powerful people in the world passionately want marriage laws to change, and knowing how adept CEOs have been in the past at changing law to favor self-serving goals, white women need to be concerned. Very concerned. White men too. Our daughters have been targeted.

Divorce law is the most powerful deterrant, in any culture, to mistreatment of women. In DuPage County, Illinois, a rich white husband who proclaims "I divorce thee," can do so without paying any price at all. Joint custody in a non-community-property state in lethal combination with white-male judges litigating from the bench mean he can kick her out of the house without having to pay support if she has ever in her life worked a full-time job. If they are nearing retirement age and he quit his job two years ago in preparation for the divorce, her income and subsequent retirement will be split in half to support him for the rest of his life, even if he beat her and she left him because of the abuse. Though they should have to split assets acquired during the marriage, if he did his homework correctly, there won't be any. However, if she was the one who aqcuired the assets, since most women don't think to dispose of all the assets two years before filing for divorce, she must split them 50/50 with him. Furthermore, at least in DuPage County, if the wife alleges that a white father has been abusive, then he is awarded full-custody of children and child-support more often than not.

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Devote time to studying DuPage County DV court records, as I have, and you will see: divorce proceedings involving allegations of abuse perpetrated by a white husband nearly always result in his wife being discredited as a "psych case" and the abuser getting custody, with her owing him support. Psychological problems so extreme as to inhibit her from successfully mothering her kids would, if they were real, (especially in this economy) hinder her from earning a salary enabling her to pay support, but the DuPage courts, though they could not really be so ignorant, don't admit to understanding this.

What better incentive could exist to divorce your wife and replace her with a 16-year-old than to be awarded full custody and have her made responsible to pay full support to you as the consequence of your having beaten her?

White moms, be afraid. Very afraid. We are targeted.

Divorced honkettes like me, if we have any brains, must see that those struggling against dauntingly difficult odds in the fight for racial-equality share the same enemy as those of us who struggle against stupefyingly-rich-unbelievably-well-politically-connected-and-immensely-corrupt-J.R.Ewing-type-white-men in divorce and domestic violence court. Racial minorities, as well as ourselves, are targeted to lose ground, and by whom? Our ex-husbands.

Non-white, unskilled, jobless, homeless women and men of the inner-city have had few options other than criminal activities leading to being killed or jailed since welfare was canned in the 90s, with the plight of homeless non-white moms being especially difficult. Even as an about to be homeless divorced-single-mom who can't get the courts to award support and who can't find employment, I believe my plight is less grave, as a white woman, than that of the homeless black single-mom or male unskilled laborer in inner city Chicago or Detroit. They are more likely to be jailed or killed than I, though knowing this doesn't quell my own fears. This will be a tough year for many.

Meanwhile, the white-middle-class, who blame our country's financial problems on "welfare moms" and generally and unfairly assume I am one--never mind that I was robbed of savings and earnings that most of them would not be able to earn in two lifetimes after pursuing a many-year-long disciplined program of schooling that they would never dream of committing to, studying nights while they partied at the local pub, working 60+ hours/week in a salaried, meaning no overtime, job for months on end without vacation, hours they would never dream of working, all of this going on for years before my kids were born--yes I feel entitled to more than I have recieved: we all feel entitled to what we have worked for--anyway, these middle-class individuals who so vehemently hate me as a single-mom and blame me for all of their problems, assuming that my dependence on welfare is sinking them and our country, though in fact I am not on welfare, and I paid as many taxes in a decade as they will pay in their lives--these white-middle-class workers are now, for the first time, because of the mortgage crisis, contemplating homelessness themselves. Mortgage crisis victims will soon discover, as I did, that Newt Gingrich successfully canceled welfare, nearly over Clinton's dead body as he vetoed it twice, almost a decade ago. Oh, and also, bankruptcy is no longer an option.

The white-middle-class has been targeted.

The moment could only be volatile when a large number of citizens across the board, not just black, not just Hispanic, not just white, not just women, not just the poorest of the poor, middle-class too, and a growing number of outsourced previous-top-20% earners who are now middle-class (or not even) trying to swing monthly bills based upon previous income with no equity left in the house, suddenly understand that we are financially desperate and that the options we always assumed existed don't.

Never in history, I believe, has a crossroads of leadership been so critical in determining our country's future direction. Lacking intelligent leadership, undesirable change will certainly occur.

Scholars from Harvard, University of Chicago, and other luminaries participating in think-tanks across our country know that diplomacy, not war, is the solution to our country's problems. Brilliant minds across the country, committed to peace, are working overtime developing solutions that our leadership needs to listen to before considering any action, domestic or international. Targeting citizens of our country for financial ruin is not acceptable. There are answers to this. Dispensing with discussion, allowing diplomacy to fail before it is even tried, shooting first, asking questions later, shock and awe, is also not acceptable. War should always be the last resort.

Obama is clearly the most qualified person to lead a team that inspires the country to demand intelligent diplomacy first, war last.

The best military minds in our country should be an integral part of Obama's team. A military person should not, however, co-lead the team, because to a hammer everything looks dangerously like a nail.

Ideal characteristics for Obama's running-mate:

+ teams well without needing to compete for the front position (I believe the stakes are high for this to be considered most important characteristic, though those listed below are also crucial:),

+ demonstrated ability to govern,
+ strong record supporting middle-class,
+ strong record supporting women,
+ strong record supporting minorities (Latinos being especially important, since for some reason Obama has failed to connect with them as strongly as one might expect considering the positions he supports),
+ strong record of effective diplomacy,
+ nobel peace prize nominations recognizing effective diplomacy couldn't hurt,
+ nobel peace prize nominations recognizing effective guarding of the country's national security wouldn't hurt,
+ intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the DOE couldn't hurt: the DOE is closely tied to the DOD--this knowledge implies understanding the inner workings of our nation's top security issues,
+ close relationships with allied international heads of state,
+ demonstrated peacemaking ability with enemies, while not compromising the nation's security and interests,
+ strong bipartisan connections,
+ appeals to fiscal-conservatives,
+ strong record of effective energy policies,
+ strong record of cost-effective governance,
+ understanding of how energy dependence, Iraq, and our nation's financial crisis are interconnected.

Only one person fits this description: NM Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.

Bill Richardson, alone, was repeatedly asked by the Bush Administration to negotiate with "bad guys" because he, alone, had the DOE/DOD and diplomacy background and expertise to understand how to conduct an effective negotiation without giving away the farm or compromising national security.

Bill Richardson is trusted by Democrats and Republicans alike to represent our national interests.

He has demonstrated governance ability, as one of the nation's most popular governors, maintaining a balanced budget while adding 80,000 new jobs, bringing his state under Kyoto energy emissions levels, and promoting the middle class standard of living, building a multi-million dollar shelter for abused women, replacing the district attorney and adding court advocates for women resulting in raising the percentage of DV cases prosecuted by 20%, and creating a state-wide public non-polluting transportation system that gets anybody, including elderly, homeless, and those who cannot afford to buy cars, wherever they need to go for $2 one-way--while the rest of the nation depends upon increasingly unaffordable fuel, with each individual who drives 10 miles each way to/from work now paying $3630 for gas annually and contributing 5500 lbs of C02 into the atmosphere. (http://transaction.vivacommute.com/costcalculator.shtml)

Gov. Richardson is the only person who I believe has the demonstrated governance experience to team with Obama and effectively resolve the grave domestic and international problems now faced by our nation, moving us into an era of energy independence, prosperity, and renewed diplomatic relations with former allies, leading to stronger international security and lasting peace.

I feel passionately choosing right leadership to support Obama because I believe that it will not only make the difference between success and failure as a country, but also as to whether many of us prevail rather than succumb to forces so powerful as to be, for the most part, beyond most of our imagination, which have targeted many of us to fail--and are unfortunately bipartisan enough, being made of so much money, to be supported by not only McCain but more than just a few sold-out Democrats as well.

In a nutshell

Myriam Koepcke — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:44:25 MDT

Recently somebody wrote to a forum I subscribe to asking the question "What is happening to our country?" and then went on to describe consequences they saw in their own community from the severe financial problems that have come to a head for so many citizens, so many U.S. communities this year.

The best described explanation I have found is on the website of economist Henry Liu: http://www.henryckliu.com/. He explains it in more depth than most of us have the time to read, but the jist of it is: in an economy where wages aren't high enough for the majority of people to purchase the goods produced, then the producers go out of business and the economy implodes.

Please Contribute to Offset Hillary's Campaign Debt; a call to unite and move forward with the 5-point plan

Myriam Koepcke — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:58:38 MDT

Hillary's inspiring speech endorsing Barack Obama: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/splash/june7/

Breaking a seemingly impenetrable glass ceiling for women, as Hillary has, costs money. Please contribute towards offsetting Hillary's $15-million campaign debt. I share her dream that in the years to come, it will be unremarkable for a woman to run and even win the election in the highest office of the United States. It is fair to say that what she did in this campaign was truly remarkable, made history, and a difference for every women in America, opening doors that could have never before been opened, forging a path that will make it easier for any woman in the future to follow such a course.

Bill Richardson can implement the Clinton vision without the conflicting special interest group funding that encumbers Hillary from moving forward with her plans, however noble.

I hope that Hillary will see the wisdom of supporting and endorsing the person who can, in partnership with Obama, truly take the baton and run with it so that our country has a real chance to turn its policies around. We can once again be the country that advocates, truly, opportunity, liberty and justice, not only within our own borders, but throughout the world. Leadership experience will be crucial during this historical turning point.

The Democratic party is more united than the Republicans this year.

Republicans consist of factions who violently disagree with one another:

1)the religious right (who don't like McCain but will vote for him to keep a Democrat from winning),
2)fiscal conservatives (who don't like McCain),
3) neocon hawks (who like McCain),
4) middle-of-the-roaders-including-neocon-doves-who-were-always-Republican-before-but-aren't-sure-what's-happened-to-their-party-now-that-hawks-have-hijacked-it (not sure, leaning towards Obama).

Our work is simple--make the plan clear:

Five-point plan:

1) Energy independence--break the economic stranglehold our enemies have upon us, then everything else becomes possible:

2) Re-unite with international allies
3) Al Qaeda is our real enemy: pull out of Iraq
4) Living wages (i.e. affordable child & health care)
5) Equal Opportunity for all

Contribute to Hillary's Campaign Debt--And Ask Her to Endorse Bill Richardson as Obama's Running Mate: https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html?sc=1

Dear Hillary, (please do the right thing)

Myriam Koepcke — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:19:14 MDT

Dear Hillary,

You know that I voted for your leadership-team in 1992. I donated as much as it was possible to donate to your campaign, believing in you fully, and though I did not campaign for you officially, I was one of those network-marketers in the field who your campaign could not have won without, never losing the opportunity to explain to every person I had a conversation with why you-and-Bill were the team to lead our country. I made no-bones then about the fact that my vote was as much in support of you as of your husband. Your allusion to Tammy Wynette's song resulted in some heat that didn't make as much of an impression on me, or the other women I knew at that time, as the statement we needed to hear: you weren't just "standing by your man"--you truly believed he was the right person to lead the country--and so did we. We, the women of America, stepped forward to vote Bill into the most powerful office in our country, and it only happened because he empowered you, his first-lady, as no other president has before, to co-lead his team.

Then team-Clinton was elected and words became reality. You turned our country around, leading us on a path that, could it have been continued, would have resulted in long-term sustainable international peace and economic stability. When you left the White House, the discussion was not how we were going to pay off our national debt, but rather, how the surplus would be spent. What a different world it is now, after eight years of team-W'alliburten undoing nearly all of your hard work.

You fought hard for a national health care system that was, unfortunately, ahead of its time, but which laid the groundwork for a system whose time, I believe, has now arrived. I groaned in dismay as health industry spindoctors assasinated your character on prime-time, and then I triumphed as you rebuilt your image, not by hiring a new wardrobe consultant and hairdresser (although realities of this world may have required that as well) but through your natural grace and eloquence, and substantiated, well-thought-out, clearly well-educated answers to difficult, thought-provoking questions that have been thrown at you throughout the years as you served in more roles than perhaps any other politician in history: first-lady and I believe co-president, lawyer, health-care-advocate, wife, daughter, mother, popular senator, presidential candidate and now, vice-presidential candidate.

You have always been an inspiration and a role model, and I hope you will not take it wrong when I tell you that I think highly of the intent in your heart, and of your abilities as a statesman, strategist, and leader, and that under different circumstances in different times you would have been an excellent president or VP. You will, no doubt, continue to be one of the strongest voices in our party, and I hope you will be our next Speaker of the House. Women, whose legal rights have quietly and effectively been severely undermined in recent years, are more in need than ever of your strong and effective voice of support. Your support of civil rights is needed as never before to regain the ground that has been lost. For that matter, if and when that two-AM-phone-call occurs, I hope you will be on the short-list for that committee that clearly needs to confer before decisions of enormous and lasting consequence are made by any one man or woman.

Please understand my concern with regard to your possible VP nomination: Ann Coulter endorsed you. The American public may not understand why this is a problem, but I think you do.

Let us not be naive. Ann isn't just any long-flowing-blonde-sharp-nosed-book-writer-in-a-sexy-coctail-dress. Ann is a front-voice for the Republican party. The small but extremely wealthy and influential group of strikingly-beautiful-bleached-blonde-salon-tanned-anorexic-usually-second-wives must accept Ann as Lord and Savior to be eligible to marry their much-older-and-obscenely-rich-husbands (whose ex-wives, if they have any brains, are not Republicans). This ridiculously-wealthy-stepford-wives-club dedicates all of life to fund raising for their husbands' pet political causes, and brings in the highest dollar-donation count of any group of private American donors. For this reason, top Republican strategists are likely confer with Ann.

It has been conjectured that the majority of Republicans posed as Democrats to vote for you in the primaries. I believe this to be true: why would any intelligent Republican waste a vote for McCain, who has already won, if positioning McCain's less viable opponent in the primaries gives Republicans the best chance of winning the general election?

Why, besides the fact that they were told to vote for you by Ann (which goes a long way), would Republicans believe you are less viable? Why would Ann's Republican strategists believe this?

The far-right stronghold has historically been about 33% of the vote, always voted Republican, would never vote for any Democrat, so they aren't your problem. Swing-voters are your problem.

I personally believe your problem is lack of connection with constituents of two large groups: (1) the majority of church-goers in the country: not Arian-Right-extremists, but rather middle-of-the-road Protestants and Catholics, who believe, rightly or wrongly, that you promote far-left values that they don't agree with, and (2) fiscal conservatives who suspect that you and Bill have been in the game too long, and are therefore too deeply tied to too many special-interest-groups to be able, even if your heart is willing, to downsize current levels of pork spending. Term-limits exist for that reason.

I am not a top White House strategist, but a mom of three boys and downsized ex-engineer who feels strongly about where the leadership of our country is taking us. I believe it is sufficient to say that Ann's advisors, who are more intelligent than I, have come to the conclusion that your running against McCain would result in his winning the general election.

Top Republican strategists have been remarkably accurate in the past in determining the pulse of the voting nation. Dave Thomas, founder of Wendy's, didn't have the money to hire top analysts to tell him where to locate his restaurants, so he used McDonald's analysts for free, placing each of his first restaurants next to a McDonald's. His strategy worked and the rest is history.

Republican strategists have out-spent and out-thought Democratic strategists in recent years. I believe the Democratic party might do well to waste less energy questioning Republican strategists and invest more into understanding why their findings are true.

Hillary, I believe in you. You are a strong voice of reason in the Democratic party. You must agree with me that your power to make change occur will be stronger if the Democratic party wins the November election.

Please help our party to win. Please don't run for VP. Instead, please consider swallowing your pride and endorsing the one person who truly represents team-Clinton's positions, without the special interest entanglements that years in office have left you enmeshed in: Bill Richardson.

You, more than anybody, know full well that nothing could sever the closeness you have had with him throughout the years. He remains your friend as never before. His astute understanding of this year's political situation may have saved the Democratic party a lost election. Though it visibly tore him apart to do it, while respecting you and Bill more highly than any others as mentors who taught him most of what he knows about the political process, he knew that you could not win this election. Knowing this, he put all of his efforts toward saving the principles you stand for by backing the person who will, if teamed with the right vice-president, win the election for the Democrats and implement your plan.

You know as well as I do the reasons why Bill Richardson is the only one who could be that vice-president. The future of our country now stands on the edge of a knife. Correct leadership, as well as electability, are crucial. Bill Richardson is the only electable person who fully understands team-Clinton's plan.

Governor Richardson can implement your vision. You can't.

You know he's your friend. The many late night phone conversations, the mutual investment of trust between you, the many years of mentorship, years of sweating from the heat blasted upon him by your political adversaries, the solution-finding to this that you have done together, even the ball games and beer. A relationship like this is precious and irreplacable, and doesn't just vanish over a single petty grievance. I know you are bigger than this, or you would not have transcended such great odds in the past, such great challenges, to become the leader you are today.

Please do the right thing. Endorse Bill Richardson for VP. He will make you proud. The Democratic party will win. Your plans will be implemented by the person who team-Clinton, yourselves, trained to do the job and our country and the world will move onto a new and better course.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Mom-of-Three
http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/

Petition: Richardson for VP

Myriam Koepcke — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:17:39 MDT

Petition: Bill Richardson should be Democratic Party VP

Richardson Wins Daily KOS Obama-VP Election By Landslide

Myriam Koepcke — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:11:44 MDT

Richardson won against 45 candidates in an election that went through five rounds of polling between pairs of candidates, finally eliminating all but Bill Richardson and Jim Webb (runners up: Kathleen Sebelius and Tim Kaine). Final poll results:

Who would you prefer as Barack Obama's running mate?

Bill Richardson
56% 3186 votes
Jim Webb
43% 2451 votes
-----------------
5637 votes

Link to article

If you are in a state that has not yet voted, PLEASE turn out at the polls for Obama. Our country needs Obama/Richardson, the Camelot team.

The Futures Market Rates Richardson as top VP Hopeful

Myriam Koepcke — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:56:47 MDT

Crostposted at: http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/myriamkoepcke/gGCgNX

The futures market doesn't always predict the correct outcome of an election (they got the Texas Democratic primary wrong) but it is interesting to see where people who have money invest when they put it where their mouth is.

Intrade.com doesn't predict a strong showing for Obama at the Pennsylvania polls. He will most likely, as in Ohio, not carry the state. That's ok. Carrying the state isn't necessary; an increased delegate count, as occurred in Ohio, is all Obama needs to win this race.

On another note, the two top VP picks on intrade (today, and these numbers change daily) are Romney and Richardson. Of course, I am thrilled about the latter, having focused most of my blogging energy for the past few months on expounding upon the benefits of the Obama/Richardson Camelot team. I am also not unhappy to see Romney emerge as the most likely hopeful Republican VP.

I see Romney as the lesser of evils on the Republican side. I hope they don't win. I am not looking forward to staying on the fast train to China that the Republicans have put us on. Possible Armageddon aside, I don't agree with the outrageous policy which no administration before, Republican or otherwise, would have approved: paying for an unnecessary war on $4000/household/day credit to China, understanding that this debt is unpayable and they will eventually reposess our house.

Romney seems like a better Republican choice than the alternatives--with two caveats in my mind: 1) his stand on racism is unclear--strange since his heritage is a group that has been similarly opressed, and 2) he supports McCain/Bush/Lieberman national defense: over-secure the top floor of the building with a complicated expensive alarm system while leaving the window-wells open and systematically alienating all neighbors who used to be our friends, rendering neighborhood watch obsolete.

Romney needs to work on his image and presentation, but I believe he understands the financial crisis that Intrade predicts as well as or better than any other candidate. If dig ourselves into a hole reaching China through Iraq, however, I seriously doubt even the best of Romney's ideas can pull us out.

To Bill Richardson's Webmaster

Myriam Koepcke — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:35:38 MDT

Dear Webmaster for Bill Richardson,

I just noticed that several of the top Netroots blogs are no longer available and wondered if you might consider removing these, as it makes it seem as though the Bill Richardson campaign were over to have links to nowhere on the page. I don't feel this campaign is at all over: there are debts to be paid and there is work to be done on behalf of Obama, who Richardson endorsed, so that this party will be elected to the White House in November and move our nation back onto a sustainable course, domestically and abroad.

Richardson is the man who understands the energy, security and diplomacy issues most crucial to our country. He made a very good showing in the primaries and is a serious contender for the post of VP or Secretary of State and, in any case, must be considered as a top advisor to the Obama administration, with the best resume of any person in this race.

Dear Webmaster: Please update this site to remove the dead links!

This campaign isn't over. There is so much work left to be done, and I hope others will join me in the crusade to follow through on what was started here.

Also, when I google the keywords "Richardson" and "Donations" together, the top things that come up are unrelated old newspaper articles. People who want to donate will search for the donation page in this manner, and it should be ranked on Google accordingly. Right now the only way to reach the donation page through this search appears to be my blog, in which I have listed Richardson and Donations as keywords. My blog is a circuitous route to the donation page. It would be much better if the page itself were ranked to be the top site.

Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Myriam Koepcke

Please Donate to Bill Richardson

Myriam Koepcke — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:46:42 MDT

Due to intricacies in campaign donation law, Bill Richardson had to return $788,730, almost twice his unpaid campaign debt, to donors who had given money earmarked for the general, rather than the primary, election, which he did not stay in the race for. Under federal law, individuals can contribute $2,300 per election to a candidate--that amount for each of the primary and general elections--and multicandidate political action committees are limited to giving $5,000 per election.

The Bill Richardson campaign was $420,848 in debt before this enormous amount of money needed to be returned. I assume that the donors who gave this money applied it towards the general election because they had already reached the $2300/person limit for the primary election. This means new donors will need to be found to make up the difference.

If you feel that his running this race was worthwhile, as I do, then please consider donating to resolve this now massive debt. I feel that whether or not he won the race, it is clear that he made a respectable showing, and this will give the Obama campaign reason to consider him as a powerful spokesman in their cabinet, and I personally hope, strong[est] contender for VP. If he is drowning in debt he cannot represent us at his best. If a corporate buyout results in his having to make agreements that don't serve the NM or country's grassroots, this is no help to us either.

Richardson is the candidate who best represents the grassroots while understanding the complex world and our national relationships and alliances. He can best leverage those relationships to serve the common good. He understands the interrelationships between energy, security, the war, our economy, and our now precarious national future. He is in the best position, with the most knowledge of any candidate, to help us leverage (in many cases, salvage) relationships that will help us to dig ourselves out of the immense hole the previous administration has dub us into.

If you are committed to Richardson's vision as I am:

Please help the Richardson Campaign NOW and donate all that you can before you leave this page, while you are still thinking about it. Every little bit helps. $2.50 from 67% of the households in Albuquerque alone would erase his debt. That is so much better than $1,000,000 from a corporate donor who wants special favors in return.

https://secure.richardsonforpresident.com/page/contribute?source=W1008

Is Bill Richardson Barack Obama's Best Choice for VP? A poll.

Myriam Koepcke — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:30:31 MDT

I created this poll a while back, but it is still open for voting, so please do so to help all those people out there understand how much Bill Richardson has to offer as Barack Obama's running mate for a Camelot Candidacy. In the poll, I asked Richardson to endorse Obama, which he has since done. The description on the poll also explains why I believe Richardson would be unparalleled as the best vice president choice for Obama.

Is Bill Richardson Barack Obama's Best Choice for Vice President?

Other polls:
http://sodahead.com/question/52474/
http://sodahead.com/question/44664/
http://sodahead.com/question/44141/

Donate to Bill Richardson

From "Leading by Example": The Perfect Metaphor

Myriam Koepcke — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:22:19 MDT

In his book, "Leading by Example", Bill Richardson explains why he prefers hybrid technology to hydrogen-powered cars, and shares a personal story:

Hybrid vehicles shouldn't be confused with hydrogen vehicles. Toyota brought its hydrogen-powered Highlander to Santa Fe in 2004, and they let me take a spin.

I hadn't driven in a couple of years, because the state security team usually drives me around. So I was a little nervous when, taking the driver's seat, I was informed that the vehicle was worth $3 million, or some such astronomical amount. It had fancy technology on board, from hydrogen storage to the hydrogen fuel cell. Toyota's officials gasped when I drove away from the state capitol and, in front of the media and my security team, turned the wrong way onto the one-way street at the end of the capitol driveway. Quickly realizing my mistake, I got the $3 million car going in the right direction, and everybody and everything, including the $3 million car and the governor behind the wheel, was safe and sound.

We all had a good laugh, and the reporters got a good story. But there's a metaphor in there, as well: it would be all too easy for our political leaders to take us in the wrong direction. Hydrogen vehicles aren't ready for market, owing to all the expensive and as of yet imperfect technology, as well as the demand for a new transportation infrastructure to produce, refine, transport, store and sell hydrogen. They are a thirty-year solution to a five-year problem. That's why my own view is that the president and others should quit talking about the hydrogen car and instead emphasize new gas-saving technologies that could be in the market within a few years. The time will come for hydrogen, but plug-in and hybrid vehiclesa are a first step toward needed short-term progress.

Donate to Bill Richardson:
https://secure.richardsonforpresident.com/page/contribute?outreach_page_id=406

Deliver Us From Evil

Myriam Koepcke — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:24:30 MDT

Crime investigators follow the money trail to find the root of the crime. Similarly, most insane legislation (and court rulings) can be traced to political money trails. To deliver ourselves from evil, we must deliver those who represent us: we must allow them to be elected without trading their souls in return. Many small donations from the grass roots are far superior to one large corporate donation: grass root funding allows our representatives to truly speak on our behalf.

Due to intricacies in campaign donation law, Bill Richardson just had to return $788,730, almost twice his unpaid campaign debt, to donors who had given money earmarked for the general, rather than the primary, election. Under federal law, individuals can contribute $2,300 per election to a candidate--that amount for each of the primary and general elections--and multicandidate political action committees are limited to giving $5,000 per election. I suspect that the reason the dollars that were returned were earmarked for the general election fund is because these individuals had already donated over the limit for the primary election fund, which means that to make up the difference, new donors will need to be found.

So, if I understand correctly, Governor Richardson's campaign debt just almost tripled, skyrocketing from $420,848 to $1,209,578, or real debt of $1,168,639 if you subtract the $40,939 he had in the bank.

Hearing that the campaign has needed to sell their computers and furniture to raise money for these debts makes me cry, knowing that there could only be so much furniture, so many computers, and over a million cannot be financed in this way.

Is Richardson going to need to bend the knee to corporate financiers at the expense of policies that serve the grass roots in order to get these debts paid? I have no doubt that bad guys out in corporatocracy-land would eventually bail him out with a deal requiring him to sell his soul, and governorship of the people, in order to remit these debts. However, Governor Richardson is selling furniture instead.

Please donate, and ask your friends, who have never donated to Governor Richardson before, to consider donating now. The population of metropolitan Albuquerque was 841,133 in 2006. Richardson was elected by a state margin of 67%. If 67% of this population alone (563,559 people) donated $2.10 each, his debt would be covered.

I believe this may be the most important election that happens in my lifetime. I am certainly going to donate to the candidates that I believe in, as it is our only hope for change, and hope others will do the same. If Bill Richardson doesn't get out from under his campaign debts he cannot move forward effectively to represent the people of New Mexico or, I hope, our nation. Delivering our representatives from evil so that our country isn't thrust into the axis of evil is a collective responsibility.

Please Donate to Bill Richardson: https://secure.richardsonforpresident.com/page/contribute?outreach_page_id=406

Leading by Example: The Leadership Our Country Needs

Myriam Koepcke — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:20:46 MDT

I am reading "Leading by Example, How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution", by Bill Richardson (http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Example-Inspire-Security-Revolution/dp/0470186372). Only on the second chapter, so can't comment fully on it yet, except to say that I believe that this, and Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth," are books you (and Barack Obama and his decision makers) should read if you don't read another book in this decade. I feel that Richardson should recieve a Nobel Peace Prize for this book alone, which points out the complex ties between the issues as I don't believe they have been presented before.

Gore's book focuses on climate. Richardson's book goes a step further, tying together intricate threads of the underworld energy economy in with the very real economic and humanitarian implications of climate change, depicting how the threads in this complex web interrelate, affecting the economy and our security.

In a nutshell, money runs the world, and most of the world's money is tied up in oil. We can't produce as much as we import, supplies are dwindling, and terrorists understand that cutting off our lifeblood of oil will devastate our economy, leaving us impotent to protect our country and interests. The book explains how this is being done, what we can do to stop it, why development of non carbon emitting energy is necessary to avert potentially devastating world changes that will be costly in terms of dollars and lives, and how proactive solutions will solve long term economic issues and protect national security by restoring our country's autonomous power.

Richardson, both Ambassador to the UN and the Secretary of Energy in the 90s, has also negotiated with some of the most dangerous world leaders, successfully securing release of hostages and averting threats with grave national security implications. He is in a unique position to understand the personalities involved and to solve the issues resulting from this complex intermingling of these forces.

Good reading... More later, once I finish the book ;-)

Nobel Peace Prize Nomination Letters:
http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/nobel/gordon/

Donate to Bill Richardson: https://secure.richardsonforpresident.com/page/contribute?outreach_page_id=406

Richardson's campaign refunds nearly $789,000 to donors -- What does this mean?!!

Myriam Koepcke — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:24:21 MDT

From the Las Cruces Sun-News:

http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_8682581?source=most_emailed

By BARRY MASSEY Associated Press Writer
Article Launched: 03/24/2008 04:21:23 PM MDT

SANTA FE--Gov. Bill Richardson's presidential campaign collected $57,000 in contributions last month and refunded $788,730 to donors who had given money earmarked for the general election.
Richardson reported having a balance of $40,939 in his presidential campaign bank account at the end of last month and debts of $420,848, according to the latest campaign finance report filed with the Federal Election Commission.

The governor dropped out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in early January.

Under federal law, individuals can contribute $2,300 per election to a candidate--that amount for each of the primary and general elections--and multicandidate political action committees are limited to giving $5,000 per election.

In the presidential race, some donors gave Richardson the maximum amount for the primary and general.

Now that Richardson has ended his presidential campaign and he isn't running for another federal office, he has to refund money given by donors in excess of the primary election limits.

For example, the campaign refunded $2,300 each to Ron Dozoretz, and his wife, Beth. He is chairman of ValueOptions, which has a contract to manage mental health and substance abuse services for the state. Richardson's campaign had received nearly $25,000 from executives, officers and state lobbyists for the company.
To raise money to retire debts, Richardson's campaign has to find new donors and focus on PACs and individuals who had contributed less than the $2,300 per election cap.

"We have to raise that money from people who have not maxed out," Dave Contarino, who served as campaign manager for Richardson's presidential bid, said Monday.

Among those contributing to Richardson's campaign last month was Fred Harris, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and political science professor at the University of New Mexico, $250; and a Hobbs couple, Michael and Lori Patterson, each gave $2,300.

Besides receiving contributions, the campaign raised $60,941 by selling assets, such as furniture, and getting refunds for previously paid services. For example, the U.S. Senate campaign of Democrat Tom Udall purchased $20,210 worth of furniture and office equipment, including computers.

Richardson's campaign debts range from telephone service and consulting to travel expenses and Internet advertising.

Richardson has raised about $24 million for his campaign so far, including contributions, loans and other receipts, such as refunds and interest on campaign deposits.

Joseph sold into slavery?

Myriam Koepcke — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:43:26 MDT

crossposted at: http://mom-of-three-journal.blogspot.com/ and http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/myriamkoepcke/gGBt7J

It has recently come to my attention that a well funded and technically savvy blogging machine has targeted Bill Richardson online with the intent of destroying his career and future. Looking at the professionalism of the work they do (some of them are no doubt trained, paid, and mentored, versus homespun volunteers like me who do not benefit from any such advantages,) I realize that my little blog isn't well enough presented to compete in this war of ideas. So I am reworking it, feedback appreciated.

I am not a journalist, just a stay at home mother of three, without the benefit of even college journalism courses. Not having the technical savvy or the money to buy webcrawling machines such as Zeus to find every article on Richardson and post auto-submissions, I plan to combat this in whatever way one citizen can, submitting rebuttals one article at a time. Anybody who would like to join in the effort would be greatly appreciated. Tortoises who slowly, deliberately, directedly march toward a goal undeterred may not outrun the hares, but can accomplish powerful things on the journey.

Honest politicians are hard to find. Bill Richardson was too honest, I am afraid, to survive the presidential primaries, though he did phenomenally well when you consider that the Clintons spent as much in New Hampshire as he spent on his entire campaign. His record speaks for itself; he doesn't need to be a rock star.

It needs to be explained in all of the places where Richardson is being electronically spammed with hate mail that the Clintons served their term honorably and their foreign policies were for the most part, right on, but there is a reason for term limits in this country. Richardson is a bridge builder, not a destroyer,intending to be a vehicle, in whatever way he can, to bring the best minds of the Democratic party together to solve the big problems: ending the Iraq war and negotiating a new era of worldwide peace facilitated by national and worldwide energy independence. Blasting bridges does not help the Democratic party to achieve these goals.

Richardson has not been divisive and he has not betrayed the Clintons, nor does he intend to. He has repeatedly stated that he was torn, supporting both candidates, he gave the Clintons their due in Obama's endorsement speech--but now they are apparently driving a blogging campaign to destroy him. The Clintons are betraying him, though reverse has been implied. The message: Richardson would have done better by endorsing them, not because they were worthy of hearts and minds, but because they destroy all who do not submit to their will. They know that Richardson will not retaliate: he does feel a responsibility towards them.

Bill Richardson has been the strongest voice of reason throughout a campaign that has often turned into mud-slinging between other contenders, repeatedly calling for less personal attacks, more acknowledgement of common ground, more coalition and team building. He is the strongest voice of leadership admonishing the Democratic party to work together to win in November so that we can turn our country around.

He has consistantly demonstrated good will, unfortunately tending to err on the side of being inappropriately self-effacing, no doubt why, as President Bush put it: "...bad guys like him." An example of his consistant teamwork: General Wesley Clark, a major fund raiser for the Clintons, is a contender for the same cabinet positions, the same appointments, with the abilities to compliment or compete with Bill Richardson in many areas. Richardson has always treated General Clark with the utmost respect, appropriate deference when he felt Clark had superior knowledge, and I have felt inappropriate deference at other times. Richardson has years of governance experience which Clark does not have, having added 80,000 jobs, turned the state green, with NM being the only state to voluntarily exceed the Kyoto protocol, all of which he has not felt the need to point out in Clark's presence. Richardson has only been honorable towards both the Clintons and their supporters, one of whom is a contender for similar appoinments. He has not thrown General Clark under the bus but has in fact pointed out his strengths, sometimes to the detriment of his own public image.

Richardson was a strong voice of support for the Clintons throughout the Whitewater and Lewinsky years. He refrained completely from ad-hominem attacks during his campaign, pointing out the differences between issues, never attacking individuals.

During his presidency campaign, Richardson strongly directed bloggers to cease and desist from personal attacks. I removed several of my own posts in response, hearing the very clear message that he would stonewall me if I stonewalled the Clintons--this was while he was running against them! Richardson has been very quick to point out Obama's kindness in not "throwing him under the bus" during a debate when Obama prompted him that the question was on Katrina. The other candidates have not pointed out the many times that Richardson has spoken in their defense.

I am not paid by Richardson, nor do I know him personally. I believe in his policies, that he is still the strongest voice of reason in the Democratic party on a number of issues, and am invested in the future of our country, seeing the greatest hope in his leadership. If he tells me to cease and desist, you can bet I will listen. I don't intend to work against the person who I see as our country's greatest hope.

I now am waiting for the Clintons to do the same: direct those bloggers who for whatever reason see them as their greatest hope, to cease fire. Let them know, in no uncertain terms, as Richardson let bloggers like me know, that such behavior is unacceptable and won't be tolerated. If you don't then your message is to encourage this behavior.

Why would you obliterate your open door into the new administration?

Richardson Speech Transcribed (mostly)

Myriam Koepcke — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:20:55 MDT

Breaking News: Bill Richardson Endorses Obama
Richardson's endorsement speech:

My friends: earlier this week, an extraordinary American gave a historic speech. Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and optimism that we have come to expect of him. He didn't evade the tough issues to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility. Senator Obama could have given a safer speech: he is after all well ahead in the delegate count for our party's nomination. He could have waited for the controversy over the deplorable remarks of Reverend Wright to subside, as it surely would have. Instead Senator Obama showed us once again what kind of leader he is. He spoke to us as adults. He asked us to ponder the rate of our racially divided past, to rise above it and seize the opportunity to carry forward the legacy of the many patriots of all races who have struggled and died to bring us together.

Senator Obama reminded us that cynicism is not realism and that hope is not folly. He called upon us not just to dream about a less racially divided America, but also to do the hard work needed to build such an America. He asked every American to see the reality and the pain of other Americans so that together we can rise above that which has divided us. He appealed to the best in us. (Applause and cheers) As a Hispanic American, I was particularly touched by his words. (cheers) Este su nombre que nos entiende y […couldn't hear the rest, but Obama looked pleased]. (Applause)

I've been troubled by the demonization of immigrants, specifically Hispanics, by too many in this country. Hate crimes against Hispanics are rising as a direct result of tough economic times: people look for scapegoats and I fear that people will continue to exploit our racial differences and place blame among others not like themselves. We all know the real culprit: the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration.

Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country that is long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race. He understands clearly that only by bringing people together and by bridging our differences can we succeed together as Americans. His words are of a courageous and thoughtful leader who understands that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and after eight years of George W. Bush, we desperately need that kind of leader. (Cheers and Applause)

Our national security and our global standing have been gravely damaged by the divided partnership of recent years. We need a president who can bring us together as a nation so that we can face global challenges and repair the damage done in the last eight years. I am convinced that Barack Obama will make the historic and vital investments into clean and renewable energy to help create green jobs and fight global warming. Barack knows that the safety and future of every American child requires that we restore our shared sense of national purpose, so that we can work together to rebuild our alliances and rehabilitate our image in a dangerous world. By uniting our nation we can reverse America's global decline. We must restore our international reputation, our influence, and our capacity to lead others.

America must become the beacon for the world again. We need a foreign policy based upon American ideals and not the mere ideology of one president: a foreign policy of diplomacy and respect for international human rights. We prospered and prevailed in the cold war because both our enemies and friends knew that the containment of the Soviet Union and the promotion of Democratic values was not a Democratic or a Republican policy: it was an American policy, the very essence of what America was.

Senator Obama understands the importance of realism, of principle, and bipartisanship in foreign policy. He opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (Applause) because he knew, despite what the administrations claimed, that this war would not be easy. He also opposed this war because he saw the president's rush to employ military force and to do so without the support of our allies, and he saw what the war also became: a terrible source of partisan political division and a catastrophic distraction from the ...real threat imposed by Al Qaeda. Now I trust him to do what is long overdue: end the Iraq war and bring our troops home! (Applause)

Now I know Senator Obama quite well. I got to know him when I chaired the last Democratic National Convention where he gave that wonderful keynote address. (Applause) And then, last year, as we campaigned against each other for the presidency, I came to fully appreciate his steadfast patriotism and remarkable talents, and I also realized that here was a really good guy, and I'll tell you why:

You all watched those long tedious Democratic debates, right? I could barely get recognized in any of them. (Laughter) The one time when I was recognized and I was sitting next to Senator Obama I said "Finally I've been recognized!" I turned to him and we started chatting a little bit. Then all of a sudden the moderator, instead of going after other candidates who hadn't been recognized, came back and asked me to answer the question. Well, needless to say I wasn't listening. I turned to Senator Obama in horror, about to ask "Could you repeat the question?" and Senator Obama whispered "Katrina, Katrina" so I gave my answer on Katrina. He could have thrown me under the bus but he stood behind me. (Cheers and applause) Now, don't tell anyone about that incident. (Audience laughter)

You know I also felt a kinship with him because we both had one foreign born parent and we both lived abroad as children. In part because of these experiences, Barack and I share a deep sense of our nation's responsibilities in the world.

Barack Obama, you're a leader who has shown courage, judgment and wisdom throughout the years. You understand the security challenges of the 21st century, and you will be an outstanding commander-in-chief. Above all, you will be a president who brings this nation together and restores American global leadership. Your candidacy, and this is an expression of your candidacy, is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our nation, and you are a once-in-a-lifetime leader. (Cheers and applause)

You will make every American proud to be an American, and I am very proud today to endorse your candidacy for president of the United States. (20 second applause, followed by audience chanting: "Yes we can!" "Yes we can!"...) Richardson: "Si se puede!" "Si se puede!" (Audience: "Si se puede!") I just asked Senator Obama if I was going too long and he said, "No, go a little longer!" (Audience laughter) so before concluding my remarks, I do want to say that we are blessed to have two great American leaders and Democrats running for President.

My great affection and admiration for Senator Clinton and President Clinton will never waver. It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and prepare for the tough fight we will have against John McCain in the fall. The 1990s were a decade of prosperity and peace because of the competent and enlightened leadership of the Clinton administration, and I was in that administration, but it is now time for a new generation of leadership to lead America forward. Barack Obama will be a great and historic president who can bring us the change we so desperately need by bringing us together as a nation here at home and with our allies abroad. And I know that all Democrats and all Americans are going to work tirelessly to get this man elected. (Applause) So, it is my distinct honor and privilege to introduce mi buen amigo, the next president of the United States, Barack Obama! (Cheers and applause, while Barack Obama steps forward and takes the microphone.)

Obama: "Bill Richardson!" (Cheers and applause)

Thank you, Governor Richardson

Myriam Koepcke — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 12:58:52 MDT

Dear Governor Richardson,

Yesterday, you made a historic speech about our country, its future, and our potential to regain ground we've lost, internationally and at home. You recognized the power of an extraordinary partnership: you, with your demonstrated commitment toward the grass roots constituency of America, your rock-solid foundation of experience and knowledge in diplomacy, energy and governance, and your demonstration of the ability to win the battles to make real change occur as governor of New Mexico since 2002--combined with the inspirational and visionary leadership of a man who has set the nation on fire with an ages-old concept that seems, for some reason, to be a radical realization for our time: we, as a nation, are more than the sum of our parts. Barack Obama has helped us to see that unity is possible when we stop viewing ourselves as red states and blue states, white people, black people, brown people, and finally realize, as our Nation's Forefathers did, that we are one nation, indivisible.

In endorsing Barack Obama, you did not break friendship ties with those who have supported you in the past, but rather, gave these friends, an important part of our Democratic family, the opportunity to be welcomed by a friendly listening ear in the new administration. Though for the past few months we have engaged in the exercise of individuating ourselves and it has seemed necessary at times to split hairs, even exaggerating differences at times in order to differentiate ourselves clearly to a voting public who would otherwise see only broad brush strokes that might leave, from a distance of 5000 miles, all of the candidates in our Democratic family looking the same--this does not mean that we are not ultimately of one mind, one heart, with regard to policies on the big issues that will affect our nation and the world throughout our lifetime and the lives of our children. We are not as divided as some might like to believe. Nor is our nation.

I am deeply grateful to you, Governor Richardson, for making a decision that I feel will place the strongest possible team of leadership at the helm, directing the changes that our country most needs at this time. By definition, that team must include you, as no other has the deep understanding of the complexities involved in the high stake and sensitive issues that will need to be delicately balanced in the next administration's negotiations with the other governments of the world. Understanding that each individual is far more than the sum of their formative influences, the counsel of mentors who you have learned to respect throughout the years tempered by your own experience and wisdom will also bring valuable breadth and depth to the strength of this administration.

Enlightened leadership can and will reverse the mistakes of the past eight years: ineffective responses to terrorist threats including the Iraq war, fiscal policies that have resulted in a fallen economy, a chronic healthcare crisis and potentially devastating climate change problems that affect us all indiscriminately if the tide is not reversed, and soon.

Now that you and Barbara are a part of the Obamas' enlightened leadership team, there is only one possible outcome. With their vision and leadership, and your vast wealth of experience and practical acumen, and most importantly, deeply held desires of the many unacclaimed men and women, the grassroots of our great nation, to affect peaceful change: we will reweave the tapestry, warp and weft formed from diverse threads of so many colors, religions, languages, cultures, which viewed separately are just threads, and viewed as a whole, form the familiar red, white and blue stars and stripes of the beloved symbol of national unity that has held us to the highest and noblest standards for over 200 years--the flag that we, our former allies, and all great nations of the world, will again learn to respect and love.

Sí se puede! Yes we can!

Thank you, Governor Richardson.

Sincerely,
Myriam Koepcke

Beyond my personal preference for Obama, why a Richardson endorsement of Obama is strategically important for the Democratic Party at this time

Myriam Koepcke — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:08:34 MST

Crossposted from Barack Obama for President Blogsite
Myriam Koepcke's Blog

Deeply rooted ties with the Clintons acknowledged and notwithstanding, the issue now is larger than the endorsement of one person, but involves reaching the hearts and minds of Catholic Latino voters, a large voting block who are making up their minds now--before the general election, and will be unlikely to change their minds later. Catholic voters will vote for McCain unless they have a very good reason to vote otherwise. Gov. Richardson's endorsement will bring a larger set of issues onto the table for those voters. Though the republican party has not been good to Latinos, they lack what they feel is a good choice for a candidate. McCain is socially progressive enough that they will choose him, all things considered, because of his pro-family stance. The only thing that could change this position would be the perception that the democratic party has a stronger likelihood of advocating for Latino issues than McCain would. Only Richardson will be percieved as a trustworthy enough Latino advocate to bring those voters across the party line.

Strategically, with regard to what is best for the Democratic party: Obama is winning and it does not look like that winning streak is going to turn around. The party needs Richardson because the block of Latino voters who will cross over to the democrats due to his endorsement at this time can't be recovered otherwise, and is crucial for a November win. Now is the time, as later, hearts and minds will have already been permanently won by the other side.

No Longer in the Race, Richardson is a Man Pursued

Campaign Debt

Myriam Koepcke — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:17:44 MST

I made my payment for this month yesterday.

Governor Richardson's well known fiscal conservatism will no doubt prevent him from moving forward until debts are paid. (I hope he has not given up looking beyond the governorship and towards the future, as those of us who are outside of NM need his leadership.) If you agree that big corporate interest funding causes much of our country's legislative insanity, then I hope you will consider being a part of the alternative to it. Please make your donation today.