Member Posts

THE DEATH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Axxel Knutson — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:34:30 MDT

The Political Party that is No More

When a political party becomes by its very nature, suicidal condescending and sanctimonious it is only a matter of time before it ceases to exist. That is the current state of the Republican Party and those attributes are so engrained into the "base" that it cannot ever recover or re-brand itself. So it will go the way of the Federalist Party, John Adams being the last such president of that party, the Democratic-Republicans, [although one could argue that this is the forerunner of today's Democratic Party], and The Whig Party.

Surely, none of the supporters of these parties ever thought that at some point certain that they would simply cease to exist because they had become irrelevant. And that is the case today. Few would suspect that the Republican Party is about to evaporate, but that is exactly what is happening. It is not George W. Bush that is the cause of it but rather party platform planks stuck into the party over the last 30 years that in effect say "...that we know better than you, you must believe in a higher being and if you don't, you are some sort of sub-human not fit to be a member of society and that conservative values are the only values of worth. That you must adopt the most fanatical view of when life begins and be wiling to force even girls that were raped no choice but to bring an unwanted child to term. A Republican Party so laced with testosterone that even when it was elected to end a war in Vietnam, Nixon instead chose to expand it into Cambodia and Laos and take three years to bring it to an end dropping more bombs in two years than Johnson did in five and more than the U.S. dropped in all of WWII in Europe and the Pacific. That injudicious war cost 500,000 lives, 58,000 of them American and a goodly percentage after Nixon took office. That poison, that testosterone, exhibited itself with "W," Rumsfeld and Cheney and is one of the final nails in the coffin of the Republican party which will cease to exist in two decades or ever sooner. It seems to many that the Republicans are willing to put up anyone who spouts the correct conservative dribble vs. those that actually have half a brain.

This is not to say that the Democratic Party is that much better...but it is better to be sure. Historically on the side of the disadvantaged...to the material disadvantage of the "advantaged" which is no plus, the Democratic Party will, at least, get some value for the money they waste. There was a time when the Republican Party was a party of a conservative fiscal policy and held a belief that government should stay out of one's personal affairs.

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/

the beard

rand — Fri, 30 May 2008 17:36:19 MDT

i'll be very, very trite as a first attempt (at a blog). love the beard.

now, i will be serious. i believe the amount of money spent on election campaigns is obscene. when candidates pass whole families homeless on their way to events - on the highway, in tents, in parking lots - then launch into a stump - that is obscene.

i believe it is horrific to not only put our citizen's life at risk with foreign issues, but to spend all of our dollars thereof, when so much is needed at home, makes me ill.

we need to rebuild america and put americans back to work.

i believe not only in change, but a massively organized change. Governor Richardson is a reasonable man. Please, recommend that he practice this in his future choices.

rand

You were my guy...

User from Houston, TX — Wed, 14 May 2008 17:44:29 MDT

... but I don't know what happened to you.

you once said "... what is wrong with a little experience..." Obama has none.

I truyly do no know how he convinced you to support him. I was sorry to find out that you were supporting him.

You also once said during a Tv interview that you were loyal to the clintos by doing a great job. Well, that is not true, you were paid for doing a job. the Clintons appointed you - political favors are paid with political favors. you betraid them.

In November I will be voting Republican.

Gov. Sebelius for veep !

Jeff97005 — Fri, 09 May 2008 07:04:50 MDT

Also listed in: Barack Obama 08' Portland Group | Oregonians for Obama | Washington County Oregon

I didn't notice in yesterday's Oregonians for Obama recap the following info regarding Kathleen Sebelius

( but it is a bit tough to track 70 emails in a daily thread )

these additional points towards what makes her my first and top suggestion as Obama's selection for veep:

+ Not only is Sebelius the re-elected dem gov of Kansas, a red state, she was re-elected with an almost 5% larger margin in 06 than her margin in 02. ( Not as good as the 69% total that Richardson gained in 06, but still impressive. I still remain a Richardson partisan at heart.)

+ She was a lauded insurance commissioner in Kansas before winning the gov's job. Someone who could, I surmise, work for the people against the excess greed of big insurance folks and yet also know the big insurance business enough to work effectively.

+ Did you know that her father was Ohio gov John Gilligan? thus she has a strong opportunity to help pull women & Kansas & Ohio into the Obama fold, neutralizing much of the pro-hillary reservations to support barack.

+ Further, did you know that she has also been a Michigan vacationer since childhood, with a vacation place near Traverse City. thus women, Kansas, Ohio and Michigan might all be more likely in play with Sebelius on the ticket.

+ Do you remember when Sebelius publicly and effectively took GWBush to task over the problems facing states because W. and Rumsfeld had stripped the national guard units of equipment and manpower in their Iraq mis-adventure? States were and still are hampered to respond to natural disasters (like tornado relief in Kansas, flood and fire relief in Oregon, etc) because of the ideas that McCain still wants to continue. Sebelius would be, I predict, equally strong and effective on the stump in the fall campaign.

+ In November 2005 Time named Sebelius as one of the five best governors in America, praising her for eliminating a $1.1 billion debt she inherited, ferreting out waste in state government, and strongly supporting public education — all without raising taxes. Also praised was her bipartisan approach to governing, a useful trait in a state where Republicans have usually controlled the Legislature.

+ Her husband is a federal judge, possibly indicating an appreciation for the judiciary that would serve progressives and moderates well in the light of the conservative court packing that has been going on.

+ Her father in law was a 6 term Kansas republican congressman, thus adding another level of support to those current GOPers who are disgusted with the direction of their party and looking for reasons to support Obama. A list that includes Eisenhower and Nixon family members, to name a few, already.

I'm thinking Gov. Sebelius would be an excellent choice for Obama's veep.

And Gov. Richardson as Secretary of State or -- maybe to please Barbara Richardson -- a return to the job he loved as US Ambassador to the United Nations and an additonal role as a most senior advisor to the White House. Though why they'd want to leave the statehouse and the horses in New Mexico is certainly a question I'd think about more than twice.

Jeff Barton

Beaverton, Oregon 97005

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.

Poll

Hasslington — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:46:16 MDT

Hello, folks,

If you're at all interested, you can vote for Governor Richardson (or someone else) in a new poll on my blog-site.

The poll deals with who you would vote for if the Democratic nomination was not resolved prior to the convention, and if at the convention the delgates couldn't settle on either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. The poll can be found at: http://hasslington.blogspot.com

Thanks for your time.

who can't seal the deal ?

Jeff97005 — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:50:24 MDT

Also listed in: Barack Obama 08' Portland Group | Oregonians for Obama | Washington County Oregon

At Blue Oregon yesterday there was a post (from Josh Kardon who is the chair of the Oregon Steering Committee for Hillary Clinton for President and also Senator Ron Wyden's chief-of-staff) and comments concerning the Hillary question: How come Obama can't seal the deal for the nomination?

http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/04/the-post-pennsy.html

I read it today in the weekly digest from Blue Oregon and immediately thought that it is Hillary, not Obama, who couldn't seal the deal from the get go. And, to give due credit, in the comments posted in reply to Kardon, Joel Dan Walls (see the post script below) did get that basic point out.

So, quickly, think back to a year ago when eight Dems were all vying for the 2008 nomination, wasn't Hillary the one who had it all going? Name recognition, experienced staff, the most money (including some of Rupert Murdoch's) and the sense of her inevitability? Remember "Hillary Clinton and the seven dwarfs" comments and snickers?

So, who couldn't seal the deal? I'm impressed by Obama more and more. And I was (and still am) a Richardson partisan. Hillary couldn't seal the deal when many of us thought/feared she had the nomination "bought and paid for" as we resolved to support our candidate for 2008 at our New Years Eve celebrations on 12/31/2007. Anyone who could beat the GOP candidate and start to reclaim the USA as a country concerned with its constitution, with its place in the community of nations, and with a healthy return to issues of peace, justice, equity, and fairly shared responsibilities and opportunities.

Obama rolled forward through 2007 and across the primary and caucus contests with energy, basic fair play, a call to new participation, and a sense of leadership that might well help this nation reclaim a thoughtful - more inclusive - better issue oriented - less corporatist government. Give him credit. My guy, Bill Richardson, and Edwards, Dodd, Biden and the rest couldn't compete with Obama in the competition to vie with the Clinton campaign. In contrast the Hillary campaign has talked less and less about issues and has used both overt and covert appeals to the politics of fear concerning war, race, religion and the newer paradigm.

No wonder none of those " seven dwarfs" have endorsed Hillary. And some of the leading seven have spoken up to endorse Obama. Hillary can't seal the deal, ever, while Obama will have the lead at the end of the primary season in delegates, in the popular vote (even including Florida, if you wish), in state contests won, and in dignity remaining.

I'm even becoming happier by the day that our primary in Oregon will matter in this race.

So, again, don't fall for the Hillary spin. "Sealing the deal" can take a while when one begins as a "dwarf" instead of as a "princess." But what any reasonable observer now sees in the Democratic Party's exercise of the democratic process is that Barack Obama is now the "giant" in the quest for the White House.

Give thanks that the "ogre" of the Bush / Cheney legacy, and the "troll - like" policies of John McCain, will not prevail. Unless, of course, the "princess" spoils everything by and in a fit of selfishness beyond anything ever seen before.

PS: here's Joel Dan Walls comment posted in reply to Josh Kardon, as referenced earlier: Wow, some amazingly pathetic spinmeistering going on here, Mr Kardon. Have you ever heard of a candidate named Hillary Clinton who told us all last fall, and going into the early primaries, how she was going to wrap things up on February 5? Geez Louise, it would appear that Sen. Clinton failed to "seal the deal" when she said she would. Maybe you need to write some sort of smart-ass commentary about that.Are you suffering from selective amnesia, or simply cranking out the spin "talking points" that just showed up on your fax machine?

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

Hasslington

Hasslington — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:56:54 MDT

Fellow Richardson supporters, I've just started a blog of my own (in order to straighten out my thinking regarding this rapid-fire presidential race and accompanying cultural matters). If you've got the time and inclination, check out the following: http://hasslington.blogspot.com

Thanks for your time.

It was TYPICAL when you quit...Expected & Typical

Axxel Knutson — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:51:07 MDT

but I have squandered my money in other ways. It does pay to be pessmistic when it comes to politicans, doesn't it.

I was sad when you dropped out

User from Shawnee, OK — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:49:57 MDT

But now I am DISGUSTED with you Bill Richardson. I endorsed you whole heartedly but I feel betrayed now after your endorsement of BO. How could you? And now you want my money? No, no, no. The bed you made was with BO and I will NOT support him. I am a Hillary Clinton supporter. Shame on you for saying "the Clintons act as the presidency should be handed to them." How disgusting of you!! Hillary Clinton has worked hard the past 35 years for children and women. Her life is to help the American people. BO is acting like the presidency should be handed to him because we must transcend race. Hillary supporters and strong and you have proven you are weak and vulnerable and have your own political agenda to advance over the American people's needs.

compared to Wright, Penn (and thus Clinton) is Wrong

Jeff97005 — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:31:40 MDT

compared to Wright, Penn (and thus Clinton) is Wrong

By jeff97005 - Apr 8th, 2008 at 2:23 pm EDT

Also listed in: Barack Obama 08' Portland Group | Oregonians for Obama | Washington County Oregon

I'm a believer that Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity UCC did not cross the bounds of decency and basic patriotism when he --

one) amidst a life time of other sermons and proclamations that were right on track with a caring, faithful ministry to his congregation and their neighbors, and

two) in the context of his congregation that knew and expected him to be forceful and challenging about the issues at the intersection of life and faith, and

three) in the tradition of the United Church of Christ which expects and celebrates conversation and critical as well as supportive response to what is shared from a free and prophetic pulpit

-- made the remarks that caused such an uproar. As many who have watched the fuller video accounts of the sermons from which a few short seconds of sound bite were excerpted, I think the proclamation of good news, hope in the face of challenge, courage in the face of the powerful and encouragement towards increased responsibility and faithful action by his own congregation is in the best tradition of the preaching art.

The key, I submit, is that Rev. Wright was preaching to a congregation that had the power and the responsibility to call him as their pastor, to continue his call, or - if needed - to curtail his call. Barack Obama is a member of that church, and with thousands of other members had a less than 0.05 % voice and vote in the continuation or curtailing of Rev. Wright's tenure at Trinity UCC.

HOWEVER: Mark Penn was serving solely at the determination of Hillary Clinton as the top and highest paid staff member of her campaign. Clinton had and has 100% voice and vote to continue or to curtail Mark Penn's call to his position in her campaign.

Now we know that Penn (and his consulting firm) was serving the cause of Blackwater amidst the outcry over mercenary contractors run amok in Iraq, serving the cause of Countrywide amidst the outcry over the predatory lending practices and mortgage crisis, and serving the cause of Columbia amidst the specific outrage voiced by Clinton over the trade agreement proposal concerning the USA and Columbia. Penn was being paid significant and generous dollars by Clinton as he was also being paid by his other clients to contradict and limit the policies supposedly supported by Clinton. So, Hillary Clinton announces over the weekend that Penn is out. Good, she has that 100% voice and vote.

And yet, now we learn that Penn is not really out, but will continue to do paid work for Clinton and was publicly present on the daily campaign leadership call to the news media covering the campaign.

I want to ask "what the hell?" Instead, I ask "how in heaven's name does Rev. Wright and Trinity UCC get to be a huge issue to the Obama campaign while Mark Penn may not become a concern at all for those supporting Hillary Clinton?"

Barack Obama is right to engage in higher and deeper issues, with better and more solid integrity, and with a wider variety of Americans of every experience, perspective, and vision. I commend Obama for continuing - carefully and thoughtfully - his connection to and conversation towards better engagement with his church and his pastors. Especially as he was not and is not the lone voice and vote that can or should make such a decision.

Clinton keeps claiming to be Ready on Day One She's ready already to do anything, to pay anyone, to break any commitment, to toss any kitchen sink, as she seeks to become the Democratic Nominee for the Presidential Election of 2008? Mark Penn and Hillary Clinton are 100% wrong. Yet Clinton would leave a church if the pastor was controversial even as she won't really fire an employee who is actively taking money to work against her announced interests.

I am one ready on this day to believe and announce that Obama is the only candidate remaining who is ready to engage, involve and offer leadership to the country I still hope and pray we might someday become.