This is something i want to see lots more of. This does real helping in Barack's name.
Thanks for doing this Obama Campaign. = http://help.secondharvest.org/obama

respectively yours
Danielle Clarke


To: danielegrl@yahoo.com
Subject: Thank You
Thank You! Your gift has been processed and is being sent rightaway to the local food bank or food rescueorganization in your area. Thank you for helping getmuch needed food and groceries to struggling familiesright in your own community. Not only are you helpinggood food from going to waste but your helping momsand dads put food on the table for their children. You have made a difference today. Thank you for yourgift!

Sincerely, Vicki EscarraPresident & CEO America's Second Harvest The Nation's Food BankNetworkPS. Please print this page as your temporary receipt.You will be receiving an official tax letter in themail soon. To ensure you stay connected with America'sSecond Harvest Network, please add
info@secondharvest.org to your address book.
Transaction Summary Transaction Date: 7/28/07
Make a Donation Level: $100 Amount: $100.00
Billing Information Title: Ms. First Name: Danielle Middle Name: Last Name: Clarke
Suffix: Street 1: xxx xxxxxx St Street 2: City: xxxx xxxxxxx State/Province: XX ZIP/Postal Code: xxxxx Country: United States
Email Address: danielegrl@yahoo.com
Email opt-in: Yes Remember me: Yes
Payment Information
Payment type: Credit Card Expiration Date: xxx 2007
Credit Card Number: ************
Gift Amount: $100.00 Tax-deductible Amount: $100.00
This organization's tax ID is: 36-3673599


Please join me in whatever donation you can afford. Its helping Barack Obama too because it shows american what we supporters are about.

love Danielle

Dear Zenophon,

Barack Obama’s performance stood above the competition in last night’s debate as he continued to show the qualities that will make him a strong Commander in Chief.

He displayed the judgment that led him to oppose the war in Iraq before it began and reminded the other candidates that the time to ask how we were going to get out of Iraq was before we went in.

Watch the video and share it with your friends:

http://my.BarackObama.com/DebateSC

Televised debates are notorious for rehearsed sound bites and canned answers. Barack demonstrated his leadership by speaking with passion and personal conviction about education, Social Security, and changing the way Washington works.

This morning’s news coverage declared Barack the clear winner of the debate. Here’s a sample of what they had to say:

Time and time again Obama sought to take specific questions and broaden them into a conversation over who represented real change in the field. He castigated lobbyists and special interests in Washington, offering a sweeping condemnation of business as usual (by both parties) in the nation's capital. "We don't need just a change in political parties," said Obama. "We need a change in attitudes of the people representing Americans."

-- Chris Cillizza, Washington Post
We're here with 24 Democrats, independents, who thought that Senator Hillary Clinton would be the best performer here tonight, but the results that we just got in, this is a focus group; show that Barack Obama got the most favorable in terms of the best performance from the 24 people who are here tonight.

-- Mary Snow, CNN

Watch Barack’s performance and help build our movement for change:

http://my.BarackObama.com/DebateSC

We also heard from hundreds of supporters who shared their reactions via Obama mobile:

I loved Obama's comment that we're not going to fix anything until 'we change how business is done in Washington.' As usual, he was spot-on. I have faith that Barack is THE candidate to facilitate these changes. He has shown commitment time and again that he will work across lines of party, race, & religion to make progress in America. United, we can make a difference!

-- Lisa in Ann Arbor, Michigan

Once again Barack applied a common sense approach in his response tonight. I was also pleased he continued to reinforce his message of unity. O8AMA!!

-- Russ in Cary, Illinois
Barack, you were the best one there and should be the obvious choice for those of us who want true, real, and honest change. Keep it up!

-- Tessa in Rochester, New York
Barack’s victory in last night’s debate was decisive, but he cannot win the Democratic nomination alone. It’s up to all of us to spread the word and build this movement for change.

Thanks for your support,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Via email...

By Wade Hudson wadehudson@progressiveresourcecatalog.org

Substantial portions of my new self-published book, Global
Transformation: Strategy for Action, presents arguments in support of
the Obama campaign for President. After receiving feedback on this
edition, I plan to rewrite the book and seek a traditional publisher.

There will be a Book Release and Birthday Party (it’s my birthday)
Thursday, July 26, 6:00 - 10:00 PM, Club Waziema, 543 Divisadero (near
Hayes), S.F. At the moment, it seems that 15-20 old friends will be
participating.

I would welcome meeting more Obama supporters, would appreciate your
feedback on the book, and would like to discuss with you how we might
help make the Obama campaign a more supportive and fun-filled community.

At this party, discounted copies of the book will be for sale: $10
paperback; $15 hard cover.

People are welcome to bring Obama literature, buttons, etc. Club Waziema
is a casual, friendly bar and restaurant. Though buying food is not
necessary, group platters are less than nine dollars.

On Saturday, September 15, 2007, 12 Noon - 5:00 PM, Latino/Hispanic
Community Room, Main Library, 100 Larkin St., San Francisco there will
be a Strategy Workshop to evaluate the book. This event will include:

A pot luck lunch.
An overview of the book.
A panel of community leaders will be invited to offer feedback on the
book (each panelist will have ten minutes).
The panel will engage in dialogue with one another.
Members of the audience who've read the book will have ten minutes each
to offer feedback.
The entire audience will engage in dialogue concerning issues raised by
the book.

WHY IS OBAMA SO STRONG?

RICHARD REEVES - In Yahoo! News

Wed Jul 18, 7:56 PM ET

NEW YORK -- When I left the country for a few weeks of summer travel overseas, the conventional wisdom was that the phenomenon of 2007, Barack Obama, had plateaued and was on his way to becoming a fascinating footnote in Hillary Clinton's methodical march to the Democratic nomination for president.

ADVERTISEMENT

In fact, I more or less thought that myself. The senator from New York was collecting money like a big church in Texas. She was supported by most of the party's weary mandarins. She was the kind of programmed and practiced candidate, to the point of boredom, who was unlikely to make many mistakes -- and it is usually blunders that decide elections. Obama, charming and likable, seemed more likely to be Gary Hart than John F. Kennedy.

Wrong!

I came back, and there was Obama on the cover of most every serious magazine in the country. Newsweek placed him over the headline, "How Barack Obama Is Shaking Up the Campaign." More interesting, he was the cover of the conservative American Spectator over the line, silver-plated, "An Age of Obama?"

Why? Polls indicated that Clinton had withstood the challenge, holding a 10-point lead among Democrats over the young senator from Illinois. ("Young" is relative; Obama is three years older than Kennedy was when he was elected president.) But still, he was getting larger crowds, raising more money. Most important, he was raising that money from more than twice as many donors. People wanted to be part of this thing.

Why?

I think the answer was in a one-paragraph item at the bottom of page A19 of last Tuesday's New York Times. The paper reported that approval levels for Washington, both the presidency and the Congress, were at all-time lows, generally below 20 percent.

At the same time, other polls indicated that more that 75 percent of Americans answer "no" when asked whether "the country is going in the right direction."

And why not? We are sending young men and women, and reservists not so young, to die or be maimed in a foolish and unnecessary war. The great majority of the nation believes (or knows) that, but in Washington the president will never admit it, and the Congress does not have the courage to shout that the emperor has no clothes. The air in the war capital is thick with delusion and lies.

It is not just the war. The chief law enforcement officer of the country, the attorney general, is obviously incompetent, a fool or a liar -- probably all three. No one has really done anything about that, either.

Then there is science, all the disciplines that depend on exact truth, real provable facts, and on openness and transparency of results. Science is a cumulative, serial effort in which the work or discoveries or theories of one person or group provide the facts and platform for the next. On the day I returned home, a former surgeon general of the United States sat before Congress and said, under oath, that the people running the country, or at least the executive branch, are deliberately hiding the truth about a range of scientific subjects from global warming to stem cell research.

"Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried," said Dr. Richard Carmona, who served as the government's chief medical officer from 2001 to 2005. "I was blocked at every turn. Stand down. Don't talk about it."

It sounded very much like the Middle Ages. This is America? This my country?

Barack Obama is an attractive, intelligent, thoughtful man -- perhaps the campaign will show him to be too thoughtful -- who because of race and background is the candidate who symbolizes change, a new direction to a nation seemingly convinced we are on the wrong path.

Are his politics that different from, say, Hillary Clinton's? Probably not. But he can claim to come from a different place, and she is clearly part of the establishment, the established order.

Obama seems new. To an American coming home, he seems not to be offering just a new choice, but a second chance. He may fade -- stuff happens -- but a new chance may be enough in a country full of disillusion.

Check the Obama Dallas Website for a "Blow Out Hunger Project" set for August 8th, 2007 at 9 AM

I just came accross the LA Times article annoucing what promises to be a huge bash hosted by Oprah Winfrey at her Santa Barbara estate September 8th. From the looks of things, it may be the event that tips all of the scales futher in Senator Obama's favor.

I didn't get the email on the event, but from what I've read it's going to be huge. The LA Times reported that "a ticket in the door starts at $2,300, the most allowable under federal campaign laws. If you want to stick around for a VIP reception — mingling with a list of yet-to-be announced celebs — better be prepared to raise at least $25,000 from friends, family and a few high-class strangers. For $50,000, you can stay for dinner (and wander through the house while searching for a bathroom)."

But if one can raise between $25,000 and $50,000, then they're in like Flint.

From: http://blogs.dmregister.com/?cat=53

Heckroth, Rielly endorse Obama Mon 7.16.2007 2:12 PM
Sen. Bill Heckroth, a Waverly Democrat, today announced his support
for Barack Obama for president.

Heckroth is the fifth state lawmaker to endorse Obama. Last week, Sen.
Tom Rielly, an Oskaloosa Democrat, also announced his endorsement for
Obama, an Illinois senator.
Heckroth today noted that Obama's "refusal to accept money from"
political action committees or federal lobbyists "prove to me he'll
bring much needed change to Washington D.C."

Other key Iowa endorsements: Reps. Tyler Olson of Cedar Rapids and
Elesha Gayman of Davenport. State Sen. Robert Dvorsky of Coralville.
Also, Attorney General Tom Miller and Treasurer Mike Fitzgerald.

In June:
Dvorsky endorses Obama Thu 6.28.2007
Sen. Bob Dvorsky, a Coralville Democrat, has endorsed Barack Obama for
president.

"Senator Obama had the wisdom to oppose the war in Iraq from the
beginning and the courage to speak out against it when other
politicians wouldn't," Dvorsky said in a statement. "He has spent his
time in the U.S. Senate fighting to bring our troops home, and I
believe he's our best hope to bring an end to the war in Iraq and
start focusing on diplomatic solutions."

By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY - AP
Jul 13, 8:18 PM (ET)

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Friday that his top rival's attempt to pressure the Bush administration to end the war in Iraq is "a convoluted approach to the problem."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton plans to introduce an amendment repealing the congressional authorization for the war. It would require the president to seek new authority from Congress if he wanted to continue operations past Oct. 11, 2007, five years after initial authorization was given.

"If you simply repeal the language, then presumably you'd have to reauthorize something. You've got 150,000 troops over there and support personnel," Obama told The Associated Press in an interview after a campaign stop in Las Vegas.
"Why we would try that approach as opposed to simply setting a timetable for withdrawal strikes me as a convoluted approach to the problem," he said.

Clinton proposed the amendment, which is to be co-sponsored by West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd, after facing persistent pressure, particularly from voters in early primary states, to distance herself from her initial vote to authorize the war.
"I was opposed to this war back in 2002, knowing that this was going to be a bad idea," the Illinois senator told the group of more than 100 gathered for a house party for precinct captains.
It was the freshman senator's fourth trip to Nevada since launching his presidential bid. His campaign used the trip to push back against the perception that Clinton was racing ahead in the state that will hold the nation's second caucus, Jan. 19. He answered the New York Democrat's raft of Nevada endorsements with a handful of his own.
Obama spent the morning meeting with a group of black lawmakers and members of the influential Culinary Workers union.
His major public event was the crowded house party, a deviation from the series of large rallies he held in his earlier trips to the state.
Obama stuck largely to his stump speech, which calls for a movement of change in the U.S.
"We don't want to just be against something, we want to be for something," he told the group after hosts Yvette and Damone Williams moved the furniture to the garage to make way for the senator and his volunteers.
Obama called the Bush administration's foreign policy a "disaster" and said he wants to redeploy combat troops in Iraq by spring. He said he would not support leaving permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq because they would become a recruitment tool for terrorists by "fanning the flames of anti-American sentiment."
Later, Obama said he believed the U.S. had a "humanitarian obligation and national security interest in ensuring there's not a complete collapse in Iraq."
He said if elected he would meet with military leaders to determine an exit strategy that would draw down combat troops in about a year.

This poll conducted by TIME is more a refection of how much people trust Senator Obama than anything else.

TIME Poll: Faith of the Candidates
Thursday, Jul. 12, 2007 By AMY SULLIVAN

The hoary joke that a "religious Democrat" is more of an oxymoron than "jumbo shrimp" couldn't be more wrong in this election cycle, in which it's the Democrats who are talking comfortably about faith while their Republican counterparts dodge the subject. Even so, as the results of a new TIME poll show, the conventional wisdom about the two political parties and religion may be so ingrained that no amount of evidence to the contrary can change perceptions. That may very well help Republicans in 2008 despite their various religion issues. And it may also mean that most Democrats, with one important exception, will have to try twice as hard to reach faith-minded voters.

As Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy report in this week's TIME cover story, the three Democratic frontrunners are leading a fundamental shift in how their party thinks about religious Americans, which includes the first party-wide effort to target and court Catholic and evangelical voters. Republicans, meanwhile, have been lining up to receive the seal of approval from Pat Robertson and James Dobson. But at the same time, Mitt Romney has gone to great lengths to avoid talking about his Mormonism, John McCain's religious advisors quit his campaign in disgust, and when the AP inquired as to what church Rudy Giuliani attended, the former mayor essentially told them to mind their own business.

In spite of all that, according to the new TIME poll, only 15% of registered voters believe that Hillary Clinton is "strongly religious," compared to 22% for John Edwards and 24% for Barack Obama. Perhaps more problematic for Clinton is the fact that nearly one-quarter of respondents (24%) say they know she is "not religious" — that's almost twice the nearest candidate, Rudy Giuliani (13%).

On this point, Clinton undoubtedly suffers from the double whammy of being a Democrat and a Clinton. Even Democrats tended to chalk up her husband's religious fluency to his general political skill, the ability to be everything to everyone, while Republicans saw him as a fake who exploited religion for political purposes and pandered to voters. Now Senator Clinton, the lifelong Methodist and one-time Sunday school teacher, is in a bind: So many voters think they "know" she can't possibly be religious that when she speaks about her faith, they interpret it as pure political posturing.

Still, for at least one Democrat, another piece of conventional wisdom is working in his favor. Democrats have long outsourced religion to their African-American members, showing up in black churches the weekend before elections to clap along to gospel tunes, and treating black ministers as cuddly social justice mascots. As a result, black politicians rarely need to prove their religiosity-they're given the benefit of the doubt. Obama is no exception. On the ranking of candidates with strong faith, Obama comes in second (24%) among all voters. And even Republican voters put him (18%) above John McCain (17%), Rudy Giuliani (14%), and Newt Gingrich (14%).

When it comes to the Republican field, Mitt Romney ranks far above the rest of the pack. Fully 26% of all voters think Romney is a person of strong religious faith, and among Republicans that number rises to 32%. What should worry Republicans, however, is that Romney's numbers are nearly double the closest Republican and still far below George W. Bush's in 2004. They also suggest an opening for Fred Thompson, who is expected the enter the race within weeks. James Dobson may have declared on his radio show that Thompson isn't a Christian, but given the alternatives, social conservatives are likely to disagree.

But the lack of excitement about the Republican field may help Obama as well. His general favorability rating amongst red state voters equals that of Rudy Giuliani at 56%. And because Obama has a relatively low unfavorable rating in red states (30% versus Giuliani's 35%), his net favorability rating among red state voters (+26%) is actually better than any of the Republican candidates. Nor do his Democratic opponents come close — Edwards' net rating is +13 and Clinton's is zero, with 48% of red state voters on each side of the question.

Finally, the poll found that Americans have strong views about religion and politics in the era of George W. Bush. In May 2004, half (49%) of American voters said President Bush's faith made him a strong leader while only 36% said it made him too closed-minded. Today, voters have reversed their opinion about the role of Bush's faith: 50% now say it makes him too closed-minded and 34% say it makes him a strong leader. Similarly, while in 2004, only 27% said that Bush's use of faith did more to divide the country rather than unite it, today, 43% feel that way.

There is evidence of that division in the poll. By a two-to-one margin (62% to 29%), Republicans say a president should use his or her faith to guide presidential decisions. By contrast, Democrats reject this idea by a similar two-to-one margin (58% to 32%). In the same way, while three-quarters of Democrats say the president should not use his or her own interpretation of the Bible to make public decisions, Republicans are about evenly split (46% to 43%) on this. And while the overwhelming majority of Republican voters (71%) agree that religious values should serve as a guide to what political leaders do in office, 56% of Democrats disagree with this.

It remains to be seen whether Democratic voters would feel differently about any of these issues if one of their candidates took back the White House in 2008. It could be that respondents find it difficult to separate their general views on the questions from their opinions about Bush and religion. But it's also possible that the last seven have indeed fundamentally shifted the way many Americans think about religion and politics. The answer to that key question is something the Democratic frontrunners will be working to figure out.

To view the complete poll results, visit http://www.pulsarresearch.com/TIME.html

This is a video not seen often enough. It shows Senator Barack Obama talking with people at a house party hosted by New Hampshire State Representative Bette Lasky. It also demonstrates that Americans really don't care about what Barack's skin color is at all. Plus, it demonstrates the easy way Barack relates to Americans.

This is a milestone editorial which seems to say "enough is enough."

Editorial
The Road Home
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
Print
Single Page
Share

Published: July 8, 2007
It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

•

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

That conversation must be candid and focused. Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.

The administration, the Democratic-controlled Congress, the United Nations and America’s allies must try to mitigate those outcomes — and they may fail. But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse. The nation needs a serious discussion, now, about how to accomplish a withdrawal and meet some of the big challenges that will arise.

The Mechanics of Withdrawal

The United States has about 160,000 troops and millions of tons of military gear inside Iraq. Getting that force out safely will be a formidable challenge. The main road south to Kuwait is notoriously vulnerable to roadside bomb attacks. Soldiers, weapons and vehicles will need to be deployed to secure bases while airlift and sealift operations are organized. Withdrawal routes will have to be guarded. The exit must be everything the invasion was not: based on reality and backed by adequate resources.

The United States should explore using Kurdish territory in the north of Iraq as a secure staging area. Being able to use bases and ports in Turkey would also make withdrawal faster and safer. Turkey has been an inconsistent ally in this war, but like other nations, it should realize that shouldering part of the burden of the aftermath is in its own interest.

Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.

The Fight Against Terrorists

Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.

(Page 2 of 2)

This war diverted Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda’s leaders. It alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of American troops.

And it created a new front where the United States will have to continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable future.

The Question of Bases

The United States could strike an agreement with the Kurds to create those bases in northeastern Iraq. Or, the Pentagon could use its bases in countries like Kuwait and Qatar, and its large naval presence in the Persian Gulf, as staging points.

There are arguments for, and against, both options. Leaving troops in Iraq might make it too easy — and too tempting — to get drawn back into the civil war and confirm suspicions that Washington’s real goal was to secure permanent bases in Iraq. Mounting attacks from other countries could endanger those nations’ governments.

The White House should make this choice after consultation with Congress and the other countries in the region, whose opinions the Bush administration has essentially ignored. The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough force to stage effective raids and airstrikes against terrorist forces in Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat.

The Civil War

One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

It is possible, we suppose, that announcing a firm withdrawal date might finally focus Iraq’s political leaders and neighboring governments on reality. Ideally, it could spur Iraqi politicians to take the steps toward national reconciliation that they have endlessly discussed but refused to act on.

But it is foolish to count on that, as some Democratic proponents of withdrawal have done. The administration should use whatever leverage it gains from withdrawing to press its allies and Iraq’s neighbors to help achieve a negotiated solution.

Iraq’s leaders — knowing that they can no longer rely on the Americans to guarantee their survival — might be more open to compromise, perhaps to a Bosnian-style partition, with economic resources fairly shared but with millions of Iraqis forced to relocate. That would be better than the slow-motion ethnic and religious cleansing that has contributed to driving one in seven Iraqis from their homes.

The United States military cannot solve the problem. Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.

The Human Crisis

There are already nearly two million Iraqi refugees, mostly in Syria and Jordan, and nearly two million more Iraqis who have been displaced within their country. Without the active cooperation of all six countries bordering Iraq — Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria — and the help of other nations, this disaster could get worse. Beyond the suffering, massive flows of refugees — some with ethnic and political resentments — could spread Iraq’s conflict far beyond Iraq’s borders.

Kuwait and Saudi Arabia must share the burden of hosting refugees. Jordan and Syria, now nearly overwhelmed with refugees, need more international help. That, of course, means money. The nations of Europe and Asia have a stake and should contribute. The United States will have to pay a large share of the costs, but should also lead international efforts, perhaps a donors’ conference, to raise money for the refugee crisis.

Washington also has to mend fences with allies. There are new governments in Britain, France and Germany that did not participate in the fight over starting this war and are eager to get beyond it. But that will still require a measure of humility and a commitment to multilateral action that this administration has never shown. And, however angry they were with President Bush for creating this mess, those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore.

The United States has the greatest responsibilities, including the admission of many more refugees for permanent resettlement. The most compelling obligation is to the tens of thousands of Iraqis of courage and good will — translators, embassy employees, reconstruction workers — whose lives will be in danger because they believed the promises and cooperated with the Americans.

The Neighbors

One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors — America’s friends as well as its adversaries.

Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories.

For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help. Civil war in Iraq is a threat to everyone, especially if it spills across Iraq’s borders.

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans’ demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened — the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war.

This country faces a choice. We can go on allowing Mr. Bush to drag out this war without end or purpose. Or we can insist that American troops are withdrawn as quickly and safely as we can manage — with as much effort as possible to stop the chaos from spreading.

This information comes from Pasadena Obama supporter Peter Woodruff

The link (may require subscription, sorry if so) is to a fascinating discussion video by two New Republic contributors, one Democratic centralist, the other conservative, of the reasons for Obama's success. I think they get it, more than anyone else in the punditry that I'm aware of, and have some interesting things to say about why the latter are not getting it. They also have something to say about the "where's the beef" issue that is more substantive than the usual blather. So I recommend it highly.

One thing they emphasize is that Obama's big challenge is to turn his donor base into an active movement/campaign organization. This is what we have all been struggling with; it's time to buckle down and redouble our efforts. As David Brooks (another conservative) said on the Lehrer News Hour, only one candidate of either party has the potential to be "transformative", and he's our man. Let us not miss the chance.

Link: The New Republic


Peter Woodruff

Supporting Barack Obama for President of the United States

Long Beach for Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/

Senator Barack Obama's made it clear he's a supporter of Al Gore's Live Earth campaign, concerts, and pledge. On BarackObama.com, the Senator has placed his statement on video. It's here, below:



This is the Senator's statement:

The organizers of Live Earth should be proud of their achievement. 7.7.07 is likely to be one of the most significant days of action in the campaign against global climate change. It could not come at a more important time.

Our dependence on fuels such as oil and coal is jeopardizing our planet, setting off a chain of dangerous weather patterns that could condemn future generations to global catastrophe. We see the effects of global climate change in our communities and around the world in record drought, famine, and forest fires. Hurricanes and typhoons are growing in intensity, and rapidly melting ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland could raise global sea levels high enough to swallow up large portions of every coastal city and town.

Despite the urgency, there are those who believe America cannot come together to find a solution. Politicians are afraid to ask the oil, auto, and electricity industries to do their part, and those industries hire armies of lobbyists to make sure it stays that way.

We can do better. As President, I will move to limit the causes of global warming by requiring that all transportation fuels sold in the U.S. contain 10 percent less carbon by 2020. We can decrease oil consumption by increasing fuel economy standards to save half a trillion gallons of gasoline by 2028. These are the types of changes that we’ll have to make if we’re serious about limiting the effects of global warming.

I found this bit of information at USNews.com's "Washington Whispers."

Campaign Cash That Matters
June 29, 2007 01:20 PM ET | Permanent Link

Class, welcome to Political Fundraising 101. We are lucky enough today to have Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's press secretary, Bill Burton, as our guest speaker. His topic: making sense out of the spin and hype of the upcoming quarterly fundraising tallies that all the candidates will herald as why they are winning the money race. We've always liked and respected Burton because in just a few words, he can explain what's fact and fiction. And in his memo below you will learn why the "primary" money Obama is raising from a record number of small donors may mean a heck of a lot more than the big checks candidates like Sen. Hillary Clinton are raising. Take it away, Bill:

To: Interested Parties

From: The Obama Campaign

RE: Primary v. General Funds—A Distinction with a Difference

The second quarter fundraising period ends at midnight on Saturday and the various Presidential campaigns will soon release their fundraising totals for that period. As you know, this is the first modern Presidential election when the candidates are simultaneously raising money for the primary and general elections. This has led to some confusion and misreporting in media accounts.

The only figure that truly matters is the total money raised for the primary.

General Election funds are not available until after candidate is officially nominated at the convention on August 28, 2008.
Candidates will continue to raise and spend primary funds from the moment they become presumptive nominee (likely early in 2008) until the convention.
There is no question that the eventual nominee will be able to raise sufficient funds for the general election, so there is no strategic advantage to raising general election funds now.

In reality, the funds raised for the general election serve no purpose other than inflating a candidate's total.

The candidates who have raised the most general election money have done so because of a strategic decision to ask donors to write $4,600 checks (instead of the $2,300 per person allowed in the Primary).

The Obama Campaign has decided not to aggressively raise money for the general election (i.e. not ask all of our current maxed out donors to write a second check), because it doesn't help us win the nomination and would distract from our efforts to get as many contributors as possible, which we believe is ultimately the most important metric. In addition to providing the broadest financial base, a large number of contributors prov ides a foundation of volunteers for the caucuses and primaries. The Obama campaign currently has more than 240,000 contributors.

In media reporting on the second-quarter fundraising number, the only truly accurate measure of strength and support is to compare the amount of primary funds raised. The general election funds should be discounted and ignored. While it may be impossibl e to get an exact total of the primary funds raised right after the quarter ends, every campaign should be able to give you a good estimate of the breakdown.

Senator Barack Obama has a vast number of people supporting him for various reasons. But no one has more articulately expressed my reasons that Paul Moment in his blog. There are just some words that work so well together they make time stand still. In my view this set is one of them...

“Second, Obama looks like America at it’s best. The last thing we need after 8 years of angry white men is more of the same. Obama is a living reminder of how great it can be when people groups mingle and mix to create new strains of culture and knowledge and lifestyle.

His physical presence and personal history would be an amazing tribute in itself to the best of America — inclusion, opportunity, the melting pot, vigor, and an openness to new experience — and would be a living symbol wherever he went of how America’s identity and history is continually being reinvented and remixed in bold new ways.”

Supporters of Barack Obama will be taking part in 33 events in all 10 counties for Independence day.

The list of events can be found here:

Obama's Fourth of July Events

The events range from marches to tablings and a ton of meetups at various places. All of this while Senator Obama stumps in Iowa. And thus the untold story of this campaign: how the online group system causes people to form and work to support the Senator even when he's not there.

FAIRFIELD, IA -- If Barack Obama, in two appearances earlier in the day, fed hungry Democrats a few morsels of his wisdom, the senator served a seven course meal at day's end.
Obama called Fairfield "ground zero for the politics of hope." The pumped-up crowd whooped and whooped. Fairfield's sheriff told me that the crowd of roughly 1,000 was larger than those he sees when presidents visit.
Veteran Obama watchers told the novitiaties that they were witnessing Obama's full, unabridged, campaign-summarizing stump speech. One reason may have been the presence of C-SPAN cameras; Obama was live. Another might have been the venue: Fairfield really is a cistern of liberalism. And meditation. The town center is ringed with stories that testify to the town's uniqueness. "Revelation" "Somebody Cares." "Healthy Inspirations." Or maybe Obama saved his best performance for last.
In an era when everybody's heard every line of every conceivable stump speech, a good performance can be sublime. Obama came close.
This part of Obama's message really rings home in Fairfield: "What's missing here is not good plans, it's leadership," he says.
That line encapsulates his campaign's argument. In one neat phrase, it attempts to dispatch the questions about Obama's lack of government experience and dismiss the conventional argument that the content of one's plans matters more than the ability to see them into being.
A good performance can also be exhausting; Obama's lucky that the day ends now, that the convoy is rolling to our RON hotel, and he can get a good night's sleep.

LACONIA, N.H. (AP) _ Presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Monday resisted the temptation to talk about his whopping $31 million fundraising quarter _ for six minutes.

"It's a wonderful thing because we've got 250,000 people who are giving to our campaign," the Illinois senator said at a campaign rally. "People said we couldn't compete by trusting in the American people. There are a quarter million people who want a health care plan. ... There are at least a quarter million people who want to see this war in Iraq to end."

The campaign announced second-quarter fundraising totals that show him outraising Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by $10 million. Obama raised at least $31 million for the primary and $1.5 million for the general election, if he wins his party's nomination.

On Monday, Obama's campaign released the number of its online donors thus far: 110,000. Those donors have contributed $10.3 million during last quarter, bringing Obama's online totals to $17.2 million. Nine in 10 of those donors gave $100 or less.

The total is a record for a Democrat at this stage of a presidential contest and ensures his place as a top contender for the nomination. It steals the spotlight from Clinton, his main rival. And it establishes the two of them as the fundraising juggernauts of the entire presidential field.

"It's not about me. The reason people are coming out is because they are burning with a desire and want for change," Obama said, repeating his oft-used explanation for his candidacy. "People feel a sense of urgency about what is happening in the country right now. ... We've placed our faith in the core decency of the American people."

Everyone hear that? That was the $32.5 million sound of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's inevitability melting away in the summer heat. Clinton aides can talk about polls, endorsements, and even trot out (as they are today) the single most popular Democrat on the planet, but that ignores the inconvenient fact that no actual human being has technically voted yet. As for some other measurements -- energy, enthusiasm, and (of course) financing, the edge at this mid-year moment belongs to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

Obama brought in a cool $10 million more than Clinton did in primary dollars during the second quarter -- a gap greater than former senator John Edwards' entire fund-raising haul for the three-month period. Clinton, D-N.Y., is also raising astronomical sums, and Edwards, D-N.C., is attracting enough cash to stay in the game, but something very real is powering the Obama campaign.

By the eye-popping numbers: Obama brought in more than $32.5 million in 90 days -- all but $1.5 million of it earmarked for the primaries -- for a six-month haul of $58 million, from 258,000 different donors. Forgetting for a moment the unavoidable (and instructive) comparisons to Howard Dean, in a word, Wow. "Obama's fundraising pace puts his candidacy on a course to match and possibly exceed the resources available to Clinton, a former first lady who came to the campaign with extensive ties to the Democratic establishment and a ready-made donor base," write Mike Dorning and John McCormick of the Chicago Tribune.

This is the backdrop ready for former President Bill Clinton upon his return to the campaign stage today. With much of the field hitting Iowa this week, he'll be there with his wife for a four-day campaign swing that starts tonight with an 8:30 pm ET rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds.

If this does bring a boost (and realize how little attention there is these days to the downside of putting the former president on the trail), the Clinton campaign needs it: The leader in national polls already had an Iowa problem, and now she has an Obama problem that runs deeper than dollar signs. "Hillary Clinton may be the one consistently coming out top when Democratic voters are asked who they want to be their presidential candidate, but Barack Obama seems to be the one they reach into their wallets for," write Politico's Ben Smith and Richard Allen Greene.

One final point illuminated by the numbers: The Democratic field looks like it has three tiers now -- Obama and Clinton at the top, Edwards and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., in the next grouping, and everyone else bringing up the rear. Edwards reported topping $9 million for the quarter (meeting his publicly stated goal) while Richardson brought in $7 million --

respectable sums that were eclipsed by the top tier. The Edwards and Richardson camps say they are on track to compete in the early-voting states, but all the candidates are being lapped by Obama and Clinton. "An important subtext arising from the latest round of fund-raising reports is the growing distance between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton and the second-tier candidates," writes The Wall Street Journal's Brody Mullins.

Obama Adds Campaign Cash in Minnesota
San Francisco Examiner | June 30, 2007
By Brian Bakst

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama padded his campaign fundraising numbers Friday with small-and-big buck events, telling one overflow crowd he'd champion an energy revolution on the homefront and improve America's foreign reputation as president.

Organizers estimated 3,000 people paid between $15 and $25 for rally at a warehouse-turned-office building and they were counting on a couple hundred at a private reception for larger donors.

It marked Obama's first visit to Minnesota as a presidential candidate. Two of his rivals, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, swung through weeks earlier.

At the larger event, supporters stood elbow-to-elbow all around the stage and hundreds more leaned over four balconies that ringed the building's atrium to hear the first-term Illinois senator.

"Sometimes when I look around and see these wonderful faces from every walk of life, I say to myself 'It's tempting to think it's all about me and I'm just so fabulous," Obama said. "But when I'm honest with myself I have to admit that's not the reason people are coming out. The reason people are coming out is because all around the country people are ready for change."

"There are people with a sense of urgency, with a sense of passion that want to see a different America," he added.

His roughly 30-minute speech echoed themes he's hitting as he flies around the country. He promised to phase out U.S. troops in Iraq being "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." On energy, he advocated a 45 mile per gallon fuel economy standard for cars.

"It is well within existing technological capabilities," he said. "We can replace the equivalent of all the oil we import from the Persian Gulf."

It was a disproportionately youthful crowd, many of whom have never voted in a presidential election.

Community college student John Oen, 19, and two friends held down a spot a few feet from the stage - their prize for being near the front of a line that snaked four blocks long.

"He looks the part. He looks like a president," Oen said. "He definitely acts the part."

Like many in the audience, Carl Noren learned of the event over the Internet and bought a $15 student ticket. General admission was $25, and those who came were added to Obama's rapidly expanding donor list that now exceeds 250,000 for the year.

"He's the most charismatic, he makes the most sense," said Noren, a 19-year-old University of South Dakota student. "He's all around the best candidate the Democrats could get for the next election."

Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak marveled at the turnout.

"This is the most genuine grass roots campaign I've ever seen," Rybak said.

Minnesota Republicans took a less charitable view.

"All the media hype in the world can't obscure the fact that Barack Obama lacks the experience, leadership and accomplishments necessary to be commander in chief," said state GOP chairman Ron Carey.

From the rally, Obama headed to a private, higher-dollar fundraiser at the riverfront house of a couple known for raising loads of money for Democrats.