by Mike Dorning
Most of the political press is focused on Iowa, where candidates are crisscrossing the state in a final frenzy of campaigning before the caucuses three days away But Barack Obama’s campaign this afternoon highlighted its organizational strength in the next field of battle, New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
Obama’s campaign claimed in a press release e-mailed to reporters that it has organized an “unprecedented Get Out the Vote effort” that it says “is unlike anything the Granite State has ever seen.
Though it’s always wise to treat last-minute claims from campaigns cautiously—political operatives have been known to exaggerate at times to foster impressions of momentum—the Obama campaign has consistently demonstrated organizational strength in early primary states.
The Obama campaign claimed that in New Hampshire volunteers and staff have made nearly 1.5 million phone calls this year and knocked on more than 340,000 doors on behalf of the candidates.
The campaign claimed it has identified more than 15,000 new supporters during December alone and that more than 850 volunteers canvassed the state this past weekend.
It claimed more than 700 town and ward captains in the state to lead primary-day voter mobilization. The campaign says “thousands” of volunteers have signed up to work for the campaign on primary day and the days leading up to it.
And, highlighting efforts to mobilize younger voters, the Obama campaign said that at Dartmouth College—the only school in session on primary day—more than 150 volunteers will participate in an on-campus voter turnout effort.
More than 1,000 New Hampshire college students have already voted for Barack Obama in the primary, presumably by absentee ballot, the campaign said.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Now here's a much more informative piece about Barack:
Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article
Enjoy the read, and Happy New Year everybody!
Posted by: MJ | December 31, 2007 5:29 PM
Now here's a much more informative piece about Barack:
Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article
Enjoy the read, and Happy New Year everybody!
Posted by: MJ | December 31, 2007 5:29 PM
MJ,that dog isn't going to hunt.Nice try.If your guy became Prez with his backround,your just peeing in the wind with that story.
George W. Bush insider trading allegations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Allegations of insider trading have been made against George W. Bush, later elected President of the United States, for his 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Corporation, of which he was a director. The sale raised the issue of whether it constituted illegal insider trading.
In House of Bush, House of Saud, Craig Unger asserts that at the time of Bush's sale, Harken Energy "was expected to run out of money in just three days" (p. 123). In a last-ditch attempt to save the company, Harken was advised by the endowment fund of Harvard University to spin-off two of its lower-performing divisions–"According to a Harken memo, if the plan did not go through, the company had 'no other source of immediate financing.'" Bush had already taken out a $500,000 loan and sought Harken's general counsel for advice. The reply was explicit: "The act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information... the insider should be advised not to sell." This memo was turned over by Bush's attorney the day after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that it would not charge Bush with insider trading. Bush's motivation for selling was his desire to pay down the debt incurred funding the purchase of his interest in the baseball team.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 31, 2007 8:34 PM
Now here's a much more informative piece about Barack:
Obama's Rezko ties deeper than land deal
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,122306obama.article
Enjoy the read, and Happy New Year everybody!
Posted by: MJ | December 31, 2007 5:29 PM
MJ,that dog isn't going to hunt.Nice try.If your guy became Prez with his backround,your just peeing in the wind with that story.
George W. Bush insider trading allegations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Allegations of insider trading have been made against George W. Bush, later elected President of the United States, for his 1990 sale of stock in Harken Energy Corporation, of which he was a director. The sale raised the issue of whether it constituted illegal insider trading.
In House of Bush, House of Saud, Craig Unger asserts that at the time of Bush's sale, Harken Energy "was expected to run out of money in just three days" (p. 123). In a last-ditch attempt to save the company, Harken was advised by the endowment fund of Harvard University to spin-off two of its lower-performing divisions–"According to a Harken memo, if the plan did not go through, the company had 'no other source of immediate financing.'" Bush had already taken out a $500,000 loan and sought Harken's general counsel for advice. The reply was explicit: "The act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information... the insider should be advised not to sell." This memo was turned over by Bush's attorney the day after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ruled that it would not charge Bush with insider trading. Bush's motivation for selling was his desire to pay down the debt incurred funding the purchase of his interest in the baseball team.
Posted by: Raving Loon | December 31, 2007 8:35 PM
For years I have anticipated the last day of George Bush's presidency; fantasized about it, if you want to call it that. I picture a cold but sunny January Inauguration day. Bush looking like a fidgety junior high student in a too-big formal winter coat. He's desperate for the day to end so he can retreat to Crawford and do whatever history's least popular president does with the rest of his life--I couldn't care less. I despise the guy. The enormous crowd is respectful of the day's solemnity but they are still restless, exuberant, eager to celebrate the end of the nightmare. The world is watching.
And then Bush finally takes his place to wait for the new president to take the oath of office.
The faster America and the world put the Bush presidency behind us the better, because it will take decades, even generations, to undo the damage inflicted during these eight years. Some of the wounds (Iraq, global warming) may well be beyond repair. But there is absolutely no time to waste: Not one day; not one second.
Barack Obama is my choice for the first post-Bush/Cheney presidency. I feel that he has a unique global sensibility, intelligence, good judgment and solid, achievable policy proposals. I am in agreement with The Portsmouth (NH) Herald's Obama endorsement:
"More than any of the other Democrats in the race, we believe Obama has made the most compelling and persuasive case for his candidacy....All of the Democratic candidates have produced volumes of thoughtful and detailed proposals, and with most, there are only shades of differences between them.
What separates Obama is a positive vision combined with a unique temperament for leadership. He combines the best attributes of competence and political inspiration. He inspires trust that he will make sound judgments".
We will have to trust that Obama possesses certain presidential job qualifications, and I do. Has he logged lots of face time with a coterie of world leaders? No. But as the Iowa City Press-Citizen noted in their endorsement of Obama, those meetings are often the easier part of implementing a president's policies--both foreign and domestic:
"The hard part is knowing the people -- whether it's those Americans living the relatively average life that he and his wife lived until just a few years ago, whether it's the people who live in the south side Chicago neighborhoods in which Obama was an organizer, or whether it's the people who live in the same isolated Kenyan village as Obama's grandmother".
Perhaps the most highly touted example of Obama's judgment, of course, is his opposition to the Iraq invasion. This topic has been debated endlessly and I have nothing more to add here except to say that this is a dealbreaker for me. I never expect to agree with every move a candidate or president makes, but I won't support a primary candidate who voted in favor of the invasion and I certainly credit Obama's foresight on this issue.
Then there is Obama's much-discussed ability to negotiate, build consensus and find common ground with others. He used this to good effect in community organizing and when he made inroads in the often glacially slow Illinois senate. Some have criticized him for this willingness and pragmatism, somehow pegging it as a weakness. But I'm not sure how Barack Obama--with his unusual name, Kansan mother and absent Kenyan father--could have grown to adulthood and developed any other disposition. His obvious cultural differences forced him out of the usual comfort zone, made him have to trust and connect with people on their turf. In their endorsement of Obama, the Nashua Telegraph said he distinguished himself from the usual politicos:
"What's lacking is authenticity, transparency and courtesy. What's lacking (in most politicians) are leaders who, rather than seeking high ground from which they can dispatch their opponents, will seek common ground and common-sense solutions".
I also interpret this as a healthy impatience on Obama's part--the realization that we have much, so much to accomplish and that we had better put our egos aside and get to work. Impatience, in my view, gets a bad rap. I say this as an often impatient, cut-to-the-chase person but I understand and appreciate give-and-take--what do we need to do to make something happen? How far apart are we? What is negotiable, what isn't? Let's move it along, let's get it done.
It's also very important to me that the next president have some sense of connection to the world. I remember being disgusted that George Bush--with all of his wealth and family connections--travelled little before he became president at age 54! He had none of the limitations that the rest of us have to consider--money, jobs, family concerns--but he was too lazy, stupid and incurious to stray from the standard Bush family-approved stomping grounds. The Boston Globe, in its endorsement of Obama, explains why this is broader worldview is so crucial in the post-Bush years:
"The first American president of the 21st century has not appreciated the intricate realities of our age. The next president must. The most sobering challenges that face this country - terrorism, climate change, disease pandemics - are global. America needs a president with an intuitive sense of the wider world, with all its perils and opportunities. Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has this understanding at his core".
Some of these reasons I support Obama crystallized when I recently looked back on my first trip to Europe exactly 20 years ago and remembered how it exponentially increased my understanding of the world. And oddly, for some reason I couldn't stop thinking about the then-divided city of Berlin, which I also saw for the first and only time on that trip. I've visited a fair number of places before and since then, but 1987 Berlin still sticks with me almost more than any other place I've ever seen.
The Berlin Wall would fall two years after I saw it. By 1987 restrictions had loosened; people were crossing between East and West Berlin with visas, although armed guards still loomed in towers and at checkpoints (I understand there's now a McDonald's at Checkpoint Charlie). Yet the dreariness and oppression on the East side were still palapable, particularly compared to freewheeling in-your-face West Berlin, a place which pretty much gave a middle finger to Communism. For me Berlin was one of those indelible reminders of the pure luck and randomness of where you are born or live.
One obvious discrepancy: If you were lucky enough to live in West Berlin, for example, you shopped on the Kufurstendamm--a long boulevard that is essentially a big sloppy wet kiss to capitalism and the joys of of luxury shopping (Rolex, Spode, Chanel). But East Berliners--mere yards away, separated by the graffiti-drenched wall--made do with one big department store, Centrum, a hideous example of 60's Communist architecture.
To give you an idea of Centrum's ambience: The paper goods department displayed boxes of coarse plain white stationery right next to a barrel of unwrapped rolls of equally coarse plain white toilet tissue because they were both, I guess, considered paper products. Why doll it up? If you wanted a nicer shopping experience, tough--you should live in West Berlin.
Recently I've thought that the George Bushes (Republican) of the world would never have been stuck on the "other" side of the Wall; East Berlin, in their view, was for suckers (just like New Orleans during Katrina, or Iraq since 2003) Too bad for you. You didn't have the right connections or know the right people.
The Barack Obamas--and any just about any Democrat--know that there is no "other"; we can't breathe a sigh of relief that we weren't in the Astrodome or Baghdad. Obama knows how purely fortunate he is to live in the US and this realization fairly radiates out of him. He seems a happy person, a grateful person, someone who wants to solve problems, knowing full well that the solutions might not lend themselves to easy soundbites. Obama impressed the Nashua Telegraph editorial board during their pre-endorsement interview:
"During these (editorial board) meetings (with the various candidates), Obama stood out; he thought deeply about the answer to each question we asked him. He spoke neither in safe, pre-scripted talking points nor in divisive polemic. He was able to give nuanced answers to questions without sounding like he was avoiding taking a position.
And he, better than any of the other candidates, was able to define common goals that make for common ground, while debating the issues that divide the country most deeply".
So, anyway, back to my Inaugural daydream. The thousands of people gathered in DC are impatient, eager, ready to burst. After Bush takes his place the new president-elect rises to take the oath of office.
He has a background, face and sensibility unlike any previous president. It's a start. We have elected him and the world is, for the most part, ready to at least give us a chance again.
The time is here. The nightmare is over. AT LAST. At long last.
Then Barack Obama steps forward and our future finally begins.
Posted by: ObamaGirl | December 31, 2007 10:15 PM
Raving Loon,
I have to admit that you were honest choosing your post name.
As for "my guy", he isn't (never was) anybody named Bush.
Since you enjoyed that link, here are a couple of more for you (maybe you missed them earlier):
Barack Obama Inc.: The birth of a Washington machine
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/09/pacs_and_lobbyists_aided_obamas_rise/
Plenty more where those came from, folks.
Posted by: MJ | December 31, 2007 10:37 PM
Oh, by the way Loonie, thank you very much for pointing out that Obama is just another greedy sleaze like Bush. I could've have said it better myself.
Posted by: MJ | December 31, 2007 10:42 PM
John E Obama Girl Paolo:
You're not a writer. Do everybody a favor (and save yourself some embarrassment) and keep it short.
Oh, by the way, Bush isn't running in 08.
Posted by: MJ | January 1, 2008 10:08 AM