Bravo Earl!!!

As a long-time Hillary supporter, I want to start by saying that I despise the large cadre of self-righteous Obamanistas that litter the blogs with their caustic, anti-Hillary drivel which serves only one purpose, and that is to divide the Democratic Party at the very time we most need to be united. (Disclaimer: I don't lump every Obama supporter in with the group I have described above; I have had many a discussion with rational Obama supporters who support him for other than the sole reason of being a frothing-at-the-mouth loather of Hillary Clinton.) Having said that, I am now throwing my lot in with Barack Obama.

Although I believe Hillary is being given a horribly unfair shake, and it's only a testament to the strength of the right wing smear campaign that people on the far left hate Hillary as much as those on the far right, to put it bluntly, dem's da breaks. She has been built up into such a boogeyman over the past 30 years that i just don't know if she can win, especially given the dynamic that conservatives are now seemingly swallowing their bile to rally around McCain. That, plus his appeal with independents may just be enough to undo a Hillary candidacy, whereas with Obama I think the independents will more likely break our way. While I still like both candidates and will enthusiastically support our eventual nominee, I've been asking myself questions about our candidates, both from a tactical point of view (how to win this election) and a strategic point of view (how to advance the progressive agenda in America.) While from a mangerial standpoint I think Hillary is by far the strongest candidate, that won't mean a thing if we've got that crazy hawk McCain with his finger on the button come next January. I just hope that Obama's got a plan for putting all that pretty rhetoric of his into action, because I'm going to vote for him in Oregon's primary (which might actually matter this year, given the closeness of this primary race.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes

WOO-HOO!!! ¡Sí se puede!

We just have to ask ourselves, do we want to go back into the 1990's or forward into the 21st century? Cong. Blumenauer has rightly chosen the latter.

I wanted to hotlink the above referenced Nation article, because it is a very good read. It's not Obama cheer-leading so much as a walk through some of the reasons why progressives should get behind Obama.

I hope Edwards follows Earl's lead on this...

Good for Earl. I was proud to cast a ballot for him the first time I ever voted, and this just reinforces that earlier support. If Clinton wins, I hope this endorsement would not dissuade her from making Blumenauer Sec. of Transportation.

Well said. I was glad that at the debate last night Obama and Clinton both made that point. One of the more heartening things about the race between the two of them is that they are debating who is better at getting the liberal program enacted – they are not arguing over if there should or should not be a liberal program.

Well done, Earl.

Governor Ted, there is still time to switch your endorsement...

To the ex-Clinton supporter upset with the self-righteous "Obamanistas", you have my apologies as an Obama supporter. It should be everyone's goal to maintain a high level of respect and graciousness in political discourse, especially supporters of a man of such class that would surely never stoop to the level of some of his supporters.

But having been on his side for sometime, please know that we feel the same way about some Hillary suppporters who's caustic attacks on US have been offensive. Such things are inevitable with popular candidates that are going to pull in a wide array of voters. Do not hold it against Obama in the slightest, please :)

So long we will breathe, we will hope! Thank you, Earl! Now convince Peter and Ron to do the same! :)

To the ex-Clinton supporter upset with the self-righteous "Obamanistas", you have my apologies as an Obama supporter. It should be everyone's goal to maintain a high level of respect and graciousness in political discourse, especially supporters of a man of such class that would surely never stoop to the level of some of his supporters.

But having been on his side for sometime, please know that we feel the same way about some Hillary suppporters who's caustic attacks on US have been offensive. Such things are inevitable with popular candidates that are going to pull in a wide array of voters. Do not hold it against Obama in the slightest, please :)

So long we will breathe, we will hope! Thank you, Earl! Now convince Peter and Ron to do the same! :)

Let's see if I understand this. The attacks Hillary is now getting from the left is a testament to the right wing smear campaigns? I would say that some on the left have finally opened their eyes to what has been clear to the right all along. You had a president who was accused of sexual assault by numerous women. He settled a lawsuit for exposing himself to Paula Jones for $850,000 WHY? Were all those other women lying? He got invoved with an intern and lied to the country and a court commiting perjury (that's a crime if you don't know it). They had IRS audits of the women who accused him of sexual assault, (that's abuse of power), they had FBI files of their political enemies (Nixon was run out of office and an aid put in prison for ONE). They massacred 80+ men, women and CHILDREN at Waco and no one was held accountable. They passed on chances to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden, that gave us 911. Stop blaming the right and clean up your own house. These two are poison, reject them both.

So, do people think that Obama's the man to redraw the map? Which Bush states go for Obama instead of McCain, and why can't Clinton do the same? Make the case.

I'd like to see this too; I know there are a lot of people here who are very into the nuts and bolts of the electoral process and can probably make a good argument based on those types of things.

My inclination is just based on my own gut feeling; I think that Obama is a fresh face at a time when a vastly larger share of the electorate than usual is ready for someone new. We all know the Republicans' well of (crappy) ideas has long since run dry.

My biggest fear with Hillary as our candidate is a depressed electorate on the 'ABC' left, and a rabidly energized 'Hillary is the Devil' group on the far right conspiring (unintentionally, I would hope, for the most part) with independents to give the Rs yet another narrow presidential victory. (To say nothing of the one that was stolen from us and President Gore in '00.) It sort of sticks in my craw to put it like that; in some ways it feels like capitulation to the ABC crowd and the Iraq War purity trolls. But it's reality. And, like it or not, the 'I's have been the deciding factor the last few times around (look at how their breaking our way in '06 gave us Congress), and I think most independents would vote for Obama over McCain, but possibly McCain over Hillary.

I have no numbers to back this up; you could say I'm talking out my ass. Wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of that. That just seems to be what my thinking has distilled down to as of late, after years of paying far too much attention to the whole glorious mess that is American politics.

I love Hillary; I feel a strong sense of loyalty to her. But sometimes pragmatism has to win out: with Obama, I can see us winning either in a landslide or in a close race. With Hillary, I can see us either winning or losing a close one, and there's too much at stake here to give the Republicans a third shot at the helm.

frank3108,

i rest my case.

I still think that Obama is not right choice. He has nothing to do with working people. His life was easy compare to many in needs. He also not strong against criticism. Media supporting him a lot. That is another reason; I don’t want to cast my vote for populist reason. I am behind Hillary all the way.

“He has nothing to do with working people.”

Yeah, because being a community organizer or civil rights attorney has nothing to do with the needs of working people.

Thank you Earl for showing the courage to stand up at this critical stage where the nomination is very much in play. You join our State legislators Chip Shields, Ben Cannon, and Larry Galizio that got on board the Obama campaign months ago when we were still over 20 points behind in the polls.

While we will welcome the rest of the legislators and Congressional delegation after what we hope will be a successful Super Tuesday, those who are standing up for Barack now and have stood up previously deserve special thanks for their endorsements.

And PDXheist, all I can say is welcome aboard the Obama train! We are very happy to count you and the others that have been switching over from Hillary's campaign among Barack's supporters.

you give the Franks too much credit and the rest of us too little.

T.A.,

When I said I rest my case, I was talking about the venom coming from the ABC crowd, not the large group of positive Obama supporters, to whom I gave props in my initial posting. Give me a little time to nurse my wounds; I'm still fresh from the Hillary camp and feel a little bit like a traitor, but I'm sure I'll get over it. ;0)

I took an honest look at why, for a time, I was so turned off by the Obama camp, and it wasn't Barack. It was the invective that came from the Franks in that group, and I realized that that was a pretty bad reason to oppose such a worthy candidate. While I'm sure Tucker is right and that there is bad blood on both sides, the vast number of vicious, poisonous attacks by progressives against D candidates that I personally have read were directed against Hillary, and it really threw me.

Being new to the Obama bandwagon (yes, my girlfriend said it to me earlier today; I jumped right on,) my biggest concerns about him have yet to be allayed though, and I spoke to them earlier: can he bring about the positive change he hopes to effect? How far across the aisle can you reach in an effort to be inclusive before you lose where you were standing? To be trite, the 'where's the beef?' quip levelled by Hillary against Obama isn't entirely without merit.

However valuable and laudable his community activism and brief political career have been, sitting in the Oval Office is a whole different ballgame, and when he gets there, I just hope he isn't shellshocked into some sort of idealistic dithering. Therein lies my greatest fear about an Obama presidency. Still, I think he is a good man, an honest man, and those aren't half bad reasons to give someone your vote. I guess that, and electability, are what it boils down to for me as the day draws nearer.

Few politicians campaigning for office ever live up to their promises and their rhetoric, and I wouldn't bet on Obama being among the exceptions. However, he has the potential to give this nation some things it badly needs - inspiration to come and work together to repair the damage resulting from the polarities created by Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay and the neocons in the mid-90s and motivation for the younger generation to take an interest in and support progressive politics. If he can get 75% of the people to support programs that will work for the common good and repair the damage of the past four presidencies then he will be able to claim to be a good president. No one should have illusions about Obama being the perfect president, but he gives every indication so far of being much better then the remaining very bad bunch.

As a NAV I plan to re-register to vote for Steve Novick. Obama makes another reason for a temporary return to Democratic status.

I have always believed that a true leader must inspire. That is the role they are called to fulfill.

To think of a President as a manager is a huge mistake I think. The most effective people are those who can inspire others to their cause, and allow those others with all of their expertise to put their effort forward.

But to build that onrush of support, they must inspire.

Abraham Lincoln was president after only one term in the Senate. It was not his experienced that enabled him to guide our country through enormous and painful change, it was his qualities as a leader.

I long supported the Clintons for re-election. But sometime last spring I began to see Obamas ability to inspire me, and to inspire others. Most notably, his ability to attract and draw new people to his cause.

This is a powerful talent that cannot be taught, trained, nor faked. You either have the power to excite others to your cause or you do not. He does, and that is why he is a truly special leader.

I am happy Mr. Blumenhauer has decided to put his support forward for Obama. As a Democrat, it is his duty to consider the desires of his constituents and that is what he did.

My own Representative, Darlene Hooley (Blumenhauer was ours for years!), announced her support for the Clintons last August, long and well before her constituents were able to tell her of their own feelings towards the candidates.

There is a notable difference between those who take up the torch of their constituents, and those who take up their own. I miss being in Mr. Blumenhauers district.

To Viki, and everyone else who thinks Obama doesn't understand the working man,

Senator Obama spent his first night in New York sleeping in an alleyway. His first apartment, a tiny one-bedroom, was infested with rats and cockroaches. Let me ask you, do you think that Hillary Clinton (raised in a very wealthy suburb of Chicago) ever slept in an alleyway? Do you think she ever lived in a rat infested slum?

Senator Obama spent a decade working on the streets of Chicago, helping people find health care, get new jobs, create after school programs for their kids. Sorry, when it comes to who understands the working people of this country, Obama is clearly the winner.

Recently I've discovered at least one thing about her (Hillary) that surprised and pleased me -- she has overtly said that she will cooperate in helping to roll back Bush's illegal power grabs for the presidency (how completely I'm not sure).

Despite having been firmly planted in the anybody-but-Clinton (ABC) camp fairness requires that I add to Chris's credit for Hillary. Carl Bernstein commented on CNN this week that Hillary opposed Slick Willy on NAFTA. However, these credits are not enough to make me pro-Hillary; although, I will vote for her if she gets the nomination and runs against the war- and presidency-addicted McCain. Eight years of the Clintons in the White House were seven years too many. On the other hand, I'm not totally persuaded that Hillary will roll back all of the imperial power that Bush, Cheney and Rove accumulated for the presidency.

It would be great if Obama would make a similar pledge. Making Bush II an aberration rather than a precedent is key work if Ds gain the White HOuse & retain Congress.

Agreed to wholeheartedly. I would also like to have them take a pledge to bring an end to the Zionist-Likud-Kadima tail wagging the American dog, but that would require indulging in fantasies to expect such an event.

David said, "I have always believed that a true leader must inspire. That is the role they are called to fulfill."

Here's what Kucinich, an actual progressive with a true progressive message, had to say to Chris Hedges about your "leaders" (http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/20080106_a_conversation_with_dennis_kucinich):

"...what they're actually doing is unwittingly contributing to the destruction of the Democratic Party itself by saying that 'these are the only points of view that we will deem acceptable within the Democratic Party.' And those points of view are generally reinforcing the corporate mentality inside the party. And that's very destructive of the democracy. It actually contributes to the undermining of the hope for legitimate debate within a democratic society...if you look at the track of preparing for another war against Iran the same people - Sens. Clinton, Edwards and Obama - all said of Iran that 'all options are on the table,' licensing George Bush's aggressive rhetoric and preparations against Iran. They said that, each one of them."

In a true democracy, people do not clamor for "leaders" but rather choose those who represent their own perspectives. The fact that a non-representative (on foreign policy, trade policy, and impeachment of war criminals) like Blumenauer has linked with Obama is one more reason to leave the Democrat Party and support a true progressive.

Bill Bodden said, "I would also like to have them take a pledge to bring an end to the Zionist-Likud-Kadima tail wagging the American dog, but that would require indulging in fantasies to expect such an event."

It is the Blumenauer faction of the Democrat Party that has supported the Israeli extreme right for ideological reasons, and Clinton and Obama, like their corporate brethren in the Republican Party, see the value of the Israeli contribution to U.S. empire. This continuing claim that Zionists are "wagging the American dog" is one more attempt to relieve ourselves of responsibility for our own crimes. If you want to end Israeli crimes, you must reject "leaders" like Obama or Clinton (or Blumenauer).

States that will go for Obama that didn't go for Kerry:

Colorado (youth vote and independents) Louisiana (very motivated African-American population) Missouri (overwhelming margin in St. Louis) Virginia (both A-As in south/rural and well-educated in north turn out for him, esp. if Warner is his Veep) maybe Georgia, which would be amazing. maybe Ohio. It depends on how bad the economy is.

That's enough for an Obama landslide right there. Go Obama '08!

Chris said, "Democrats who are willing to be critical of Israel and of unconditional U.S. support of Israel are few [and] far between..."

Yes, and that is another reason why progressives should leave the party. Kucinich is the only one to my knowledge who has had the guts to take a moral position.

I agree with you about the prevalence of anti-Arab anti-semitism by both Democrats and Republicans, and about the bigotry of demigoguing "populists" like Buchanan. But I will not stand by idly while anti-semitic (of the Jewish kind) comments about the Zionist control of America receive no criticism from "progressive" Democrats.

Incidentally, "Christian Zionism" is a contradiction in terms, since few real Zionists look forward to burning in hell for eternity.

Another aspect of the "Blumenauer faction" is its support for neoliberal economic policies.

From Lee Sustar's piece on Obama: "In Latin America, they've got a name for the kind of politics that Sen. Barack Obama represents: neoliberalism with a human face. It's an attempt to revive an unpopular free-market, pro-business agenda behind the leadership of someone whose personal history suggests an affinity with the exploited and oppressed."

This continuing claim that Zionists are "wagging the American dog" is one more attempt to relieve ourselves of responsibility for our own crimes. If you want to end Israeli crimes, you must reject "leaders" like Obama or Clinton (or Blumenauer).

Harry K: For the most part I agree with your points, the problem is that those of us who forecast this election would again be one of choosing the lesser of two or the least of three evils are being proved right. The alternative to the Clintons or Obama and his organization looks likely to be John McCain who has the potential to be catastrophically worse. Consider him in the White House with this history: On June 8th, 1967 the USS Liberty, flying a clearly visible American flag off the Gaza coast, was deliberately attacked by Israeli Defense Forces with a mission ordered by Moshe Dayan to sink the ship and kill all crew members. John McCain's father, Admiral John McCain, Jr., commander of US naval forces in Europe participated in the coverup ordered by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara, thus betraying the murdered and maimed personnel under his command. What would President McCain do if a similar incident occurred?

This, along with the other major recent endorsements for Obama have been just incredible to hear. Maybe I'm just not tuning in to other politician's gossip and news, but I can't remember the last time that a politician has received so much praise so often. This is truly an exciting time.

The "Blumenauer faction" is the DLC-based mainstream of Democrat Party "leadership". Obama is directly in the triangulating middle of it, as are the Clintons.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/75750/?page=entire:

"The Apprentice is the only explanation for Obama's appeal: his perfectly bland, business-friendly swagger makes him exactly the sort of African-American who'd earn Trump's approval. For a country that's spent the last 30 years sucking up to their bosses in direct proportion to the contempt that their bosses show to them, it's only fitting that they'd swoon over Obama."

Christians who believe that Jews need to slaughter and torture Arabs so that the end of days will come sooner and so that Jews can then be relegated to hell are not Zionists. The term once referred to many different political perspectives, including socialist ones, but it never referred to this abomination called "Christian Zionism".

This U.S.S. Liberty story keeps coming up in anti-Semitic rants. It was 1967, a year I remember very well. I was in the streets then, protesting U.S. imperialism. I also was opposed, as I am now, to U.S. support for Israeli crimes. Crimes committed against a U.S. naval vessel (and what were they doing there, anyway?) are no worse than crimes committed against anyone else. If you want to stop U.S.-Israel crimes, you should reject "leaders" like Obama, Clinton and Blumenauer, and not merely rant about Zionists.

About McCain: This is the same drivel that Democrats bring out every 4 years, as Kucinich said. At what point will you stop supporting the (possibly) lesser of two or three evils? I see no reason to suppose that Clinton or Obama would act much differently than McCain on the issues that I care most about. The fact that they might slaughter and torture in Iraq less than 100 years does not reassure me. Besides, as Kucinich implies, the continuing failure of your party to represent its constituency will most probably lead to another disaster in the next election. No doubt you will blame it on the Zionists this time, unless Nader runs and you can have an Arab to blame.

"The "Blumenauer faction" is the DLC-based mainstream of Democrat Party "leadership". Obama is directly in the triangulating middle of it, as are the Clintons. "

I knew Earl when we were Hart delegates in 1984---for those who don't know, that was an anti-establishment campaign which did really well in Oregon. Saying that an Alternet post about a bland debate makes Earl (and his "faction"?) connected to DLC sounds like someone who doesn't want serious debate.

My memory of DLC is "agree with 100% of our platform or we will call you names". That doesn't fit the Earl I have known for years who is a lot more thoughtful and open minded than that.

Maybe Harry K. is just calling names because he does not want serious discussion of issues.

I understand why you Earl worshipers want to change the topic to 1984 (read Orwell) or to truncated definitions of DLC. It's nice that Earl was "anti-establishment" in 1984 (although my memory of Hart differs from yours), but he is most definitely establishment now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxR6whr2NFw

http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2003/8-1-03Trade.html

Blumenauer is a serial disinformer in addition to being an apologist for crimes against humanity. Earl claims, for example, that his original vote for unending Bush slaughter and torture in 2001 was only for Afghanistan (bad enough, since the people of Afghanistan were not responsible for al Qaeda), although Barbara Lee knew that it authorized Bush to use military force against "anyone associated" with 9/11, i.e., anyone Bush chooses.

Earl is a triangulator in the Hillary/Obama mode, and he will carefully peruse the latest polls in determining whether or not morality should count. He and the Democrats could have stopped the occupation of Iraq yesterday if they had either kept the appropriations bills from emerging from committee (see: Obey and/or Kucinich) or if they had filibustered appropriations bills.

Earl and most of Pelosico are security risks for America because of their their open-ended support for U.S.-Israel crimes, which inflames the Arab/Muslim world, and which therefore makes future attacks on us far more likely. Their enthusiasm for neoliberal economics, including trade deals that are opposed by most liberal activists, further endanger our country as well as the rest of the world.

Earl's waffling on war funding (he's for it if it involves non-binding provisions) is a serious matter, and I wish you "progressives" were more concerned with that than with whether or not you're going to win the next election. It's my understanding that a Green candidate will be opposing Earl in the next election, and all real progressives should give him a listen.

Harry, Harry, Harry, how many times do you have to be reminded that the House does not filibuster? That's only the Senate. Why does the brick wall of the Bush Administration never figure into your arguments about why Iraq was not stopped yesterday?

Back to the point. Go Earl for the right endorsement at the right time.

"Harry, Harry, Harry, how many times do you have to be reminded that the House does not filibuster?"

thinkB4speak, thinkB4speak, thinkB4speak: What I said was: "He and the Democrats could have stopped the occupation yesterday if they had either kept the appropriations bills from emerging from committee (see: Obey and/or Kucinich) or if they had filibustered appropriations bills." There are Democrats in the Senate as well as in the House, are there not? And Blumenauer could have called on the Senate to filibuster if he had been so inclined, which he is not.

The "brick wall" of the Bush Administration could have been cracked long ago if Democrats' ideological tendencies were different than Republicans'. The history of U.S. hegemony extends far beyond 2000, and includes Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and, yes, even your sainted Kennedy. When has your party run on a platform of significant cuts in our obscene military spending? When have you demanded a significant reduction in the more than 730 military bases around the world? When have you called for even-handed treatment of the Palestinian people? Shame on you.

It's funny that people who see Obamary as necessary to defeat the evil McCain forget that their wonderful candidate John Kerry picked McCain as his first choice for running mate in '04:

(06-12) 04:00 PST Washington -- John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly and personally asked Sen. John McCain, the independent-minded Arizona Republican, to consider being his running mate, but McCain has refused, people who have spoken to both men said Friday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/12/MNGOB7598R1.DTL&type=printable

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2004/04/06/kerry_aides_see_mccain_as_perfect_running_mate.html

McCain was the same wingnut imperialist four years ago that he is today. Be honest: Who on blueoregon thought he was a great choice then?

The history of U.S. hegemony extends far beyond 2000, and includes Clinton, Carter, Johnson, and, yes, even your sainted Kennedy. When has your party run on a platform of significant cuts in our obscene military spending? When have you demanded a significant reduction in the more than 730 military bases around the world? When have you called for even-handed treatment of the Palestinian people? Shame on you.

<h2>I never fully understood the concept of making the perfect the enemy of the good until I started reading political blogs. There's always someone who's holier than thou...what I'd really love is for someone to dig up all the dirt on St. Kucinich and take this whole process one step further...wait a minute...i guess that makes me a Nazi...</h2>