I love seeing this degree of national support.

If we look at this campaign, the exploding crisis of the economy, and the mood of the electorate, the McCain campaign has provided the perfect opening to the Obama message of uniting the country to face and overcome the challenge by uniting around what holds us together, rather than succumbing to what tears us apart. That has been the entire theme of the Obama candidacy from his emergency onto the national scene in 2004. And frankly what the McCain has been serving up.. this country has "had it with that s##t!" It's not playing.

Need evidence:

Just out this morning:

Big Ten Battleground: Obama Leads in Key Midwestern States

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/23/quinnipiac_obama_leads_in_big_three.html

The latest Big Ten Battleground Poll shows Sen. Barack Obama with a ten point national lead over Sen. John McCain, 52% to 42%. In the individual midwestern states, Obama also has huge leads.

Illinois: Obama 61%, McCain 32%

Indiana: Obama 51%, McCain 41%

Iowa: Obama 52%, McCain 39%

Ohio: Obama 53%, McCain 41%

Michigan: Obama 58%, McCain 36%

Minnesota: Obama 57%, McCain 38%

Pennsylvania: Obama 52%, McCain 41%

Wisconsin: Obama 53%, McCain 40%

Said pollster Charles Franklin: "In September, we saw virtually the entire Big Ten as a battleground. Now Obama is clearly winning the Big Ten battleground. The dominance of the economy as a top issue for voters is the overwhelming story."

And this:

Quinnipiac: Obama Leads in Big Three

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/10/23/quinnipiac_obama_leads_in_big_three.html

With 12 days to go, a new Quinnipiac poll finds Sen. John McCain is narrowing the gap in Florida, but fading in Ohio and barely denting Sen. Barack Obama's double-digit lead in Pennsylvania.

Florida: Obama 49%, McCain 44%

Ohio: Obama 52%, McCain 38%

Pennsylvania: Obama 53%, McCain 40%

Said pollster Peter Brown: "As we enter the home stretch, Sen. Obama is winning voter groups that no Democrat has carried in more than four decades, and he holds very solid leads in the big swing states. If these numbers hold up, he could win the biggest Democratic landslide since Lyndon Johnson in 1964."

The Quinnipiac polls have traditionally been quite accurate. I'd urge Blue O readers to trust its polling more than the oft-mentioned standards.

Still, we have to sprint to the finish and remain extraordinarily active, vigilant, and aggressive to win.

Let's make history!

These neocons are campaigning for Merkley? Glad I haven't sent my ballot in. I think I might get some white-out and change my vote.

Will someone who goes please ask Ms. Albright if she still thinks the cost was worth it?

Joel,

What are your referring to? Madeline Albright worked for Bill Clinton not George W. Bush. She is one of the most respected figures in U.S. foreign policy. And, yes, she is campaigning for Jeff Merkley because she knows his vote in the Senate is crucial to re-positioning how the Senate and the President interact with the rest of the world.

While it is somwwhat off topic can someone explain why Linda Kling, VP of Oregon NOW and a long time prominent demo in Corvallis is attending Palin rallies in Neveda and standing on the stage directly next to Palin. I first saw her on the Olberman show and it has been admitted by Ms. Kling. I also wonder what her good friends Bill Bradbury and his wife think of this. I certainly hope NOW money was not used for this and hope all dems will no longer contribute to Oregon Now as long as Ms. Kling/Palin is associated with a homophpic/racist campaign

I'm aware of who she worked for. But I got the quote slightly wrong, sorry. Price. It was the price she said was "worth it". On 60 Minutes. Do you imagine that G. W. Bush invented American Empire?

What are your referring to? Madeline Albright worked for Bill Clinton not George W. Bush.

Edward: You will find the answer to your question regarding Madeline Albright here in addition to more about the Clinton administration of which you appear to be naively enamored.

Madeline Albright said on "60 Minutes" regarding the deaths of half a million Iraqi children caused by U.S.-sponsored and maintained U.N. sanctions, "We thought it was worth it." "We" had to include Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Al Gore, in a cynical ploy to get the Cuban-American vote in Florida, opted to deny returning Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba after his mother drowned trying to get to Florida.

Nancy Pelosi was a leader in making sure that there was no impeachment of Bush and Cheney despite what the Constitution calls for. The 9th Circuit Court said that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was un-Constitutional, but after Jim McDermott (D-WA) left this out when he led the House in the pledge, Speaker Pelosi called him on the carpet and read him the riot act.

With "friends" like these and Chuck Schumer the only persuasive argument for voting for Merkley is to get rid of Smith.

I've been mad at Nancy Pelosi ever since 2006 when we gave them the power back and she proceeded to roll over time and time again for the Bush administration. She could have been one of the great American stars. Instead she's little more than an accomplice. Yes, the Dems are now positioned to do well this November, but has waiting these 2 years before addressing these problems really helped America? How do you tell the parents of someone killed in Iraq since 2006, "Sorry we didn't end that horrible war by cutting off the money, but we were too busy positioning ourselves for 2008. And we were afraid if we took a moral stand we would be accused of being soft on terrorism." Nancy Pelosi is a major loser. She was one of the few people who could have stopped the madness of the Bush regime and she did nothing but play nice. Then she'd run to the microphones later and say, "I'd be mad at Congress too for the way we've acted." What a disgrace.

What's Al gonna do now that it looks like we are entering a period of global cooling? Give back his Nobel Prize?

I don't know about the climate change thing, but in any case he should wait until Obama's pal Henry Kissinger gives his back.

That these three should be heroes of the DP faithful is an obvious example of the lack of significant difference between the corporate/militarist parties.

Thanks to Bill B. and Joel H for having addressed the ignominious Pelosi and Albright. Cindy Sheehan adds re Pelosi:

Why did she abdicate her power of the purse string to fund George's wars of aggression? • Why did she allow the ban on offshore drilling to expire? • Why did she grant immunity to the administration and telecom companies for warrantless wiretapping? • Why is she trying to gentrify the last bastion of diversity in San Francisco, Bayview/Hunter's Point? • Why does she support privatization of national parks and energy? • Why did she support BushCo's policy of torture? • Why did she take the important Constitutional remedy of impeachment "off the table?" • Why did she allow the Homegrown Terrorism Act to pass Congress and why did she not stop George's tyrannical Presidential Directive 51? • Why did she give Goldman-Sachs' former CEO (Treasurey Secretary, Henry Paulson) 700 billion dollars to bail out the unregulated Wall Street financial pirates?

Albright is a war criminal who should be sharing a cell with Condy Rice, and it's as shameful for Democrats to celebrate her as it would be for Republicans to celebrate Cheney in future election cycles.

Bush/Gore debate on Iraq: Debate 2000

(Gore): I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations.

But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions.

Now I want to go further.

Gore was a foreign policy hawk and a corporatist hack who chose Joe Lieberman as his VP candidate.

There were a lot of people pulling for a war with Iraq prior to the W administration. Congress in 1998 overwhelmingly (even the sainted Kucinich) voted for a bill calling for the ouster of Saddam and providing funding to the Iraqi National Congress. Lieberman had been berating his colleagues about attacking Iraq. There would have been plenty of Republicans pressing the issue, and what we might have seen was something similar to the caving-in of the 40% of the Democrats who did vote for the AUMF (without any evidence). "It might have come down to Gore being able to withstand the political pressure put on him to take out Saddam from Republicans in Congress, his handpicked VP, and supposed Democratic foreign policy experts like Joe Biden who wanted to jut their jaws out and look strong for their next presidential run. Oh, and don't forget the DLC consultants who told John Edwards and others they should support it or the Republicans would get all the glory of the big Iraq win." (Darrel Plant on Blue Oregon, May 19, 2008)

Shame, shame, shame on you who only see the crimes of the other.

...the 40% of the Democrats who did vote for the AUMF (without any evidence)...

The Democrats who were on the House and Senate intelligence committees had evidence. Evidence that what the Bush administration was putting out for public consumption was lies. Despite that some still voted for war.

Oh, and don't forget the DLC consultants who told John Edwards and others they should support it or the Republicans would get all the glory of the big Iraq win."

Bob Shrum, in a book published after the 2004 election, said that he encouraged John Edwards to change from opposing the AUMF to supporting it if Edwards wanted to run for president. Edwards sold out over his own better judgment and his wife's objections. I understand the scenario was similar for that other loser, John Kerry.

Robert Jackson was the lead prosecutor at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. This is from his opening speech: "And let me make clear that while the law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose, it must condemn, aggression by any other nation, including those which sit her now in judgment." Source: Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial by Joseph Persico, page 137. See also: Justice Jackson's Opening Statement for the Prosecution.

All right, the "pal" comment was over the top, but nevertheless, Obama thought Kissinger's approval of his (perfectly reasonable) foreign policy was something to be promoted. Didn't he?

I certainly hope Obama wins, but I also hope Kissinger-style foreign policy is something he chooses to avoid, not imitate.

attempt to end italics - sorry about that!

Thanks also to Bill McDonald for weighing in on this.

Some people claiming to be "realists" may think a reference to ancient history, such as Nuremberg above, is irrelevant. They might want to consider this from Robert Fisk, one of the most respected foreign affairs journalists in the world: Ancient Words Our Leaders Should Heed.

Fundraiser??? I've got your Fundraiser right here...Nancy (Ms. Botox) Pelosi should pay ME to go, and then I could send Cindy a few more bucks.

I'm so glad that I did not know about the Albright event (and I bet some of you are as well) since I would have had to go protest her presence and her past war crimes, instead of hanging out with friends and having a relaxing evening. It really sucks that Merkley is aligning with her. It must be increasingly hard for my peace activist friends who are excited about Merkley and Obama to keep it up.

It must be increasingly hard for my peace activist friends who are excited about Merkley and Obama to keep it up.

Perhaps some of BlueOregon's contributors who were so enthusiastic about Obama a few months ago but are now relatively mute can explain their feelings for Chris #12. Maybe organize a group therapy session when Obama proves to not be as much of a change as he would have his audiences believe. It could have been worse. We might have had Hillary as the presidential candidate. Who wins The Battle for Obama’s Economic Soul will give us a clue as to the future under a President Obama.

Considering Merkley was sponsored by Chuck Schumer there should be no surprise there. Having said that, I'll give my vote to Merkley but only because I despise Smith and I just pity Merkley.

I'm reading a history of the Nuremberg Trials just now. There is a passage describing how people vied for tickets so they could get a look at the Nazi war criminals in the dock. What is it about some people that prevents them from distinguishing between fame and infamy?

Albright: "The US has no interest in your interest in Kuwait". Position communicated to Hussein shortly before the invasion.

Pelosi: Every campaign promise broken in spirit and word. Couldn't get a non-bonding referendum on Tibet passed.

Gore: Great guy, but as a pol? Do you remember a certain Willy Horton? That was the GOP's dirty work? Check again.

Fame, infamy, don't exist. All name recognition. Or are you going to explain to me now how Arnie really was a pol all along?

Albright: "The US has no interest in your interest in Kuwait". Position communicated to Hussein shortly before the invasion.

Pelosi: Every campaign promise broken in spirit and word. Couldn't get a non-bonding referendum on Tibet passed.

Gore: Great guy, but as a pol? Do you remember a certain Willy Horton? That was the GOP's dirty work? Check again.

Fame, infamy, don't exist. All name recognition. Or are you going to explain to me now how Arnie really was a pol all along?

Chris Lowe, thank you for that.

Does this mean me, Bill? Or who?

<h2>I wasn't thinking of you, Chris, but a couple of others I won't out; although, I'm sure they know who they are. Check the archives around the time Obama was in Portland for comments that suggested the authors of lead articles might have believed Obama walked across the Willamette instead of driving over one of the bridges. At the same time you might find I asked a question about who was really behind Obama, a question that was never answered. The analogy in my mind at that time was of a race horse with multiple investors.</h2>