Saturday, February 02, 2008

GObama!

UPDATE: This endorsement was not written by Diane Visconti, but she was the person who sent it to me.

With the Feb 5 primary approaching, this is the first guest endorsement I've received (and no, it's not in favor of Ron Paul). I'm leaving it anonymous for the time being as the endorsement didn't mention if I should include her name. Nonetheless, since time is of the essence, I figured I'd post it... so here's a plug for Senator Barack Obama:

We are a group of Democratic and independent women who would be thrilled to see the dream of a woman president become a reality. But we are also concerned about the future of our country and the possibility of more of the same - politics over policy, a stalemated Congress, and a Republican in the White House while big business and lobbyists call the shots. That’s why we have decided to vote for Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton, and here are the reasons we hope you will do the same.

We need someone who can unite our country – Senator Clinton is the most divisive figure in American politics other than George W. Bush

Senator Clinton’s negative ratings among independent voters make her unelectable in a country almost equally divided among Democrats, Republicans, and independents; Senator Obama’s vision has made him a viable alternative to any Republican candidate as shown in head-to-head polls.

Senator Clinton has less experience in elected office than Senator Obama; if Senator Clinton’s “experience” as First Lady qualified her for the Presidency, Laura and Barbara Bush would also be qualified.

The negative, manipulative tactics used by the Clinton campaign are indicative of the “at any cost” mentality that has damaged our country enough.

We want a woman in the White House who gets there on her own, not one who rides into the Oval Office on her husband’s coattails.

From the beginning, Senator Obama has opposed the war; Senator Clinton voted for the bill that authorized the President to invade Iraq.

Senator Obama is unifying our country with a vision of hope for the future; Senator Clinton emphasizes the red/blue divisions of the past to gain support.

The nomination of Senator Clinton is widely believed to be the event that would trigger the independent candidacy of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a move that would further threaten the election of a Democratic President.

Senator Obama is a new kind of leader whom Caroline Kennedy believes inspires people in the way that her father did; Senator Clinton perpetuates the Bush/Clinton “monarchy” – a status quo that our country can no longer afford.

Senator Obama would bring to the White House the respected and powerful Michelle Obama; Senator Clinton would return to the White House with Bill Clinton, a shadow president whose constant use of the word “we” provides an unsettling view of the Clinton vision.

Senator Obama inspires young and old alike; Senator Clinton’s support is based in a past that America needs to leave behind.

After contests in each region of our country, Senator Obama has the most votes, the most delegates, and the most diverse coalition of Americans we’ve seen since 1968.

We hope you will join us in the campaign to reach out to other women and unite our country in two ways. Please send this email to other women who will be voting this year for their consideration, and add your signature to the letter by visiting our website
Women for United America.

Women have the power to make a difference in this election, and Barack Obama is the candidate who can create a different future for us, our children, and our grandchildren.

Thank you for considering Barack Obama and The Audacity of Hope.


Please note... if I were voting in the Dem primary, I'd probably vote for Obama as well... but for my own set of reasons... not the above list.

Tim White

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obama is an ink-blot test. People see what they want in him. Some see a progressive. Some see republican-light willing to lean across the divide.

Truth is that they will both get the troops out of Iraq and leave about the same number behind. They will both be willing to sign into law the best that the next congressional session passes. They both represent the same sort of change.

However, it's Hillary that speaks of real universal (next best to single-payer) healthcare. It's Hillary that knows how to walk through the fire.

They can both do the job, but Hillary is the more progressive of the two centrists. Turn off the audio and try them both out on paper.

btw... I know your heart is in the right place, but it's a low-blow to mention her husband's "coattails"

p.s.

check out http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/

it's a neat tool. check out where your friends and family send their cash

for example
Daniel Esty 2,300
Elizabeth Esty 2,400

Anonymous said...

that's 4,700

for Obama

Anonymous said...

Cool tool... way better than the fed gov's website's that provide information, but are completely un-user-friendly.

I clicked on the photo of Cindy Crawford and a map of her zip code popped up... along with a list of donors and images of donkeys. And since it's basically a celebrity zip code list (LA somewhere), I scrolled down to see the names... when I noticed one elephant.

Barry Manilow - Ron Paul!

Ha! That's great... although right above it is a donation from Barry Manilow to your candidate, HRC... and I'm not so sure that's particularly helpful in a GOP primary.

Anyway... thanks... great tool.

Anonymous said...

The huffpo tool explains:

"All calculations are based on public records filed with the FEC of contributions by all individuals totaling more than $200 (and some totaling less than $200) to a single Republican or Democratic presidential campaign or national committee for the 2004 and 2008 election cycles.

FundRace is updated according to the reporting schedule set by the FEC. Public contribution data is geocoded using public U.S. Census Bureau data"

But there's a problem with it because I know that I've donated in the $200-300 range to Ron Paul... though their records may have problems with totaling that because I've never donated that much at once... I've been donating in smaller increments since last May, when I felt I could afford it.

Btw, if you're curious... I don't recall having ever donated to any candidate running for federal office (President, Senate or House) other than Ron Paul. He's not perfect, but he's got a great message.

Anonymous said...

Where does one go to find out who gave what amount of money to local elections, like those in Cheshire for the Board of Ed, Planning & Zoning, Town Council?

Anonymous said...

I understand that Town Committees receipts are listed on the Secretary of State website. But for individuals in local races, you need to go to town hall and visit the town clerk.

I actually have some of it, but haven't yet had a chance to do anything with them here on the blog.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a Republican wrote this. They have been going out of their way to attack Hillary, because she is the strongest candidate.

It's about time that we have a woman leading the country. She has a much better understanding of how government works and can get things done.

Anonymous said...

Right on sister!!!

We want a WOMYN running the country.

We demand POWER,not patronage.

Anonymous said...

Why is the term "progressive" linked to one that embraces socialist tendancies? This vision supports failed policies that enlarge government and shrink the the importance of the individual. Collective societies fail every time...their leaders may do okay but there countries flounder.

Healthcare is a legitimate concern for everyone. Living longer is very expensive and we have come to accept this as a right and a societal responsiiblity. Truth be told a longer life is the result of wealthier free societies that can indulge their desires to live longer and prosper because they can afford it.

Left to the government we will have nothing left but a stifled economy of bogged down, overtaxed and underemployed pensioners.

Is this the vision progressives have for America? The answer is no of course but their analysis ignores history and basic fact. Look at western Europe. Note how France is now abandoning old socialist programs out of absolute necessities. Look inward and see all of Americas unfunded mandates, the dire straights social security is in and the consequences that have been predicted for years yet ignored by our elected leaders.

We are the land of the free and the brave. Let us not become the land of the indentured and some has beens.

None of this is simple and I have empathy for all who are underinsured. I'm not rich and I feel the same pain everyone does with prescription costs, etc. yet I am unconvinced there is a Democrat or a Republican- any elected leader that can possibly rise to the level of the private sector. Let government regulate where it must but have them provide the service and we will live in peril as never before.

On another note...If I were a liberal I do believe my interests would be far better served by Obama than Clinton. He is clearly an impassioned leader with a genuiness Hillary Clinton couldn't possibly project for more than a 24hour news cycle. Obama clearly has a better qualified spouce. There is one impressive lady in Mrs Obama.

Anonymous said...

slocum - I still can't forget your guest post: "At the end of the day I fear liberals most."
http://timwhitelistens.blogspot.com/2007/03/cow-farts.html

Anonymous said...

If we end up with Clinton or Obama vs McCain it won't make any difference which liberal you vote for.

Anonymous said...

You should support and vote or the person that has the best overall capabilities, skills and talents. You should not vote for your party rep just because they are the choice of the party. And most of all all these women that think they should vote for Hillary because she is a women is proof of why it took soooo long for women to get the right to vote. They may now have they right but they sure ain't got the common sense, reasoning capacity and brains. Goes along with if you buy items on sale you save more money.

Anonymous said...

Does it bother anyone that the average Obama supporter can't tell you where he stands on issues in any detail? Oh, he's for "change"....change, change, change. He's for "uniting people." He's for motherhood and apple pie. But where's the beef?

Sure, you can look up his positions on the web. But beware of any charismatic figure, with no real track record, who seeks to frenzy his way to the top. (JFK had 14 years in Congress before he became president).

Hillary is experienced but in all the wrong ways. The kinder, gentler Hillary we see on TV is not the real Hillary who occupied the White House for eight years. For example, anyone who would illegally take possession of 400 FBI files of "political enemies" is no better than Richard Nixon.

I was a lifelong Democrat who supported the Clintons until about 1998. I got tired of defending their indefensible behavior. Now I'm one of the 45% of Americans who will never vote for Hillary because of character and integrity concerns.

Character and integrity are at the top of my list, which is why I'm voting for John McCain. I don't agree with McCain on every issue, but he's more honest and upfront than most politicians.

Anonymous said...

9:37

So cow farts got to you. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? And yes I still do fear liberals most. It's nice to know something I've said hasn't been forgotten. I wish that worked at home.

Anonymous said...

When you hear a democrat claim he or she is voting for mccain out of dislike for the two democratic candidates, you're listening to a life-long republican revving up the mccain machine.

Anonymous said...

When you hear a democrat claim he or she is voting for mccain out of dislike for the two democratic candidates, you're listening to a life-long republican revving up the mccain machine.

OR it's possible that the lifelong former Democrat doesn't like the two Dem candidates and likes McCain for the reasons he stated. A lot of McCain's support does come from independents and Democrats.

Notice how Anon 10:10 imputes the poster rather than responds to his criticisms of Obama and Hillary.

Anonymous said...

that's because the crits of obama and hillary aren't important in this case. the idea of a democrat who holds middle of the road party positions voting for a neocon out of spite... that's fiction. imagine, as a republican, suppporting (not just voting for) kucinich. you would have to have had an internal moral revolution to actually get behind dennis.

the other reason I say it's fiction, is that you put mccain and integrity in the same sentence. the guy caved on torture just to get in line with the part position. that's just awful.