Barack, Your Mama Was A Floozy, Shut Up!

Rev. Manning strikes again:

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

Sorry Hillary, The Answer’s Still No

Hillary Clinton, good little trooper that she is, once again hit the campaign trail for Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, emploring her supporters to vote for him.

“This election is going to be a game-changer,” Clinton said at Lorain County Community College, about 30 miles east of Cleveland. “We have the opportunity to go beyond the failed policies of the last eight years.”

The Washington Post, reporting on the same event, the first of two in Ohio, says Clinton concluded her remarks with this:

“Those who supported me, I ask you to support Barack Obama.”

Nope, can’t do it, Hillary.  Doesn’t matter how many times you ask me, either.  According to CQ Politics, I am not alone.

Pollster William Arnone, a former Clinton adviser, has found that many of the New York senator’s backers are still at risk of defecting to McCain. He surveyed 328 of Clinton’s “most fervent” supporters during the week of the GOP convention in St. Paul and found that 77 percent planned to vote for Obama, 11 percent back McCain, and the rest are either undecided or plan to stay home.

The article quotes Women Count PAC founder Rosemary Campsano, who says her organization, though they backed Clinton in the primaries, is now not going to endorse anyone.

“Our membership is very skewed in how they are going to go,” Camposano says. “By far most will remain loyal to the Democratic Party, but a lot of women feel the Democrats abandoned women and women’s issues. They are mad enough to abstain, write in Hillary Clinton or vote for McCain.”

Another women’s group mentioned has their own plans:

Meanwhile, another group of Clinton backers, calling themselves Democrats For Principle Before Party, has already bought space for a print ad in the battleground state of Michigan aimed at undermining Obama, and is pledging more to come. “Can the country trust a presidential candidate who is the product of a corrupt process?” asks the ad, which ran in the Lansing State Journal.

They also highlight Heidi Li Feldman’s efforts to have HRC appointed Senate Majority Leader after ousting Harry Reid.

All the energy the group put into winning Clinton a convention vote “is now going to be channeled into making sure the Democratic Party does not inherit such incompetent leadership as we have had to endure this election season,” she says.

Lynette Long, who has chronicled voter fraud in the primaries and caucusses, has a more in-depth look at the issues inherent in women switching to McCain/Palin.  She has another one in the Baltimore Sun today.

All of those things are A-OK with me, but joining a group to oppose Obama is not something I feel the need to do.  Sure, I pledge allegiance to the principles of the loose coalition of PUMA, but even if there was no Just Say No Deal or Denver Group, I still wouldn’t vote for Obama.  That decision has nothing to do with any of those people or groups, or Sarah Palin, or Hillary Clinton, for that matter.  Also, I don’t know about other women, but the last thing I need is another scary Roe v. Wade article or lecture.  I support a woman’s right to choose wholeheartedly, I just support a voter’s right to an honest choice more.  I decided almost two years ago that Barack Obama was an inferior, unacceptable candidate.  That’s why I never supported him.  Nothing I’ve seen, or anybody has said since, has encouraged me to change my mind.  In fact the more I see, the stronger my resolve.  So, Hillary, you can ask me to vote for Obama a million more times and the answer will remain the same, no.  Not gonna vote for McCain/Palin, either.  None of the above, that’s what my vote comes down to.

No matter who asks me.

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

What’s Up With Obama’s Civilian Defense?

A couple of months ago, Barack Obama stated that he wanted to create a “national security force” equal in size and funding to the military.

A longer clip of his full Call To Service speech in Colorado Springs , July 2, 2008, with the pertinent quote at approx. 16:42, can be found here.  What does this mean?

Only conservative sites seem to question this statement, calling it Stalinesque, but I’m not so sure.  I don’t know what the heck to make of it.  The fact that these statements do not appear in the prepared text does concern me however.  Why not?  The Chicago Tribune did report on the statement:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

True, the initial red flag was thrown by World Net Daily, then followed up by Hot Air.com, but Savage Politics and No Quarter, along with such diverse sites as Real Rap Talk and Cops Online have weighed in, too.  There doesn’t seem to be any real consensus as to the exact nature and meaning of “civilian national security force” or of it’s implications.

Obama provides more insights himself, however in a July 2 interview with Military Times,  (video here) printed on it’s website July 8:

I mean, we still have a national security apparatus on the civilian side in the way the State Department is structured and [Agency for International Development] and all these various agencies. That hearkens back to the Cold War. And we need that wing of our national security apparatus to carry its weight. When we talk about reinventing our military, we should reinvent that apparatus as well. We need to be able to deploy teams that combine agricultural specialists and engineers and linguists and cultural specialists who are prepared to go into some of the most dangerous areas alongside our military.

Q: What Secretary Gates has called soft power.

A: Absolutely, but the only problem with soft power is the term itself makes people think it’s not as strong as hard power. And my point is that if we’ve got a State Department or personnel that have been trained just to be behind walls, and they have not been equipped to get out there alongside our military and engage, then we don’t have the kind of national security apparatus that is needed. That has to be planned for; it has to be paid for. Those personnel have to be trained. And they all have to be integrated and that is something that we have not accomplished yet, but that’s going to be what’s increasingly important in our future to make sure that our military has the support that it needs to do what it does the best, which is fight wars.

Is this really what he means by “civilian defense?”  If so, why does it need to be funded equally with the military?  If he wants to increase the size of the military and raise salaries of servicemen and women (he does) then will his proposed civilian defense budget be on par with the old military budget or the new?

I think that, given the responsibilities that they have, doing a better job of making sure they’re keeping pace with inflation, and their overall pay package allows them to care for their families, I think we can do a much better job than we’re doing right now.

From his website:

Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Barack Obama supports plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Obama also mentions civilian participation:

Integrate Military and Civilian Efforts: An Obama administration will build up the capacity of each non-Pentagon agency to deploy personnel and area experts where they are needed, to help move soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines out of civilian roles.

Create a Civilian Assistance Corps (CAC): An Obama administration will set a goal of creating a national CAC of 25,000 personnel. This corps of civilian volunteers with special skill, sets (doctors, lawyers, engineers, city planners, agriculture specialists, police, etc.) would be organized to provide each federal agency with a pool of volunteer experts willing to deploy in times of need at home and abroad.

If this is what Obama is referring to in his Call To Service speech, why scrub the prepared text?  Even if there is no Socialist/Communist implication, as the right-wingers seem to suggest, why don’t we hear more about these plans?  If there is to be a reliance on volunteers, why the proposed funding?

I’ll be honest, I don’t have a clue as to what all this means.  It troubles me that there seems to be an element of subterfuge at work here; whether that is an accurate reflection of Camp O’s motives or a result of right-wing hysteria requires more information in order to decide.  For me, the bottom line is, do we really need or want the kind of military/civilian participation Obama’s proposing?  And finally, what exactly is he proposing?

Any information, or opinion, or even educated guesses would be appreciated.

Check out the comments of Michelle Obama about 7:33 into this speech at UCLA:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual – uninvolved, uninformed.”

PUMA

Just Say No Deal

Obama Raises 66 MIllion How?

The Barack Obama campaign claims to have raised approximately 66 million dollars in the month of August.  How?

He reached the $66 million mark with help from more than a half million new donors.

These are unofficial numbers, of course.

More details about the campaigns’ finance are expected later this week, when their monthly financial reports are due at the Federal Election Commission

So, the numbers aren’t due out until next week, but Camp O felt the need to release the $66 mil from half a mil small donors now.  Why?  It’s still less than he needs.

Obama’s fundraisers have estimated that he still has to do better in September and October, than the August haul of $66 million, to remain on par with McCain and the Republican National Committee. The RNC has more money to spend on McCain’s behalf than the Democratic Party has to aid Obama.

Reuter’s says that McCain might actually be in better financial shape given his option to accept public financing and the financial and the fundraising prowess of the Republican Party.  Obama, on the other hand, will actually have to work for his money:

Despite his prodigious private fundraising, Obama may not have as much of an advantage as he would when it comes to the amount of money he will have available to spend on advertisements and get-out-the vote efforts.

McCain benefits from money contributed to the coffers of the Republican National Committee, which has been more successful at raising money than the Democratic Party.

The need to raise money privately also means Obama needs to take more time off the trail to headline events with donors. On Tuesday, Obama is attending a glitzy Beverly Hills fundraiser that will include a performance by singer-actress Barbra Streisand, a long-time Democratic activist. That event could be one of the biggest Democratic fundraisers of the election cycle.

The Obama campaign said its cash on hand at the end of August was more than $77 million and that its total number of donors is now 2.5 million.

So, Obama raised $66 million in August, but he only has $77 million on hand now.  That means out of the gazillion total he’s raised so far, he’s already spent most of it.  There’s also the question, at least in my mind, who are these “small donors?”  Where do they come from?  How much have they donated?  How much of the $66 mil comes from large donors?  Unfortunately, the last question is the only one Obama has to answer.  The rest of these  2.5 million donors can remain forever anonymous, sending 5, 10, 20 dollar donations forever and we’ll never know any details about them.  I guess, like the caucus system, Barack Obama’s practices highlight the need for campaign finance reform, too.

So, to recap, Obama has spent about, what, 90% of a gazillion dollars (okay, I’m guessing here, but you get my drift) from 2.5 million donors and he’s kinda tied in the polls.  I wonder how much it’s going to cost to actually win.  And where, oh where, will all those new, unnamed “small donors” come from?

PUMA

Just Say No Deal