Andrew Sullivan went to a poltical rally for a Democratic candidate.  He had been curious for a long time and has written of the guy a couple times.  But, he came away with some interesting thoughts on his evening (yes, he is conservative with a small c but, he does write interesting stuff and is not polarizing and mean like most.  I concider him more of a moderate than anything else but,  whatever you think of the guy, his thoughts about the event is interesting):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/

click to read the rest of the article.

"I went to see Obama last night. He had a fundraiser at H20, a yuppie disco/restaurant in Southwest DC. I was curious about how he is in person. I'm still absorbing the many impressions I got. But one thing stays in my head. This guy is a liberal. Make no mistake about that. He may, in fact, be the most effective liberal advocate I've heard in my lifetime. As a conservative, I think he could be absolutely lethal to what's left of the tradition of individualism, self-reliance, and small government that I find myself quixotically attached to. And as a simple observer, I really don't see what's stopping him from becoming the next president. The overwhelming first impression that you get - from the exhausted but vibrant stump speech, the diverse nature of the crowd, the swell of the various applause lines - is that this is the candidate for real change. He has what Reagan had in 1980 and Clinton had in 1992: the wind at his back. Sometimes, elections really do come down to a simple choice: change or more of the same?

Look at the polls and forget ideology for a moment. What do Americans really want right now? Change. Who best offers them a chance to turn the page cleanly on an era most want to forget? It isn't Clinton, God help us. Edwards is so 2004. McCain is a throwback. Romney makes plastic look real. Rudy does offer something new for Republicans - the abortion-friendly, cross-dressing Jack Bauer. But no one captures the sheer, pent-up desire for a new start more effectively than Obama.

From the content and structure of Obama's pitch to the base, it's also clear to me that whatever illusions I had about his small-c conservatism, he's a big government liberal with - for a liberal - the most attractive persona and best-developed arguments since JFK.

I fear he could do to conservatism what Reagan did to liberalism. And just as liberals deserved a shellacking in 1980, so do "conservatives" today. In the Bush era, they have shown their own contempt for their own tradition. Who can blame Obama for exploiting the big government arguments Bush has already conceded?

Continue reading "The Reagan Of The Left?" »"

For those who think Barack Obama is just an empty suit without the brains to be president, get the crow out.
Next week in Iowa City, Iowa, Barack Obama will be unveiling his Health Care Plan.  This will be one of his biggest proposals yet and comes on the heels of the energy proposals he recently has made.  Obama has been conducting small meetings with supporters to get their concerns and ideas on health care as well as asking people to submit them on this web site.

This is from a local Iowa newpaper talking about the upcoming unveiling:

http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20070522/NEWS01/70522003 /1079/NEWS01

"Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. will come to Iowa City next week to announce his health care plan, his campaign confirmed today.

A stop at University Hospitals on May 29 is the candidate's second in Iowa City and ninth in Iowa since announcing his run for president. Obama drew a crowd of almost 10,000 to the University of Iowa Pentacrest on Earth Day.

"The speech comes on the heels of a lot of forums on health care from across the country," said Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman in Des Moines.

The time and specific place of the health care announcement have not been determined, Vietor said.

Vietor said Obama has been hosting health care forums, including one in Mason City on April 5, to get feedback from voters on what they would like to see in his plan.

"It is a chance for him to hear from Iowa on what is working and what is not," he said.

Sarah Swisher, state director of Iowa for Health Care, said it is no surprise Obama would choose Iowa City for this announcement.

"This is the health care capital of the state," she said.

Iowa for Health Care is a project of Service Employees International Union, a health care workers' union with a chapter in Iowa City. The project, with more than 20,000 members across the state and based in Iowa City, is pushing all the 2008 presidential candidates to announce health care plans by Aug. 1.

Iowa for Health Care worked to bring Obama to the area next week, Swisher said. Obama is the second candidate to announce a health care plan, following former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, she said.

The campaign started five years ago, before the 2004 presidential election, Swisher said. During presidential election cycles, the group works to make quality, affordable and accessible health care an issue in campaigns. In other years, Swisher said the group works with the state Legislature to pass health care initiatives, such as the cigarette tax.

"This isn't a campaign that disappears," she said. "It does when everyone has health care."

Starting Friday, Iowa for Healthcare will launch its 2008 presidential campaign work. On Friday, the organization's members will meet in Iowa City with Congressman Dave Loebsack, Iowa Rep. Ro Foege, D-Mount Vernon and Sen. Robert Dvorsky, D-Coralville, to talk about SCHIP funding. The Iowa Legislature recently expanded the program to offer health care coverage to 15,000 more low-income children and their parents, but needs matching federal funds.

On May 31, Iowa for Health Care will join Gov. Chet Culver on the steps of the Iowa Capitol in Des Moines to publicly announce their effort to push presidential candidates to make health care plans, Swisher said."

yes.  It is out.  the new polls.  Rassmussen has Obama within 2 of Hillary.  Short bump there.  
She is not inevitable.  she is beatable.
And Obama is surging.

For the third time in four weeks, a national Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Democratic Primary Voters shows Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama within two points of each other. This week, it's Clinton 35% Obama 33%. Former Senator John Edwards is in third place with 14% support. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a distant fourth at 3%.

However, the race may not be as close as those numbers suggest. The Rasmussen Reports sample includes not only Democrats, but also independents who say they are likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. Among Democrats only, Clinton leads by eight percentage points, 39% to 31% (with Edwards at 15%). That's little changed from a week ago when Clinton led by eleven among Democrats in the survey.

Obama does better when independents are included because he currently holds a two-to-one advantage over Clinton among those potential voters. Both the number and the preferences of independent voters is more volatile than the preferences of core Democratic voters. Some states have open primaries allowing independents to participate, others allow Democrats only. If the current trends were to continue throughout the Primary season, Clinton would handily win the states allowing only Democrats to vote while Obama would be competitive in others.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/2008_democratic_presidential _primary

Counterpunch published an article that raises some serious questions for those who insist that Edwards is perfect and can do no wrong.  Yes, he poses as a populist in his new image makeover but, let's look at his last image.  The hawkish democrat.
This past week questions have been raised concerning the Intelligence Committee and what they were told and kept secret in the run up to the Iraq War.
Much of the ire has focused on Dick Durbin because he was the one who told about it on the Senate floor a few days ago.
Because of this inside information before the vote, Durbin voted no.  Durbin and Levin even tried to get a bill passed to limit the power given to Bush.  This was voted down by more than one democrat.  Edwards was on the Intelligence Committee, knew the same information given to Durbin and yet, not only voted for the war but, against the limitations of power by Durbin and Levin.
Counterpunch raises some important questions regarding this and Edwards posing as the great populist and running for President:

Capital Fax, the blog that is all things political in Illinois, conducted a survey of the hardcore dems and republicans and here are the results.
Boy, am I surprised.  lol.  Obama leads in Illinois.  this is almost as surprising as the New York and New Jersey polls that show Clinton leading.
Anyway, As an Obama supporter and Illinois resident, this is just fun.  
Sorry Edwards supporters but, I don't think you guys were expecting him to do well with Hillary growing up here and Obama a respected and beloved senator here.
I included the republicans just for fun.
The link for the poll and the story if you are interested is:
www.thecapitalfax.com

"My political newsletter, Capitol Fax, commissioned a new statewide poll last week of presidential preference in Illinois. Only "hardcore" voters in each party were surveyed - see my weekly syndicated column below for more details...

   Democrats
    Obama 52.6
    Clinton 24.6
    Edwards 9.5
    Richardson 2.4
    Biden 2.3
    Kucinich 1.25
    Dodd 0.53
    Undecided 6.9

   Republicans
    McCain 26.1
    Giuliani 25.7
    F. Thompson 17.4
    Romney 10.2
    T. Thompson 3.3
    Undecided 17.2

And here's the column...

   It may be no surprise to some, but new polling shows Barack Obama is doing better with hardcore Illinois primary voters than Hillary Clinton is doing with voters in her home state of New York. Also, voters are split over whether Obama should be more critical of Chicago corruption, and the Republican presidential primary appears wide open here.

   The Illinois poll was commissioned by my political newsletter, Capitol Fax. The poll, taken last Thursday, surveyed registered voters who have chosen either Democratic or Republican ballots in the past two presidential primaries and have never picked a different ballot. They're the hardcore of the hardcore and are very likely to vote.

   The poll found Obama leading the pack of presidential hopefuls here with 52.6 percent of the vote among hardcore Democrats. Clinton came in second with 24.6 percent. Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards was third with 9.5 percent. None of the other declared candidates topped 3 percent, while 6.9 percent chose either "other" or "undecided."

   In New York, two recent polls have shown Clinton with a bigger lead but polling well under 50 percent. A Quinnipac University poll had her ahead of Obama 44 to 14, but a more recent survey from Siena College's Research Institute had Clinton ahead of the second place Obama 39 to 17 with 13 percent of Democrats undecided.

   Obama captured well over 70 percent of the vote in the 2004 US Senate race, so his Illinois numbers in this latest poll might be a surprise to some who expected him to be doing even better. Clinton was raised in Illinois and is, of course, a very well known commodity. That probably explains why she is polling higher here than Obama is polling in New York."

You know I am an Obama supporter.  I am not flaming.  I think this is something his supporters should know about.
Maureen Dowd wrote a flaming article on John Edwards.  I well remember her one on Obama calling him Obambi and big ears.  It is still following him around.  The Obambi stuck.
So, I think this is something you should be prepared for as I don't think it's fair.  Dowd is read by huge amounts of people and is very popular with the msm.  Pundits and News Hosts.  This is going to be aired on the news.  The only good thing is it hit on a Saturday when the news is quiet.   And, it may not get around or aired...
But, I am just warning you guys for the onslaught.
Please do not think I am flaming or trying to put the guy down.  I am not.  I just think it is wrong and you should know about it before it gets around.  
I hope Media Matters takes this on.

Bill Moyers is back.  Wednesday he presents a devastating portrait of the media's failure and cheerleading before and during the Iraq war.
Many in the media are still not admitting to their actions during this time.  Those that do, offer excuses.  Only a handful, who would talk to Moyers, admitted to their actions and the failure to do their job.
To be fair, there was alot of pressure.  One called it 'the Patriotism Police', many of whom were in the upper reaches of the corporations that owned the media.  If there was anything said not 100% behind the administration, calls would go off questioning the reporters patriotism.  
The Administration and their corporate buddies kept this pressure going.  Including the dictate, two conservatives for every liberal on programs, as Phil Donahue cited.
Because of this failure, I wonder how much the next Administration will pay the price of an overly hyped up press looking to make up for their guilt with giving a pass to the current one.

The Hill is reporting that 3 polls conducted over the past 10 days are showing Barack Obama cutting Hillary's lead to single digits.
This is good as this shows not only a real race in Democratic Primaries but, People are beginning to pay more attention and are making up their minds.
I personally do not want a Hillary nomination as this would bring out all the republican base to vote and cause many democrats, myself included, to seriously think about staying home.
It would also bring more of the uphevals and rancor that began in the early 90s.   It's been an exhausting era and one that has been one big battle after another.  
I am also not to happy about the prospect of a Bush/Clinton dysfunctional dynasty.  ugh.

From the Hill:

April 20, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has harnessed a wave of positive fundraising press and parlayed it into a small but consistent surge in nationwide polls, creating what is looking more and more like a dual-frontrunner race for the Democratic nomination for president.

At the same time, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards's (D-N.C.) campaigns make the case that national polls aren't nearly as significant as state polls, since the contest is decided on a state-by-state basis.

Obama trails Clinton by two, four, and five points in the most recent Rasmussen, CNN and USA Today/Gallup polls, respectively, after consistently trailing by double-digit margins through March.
He also trails by seven points in the most recent Time magazine poll, conducted two weeks ago.

A number of polls continue to show the race in double digits. But the new, closer national polls are unprecedented in the months-old Democratic battle.

The three closest polls, all conducted in the last 10 days, come after Obama's fundraising totals for the first quarter unexpectedly rivaled Clinton's. Obama actually tapped many more donors than Clinton and, over the last week, it was revealed that he raised more for the primary campaign.