GOBAMA!

That is all.

Is the party ceding too much ground with it's position on health care?

Some netrootsers are not happy with our candidate's position on the subject, and while his point is valid, that the Dem platform on health care is not true universal coverage, that the overarching argument that the candidate should be blamed for not carving out a hard position and support for single payer universal health care (SPUHC from now on here) ignores the nuances of our political system, right or wrong.

Firstly, to assume that any such sweeping reform would be passed through congress unscathed, Democratic majority or not is a pipe dream. Second, getting the public behind an idea that was successfully branded as socialist medicine could be more work than thought. Third, getting the public behind any political change beyond the popularity contest that is our election, is damn near impossible.

I believe that Senator Obama believes that SPUHC is in our best interest, and it is the system most capable of fixing our badly beaten system. I also believe that realistically, the best path to this is with baby steps, an idea supported by his (not so) universal proposal.

How dare you think that? I'm still getting back into the swing of writing and independent thinking..I really have only vaguely followed politics since the 04 election, probably up until December of last year. My (worthless) endorsement is still incoming. Until then, random thoughts.


Concern trolling the primary wars (candidates): Trust me, we'll all join forces. It may not seem like it, but letting this race go through Texas and especially Ohio is a great thing for the Democratic party. The infrastructure that it builds and the interest that it brings to the race is something that the best advertising couldn't buy come November.

Overly biased blogging: Blogs that I used to consider to be the gold standard are playing a game that I thought the left leaning blogosphere was above. If I wanted spin, I'd turn on the television. Kos, Jerome, I know that you are pretty open supporters of your respective candidates, and I can respect that. Allowing your communities to devolve into the void is a tough one to counter considering the setup of your respective site, but I only hope that this ends when our nomination process does. Neither are as vile as Taylor Marsh, whom I consider to be the Hannity or maybe more apt: the Baghdad Bob of the blogosphere. I haven't seen an independent thought come out of this blog since the primaries began.

This is the first in a series of posts set to detail my thought process and my choices in support for the Democratic primary. This post in specific will detail the time leading from mid summer last year, when intentions to run were coming in, up until before the Iowa caucuses.

May 30 last year, quoted from my MySpace blog:

Well the cycle continues to start earlier and earlier each year. Last time around, I was just getting into the world that was Howard Dean. This time we already have frontrunners: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Who's speaking to me?

Hillary has spent her time in the Senate positioning and running for President, pandering to the lowest common denominator idiot that will still think she's too liberal, and also in the meantime alienating the liberal base. Who would vote for her then? Clinton is the Republican dream nomination, an easy target with a big link to the all time favorite target, Slick Bill himself. Look, I like Bill Clinton a lot, but Hillary isn't speaking to me at all. She seems more concerned with regulating video games than addressing health care or poverty.

Barack Obama is an interesting guy. He has the most liberal voting record on the current Senate. He has just recently unveiled a plan for universal Health Care. He is a hell of a speaker. He has attained something of a rock star status. What's wrong then? Sadly, the voters. No matter how great this guy is, I don't see Joe Red-State voting for a black guy with a terrorist name. Politics will prevent this guy from being viable, as I just don't see him picking up any territory that Kerry couldn't. A good VP candidate perhaps and 2016 heir? Maybe then his experience can get him over the racist barrier, but for now?

I'm liking John Edwards. I'll admit I wasn't a huge fan in 2004 with his centrist bullshit, but now that this guy is far far away from Shrum Devine(seriously, who hired these jackasses?) he is speaking to me. Out of Iraq? Check. War on Terror a bumper sticker? Check. Universal Health Care? Check. Good speaker? Check. Strenghten the middle class? Check. Electable? Very much so, especially more than the other two serious candidates. Republican's are far and away more afraid of this guy than anyone else, he's difficult to attack.

As of right now, I support John Edwards for our candidate to run for President next year. You probably should too. Sure the usual suspects are there too, Sharpton, Kucinich, but let's be realistic. I don't see a scenario in which any given Democrat would be worse than any particular Republican next year, and with that it looks like I'll be voting that way anyway, but Edwards far and away represents our greatest chance at real progressive change. Any friends that I have in the Super Tuesday (it's in February this time!) states take note.

John Edwards really defined the debate and did himself some good in getting issues on the table, and as a result of his efforts, the policy of the two remaining candidates is largely defined by issues that he put on the front burner. For whatever reason, his candidacy just never took off. Looking back, I can say that in that time of following debates from May until January, my stances softened considerably on the "front runner's club." Barack may just be that damn good, good enough to get over what I referred to as a racist barrier, and Hillary, in spite of some pandering tendencies, has some really great ideas and would make a damn fine nominee. Either one of these two would make an incredible candidate and an even better President. Let me preface my "endorsement" with this caveat: If the other nominee were to take the nomination, I will fully support their candidacy and vote their way in November, and I believe that this election is important enough that we get past squabbles with the other Democratic campaign and make sure our party comes first. With all that said, the nominee that I feel is best to represent us, the nominee that I feel has the best chance of winning, and most importantly, the nominee that I feel will bring the best policy to Washington DC (BYAAAAH) is....

TO BE CONTINUED

Wow, reading through some of these older posts..I can't believe some of what I wrote. I was pretty damn good at this! Mark, thanks for the warm welcome back. I knew I never deleted this blog for a reason.

I'm going to spend most of the day updating these links, as much as I want to leave them, out of laziness and some kind of statement. With all of the primary hype, I haven't been much following local races. Anyone have any suggestions on who to look into? Does anyone with a little artistic skill want to donate a logo? Geocities ate mine.

As for the presidential race, I am ready to give my full endorsement to.....no, not yet. I have a clear favorite, but I feel I have to earn the weight of any kind of message I could put up here, rather than come back after a near four year hiatus and just throw a name at you. With that said, I will be working on an entire post dedicated to the primary timeline, and my thoughts surrounding it from the 6 man race, all the way up to the two man (person?) race we have now.

The blogosphere you ask? Well it's kind of gone mainstream hasn't it? Kos is still top of the pops, some names have changed and shifted on, and some people show how even a completely free site can be successful. It's great to see a lot of the names that I remember from the 04 era still on point, but even more so pushing a completely independent message..it seems a lot less group think than I remember, with the exception of the presidential election. The biggest disappointment? It appears that some of my old friends have also given up the business; unless my google-fu fails me, stockton and tweed are missing.

On to work on updating some of these links. See you soon.

Following a mish-mash of name changes and a self imposed hiatus, I am returning to the world of political blogging, and what better place than where it all started. As you can see, I have some housekeeping to do. Some of these links bring back some great memories.

Where have I been? Since the Left Times begat the (seemingly unavailable in archive form) Polexicon, which begat Blog Underground (something I think could have been a great idea if someone other than me, hell, anyone with a little bit of coding sense ran it) which begat my leaving political soapboxes of all kind. 2004 was very difficult for me, putting in so much time and effort only to see things go down in flames.

Since then, I have gotten married, and my son Connor is due in the next month. A child brings a renewed drive and interest in shaping things to come. Is it too late to undo the damage done by the Bush administration? Do I still have time to ensure that Connor's future is secure?

To ensure my notoriously fickle blogging habits, I am going to consider this what it is: me shooting the shit about politics. No scheme to build a massive soapbox, no plan to make money, no worries about readership. No name changes, no new domains, no massive redesigning, no higher functionality. Simple, me, and to the point, The Left Times is here to remain. I am much less worried about ping services, and focused where I feel the focus belongs: content.

It's good to be back, and the next week or so, look for me doing some catching up, musing about things that have happened before we get into where we stand now and my thoughts on that. See you soon.

Left Times, RIP

Check out the new site.

www.polexicon.com

Thanks to everyone that stopped.

The left times is changing hands. We will be offline for a short while while the change is made.

Hello folks.

I apologize for the lack of my updating in the last day or so. I have been shopping around and looking at changing the blog format to movable type. It's just so damn classy, and I'm a whore for having everything hosted in house. I've spent more time researching how to set that up and how much it would cost than actually looking at political news, but here are some highlights I have come across:

John Kerry finally looks to be getting his bounce his bounce in the polls as many cite Bush's collapse (44 percent approval, say it with me now!): That means those unnamed Dems that were worried should shut up now. Oh, and we've opened a significant lead in Ohio. Things are looking good for us.

The Reform Party has endorsed Ralph Nader, in the process granting him access to his first state ballots, but it seems a snarky little law in Florida may prevent him from hitting that particular ballot up. All that said, people are making too big a deal out of this: Nader on any ballot under any party will be lucky to get more than 1 percent of the vote. People aren't stupid.

Back to typepad/movable type/scoop research..I will probably be blogging again shortly.

Folks, we fall in to two categories for the most part. Some have no money and a lot of time, some have a lot of money and no time. Now, with the new "Support the Cause" section on the right side of your screen, you can help out in something we all want: The downfall of the Republican party.

Here I have listed several candidates for office at the national level, and organizations that help them. If you have any extra cash, contribute. If you have extra time, volunteer. Every little bit helps folks, and this year is a turning point for us.


Remember:

Kos notes just how good things are looking for us in the polls. At this juncture, Kerry is 11 points ahead of where Clinton was at this stage in the 92 race, and not only did Clinton go on to win, Bush 1 didn't have the handicap of shooting himself in the foot on a near daily basis.

Mark Mellman also goes on to note something a lot of us are guilty of forgetting:

Indeed, in most races involving incumbents the critical number is not the margin over the challenger but rather the percentage of the vote the incumbent is garnering. As sophisticated poll-watchers know, few incumbents get more votes on Election Day than they do in the last polls. Voters who are undecided at the end break overwhelmingly to the challenger.

So we're sitting pretty folks, and have nowhere to go but up. Bush's support however, has hit the ceiling. At this rate, it could be a landslide, with the pace of Bush/Bush team mistake, Kerry rebuttal. This positions Kerry, albeit in a piecemeal fashion, to set himself up to be the viable alternative to the chaotic course this country is headed in. That puzzle will complete itself in the American voters' eyes as time goes on. We have never been in a better position to win this, and win it big. We're talking setting the republican party back another decade big. Have you juiced John Kerry yet this week? If you can afford anything, this is a good time to do so. We've gone on to prove that any little bit helps, and well folks, we're winning.

Earlier this week, I posted what I thought was the short list for Vice President under John Kerry.

First Tier Candidates:
Gephardt, Vilsack, Clark, Bayh
Teetering: Edwards

My money is on Clark or Bayh..

According to Kos (source story@Bloomberg) , I was only one name off.

John Kerry, according to unnamed sources, has narrowed his short list down to five candidates, including Dick Gephardt, Tom Vilsack, Wes Clark, John Edwards, and Bob Graham, with a decision to come within a month. While the five of these guys are rather different from each other, they all seem to fit well on a Kerry ticket, each with their own balance and strategy points they would bring to the table.

I have to say with the current climate, all signs are pointing to Wes Clark. This election is shaping up to be about security and Iraq, and no one can top Clark on that respect. He would nearly inoculate John Kerry from "weak on defense" attacks, brings high military experience to the ticket, and has proven to have the ability to set the grassroots afire. His primary campaign was a stinker, but this is a whole new ballgame. Not only do we have a chance, many prominent voices are now coming out and saying this thing is ours to lose. Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager and DNC voting rights go to girl, had this to say about Clark's chances in the race:

"He's had a consistent position on the war, opposing it under the conditions and circumstances in which it was launched...He looks like a sage when you reflect back on what he said and where we are."

I like his chances too. If this is the real short list, General Clark is where I would hedge my bets, as well as my hopes at this point.

That said, any of these five guys would please me. I'm almost glad Bayh isn't on this list. Either Gephardt or Graham would be the ultimate bizarro Cheney pick, Vilsack is the up and comer from a swing state, and Edwards is the proven campaigner. On the downside for these guys, Gephardt and Graham are about as interesting as oh, Dick Cheney, and could prove a liability for someone with a perceived personality problem ala Kerry, Vilsack has no name recognition, and Edwards could potentially outshine Kerry on the campaign trail, as well as have his own ambitions for the job. We'll find out in the next few weeks. Folks, it's getting exciting.

We've gone and started a debate.

I think that Wes Clark's Deaniac appeal would actually bring in quite a few of those Dean folks that are still disenfranchised, and think Kerry is a bit too insidery. I remember myself dreaming of a Dean/Clark or Clark/Dean ticket a few months back, and those sentiments are shared by quite a few.

I think in the light of recent events, the Michael Moore thing wouldn't hold as much ground, if any at all. I think people gained from Moore's Clark excitement was probably less than people annoyed by it, and certainly, anyone that is already voting for John Kerry isn't likely to switch after a VP slot, so it almost seems as if it's nothing to lose, everything to gain. Moore's radical appeal is actually a plus considering Wes himself has something of a centrist populist thing going, and an appeal to independent voters.

I agree that he probably would bring Arkansas even without the VP slot, but the defense and national security credentials, hell, no one comes close.

His weakness that you point out, is that he can sometimes be a poor politician. His performance on MTP, as well as his substantially poor primary campaign go to show this. All that said, I don't think it's anything that can't be hammered out by an experienced staff, and it's head and shoulders above the weaknesses brought by the other top tier candidates.

Sam Nunn, however, would be a good choice as well. His problem though as I see it is his lack of name recognition, and a guy that goes for the center rather than energizes the base. As I mentioned long ago (what, last week?) when you threw his name out in the comments section, a DLC candidate doesn't really inspire me, but my vote was decided a while back, so does that really matter?

Barack Obama, an up and coming face in the Democratic party and candidate for Senate in Illinois has opened a substantial lead against likely Republican challenger, Jack Ryan.

This guy has Dean appeal, and a great stance on the issues to boot. Kos ranks this as our most likely seat to win this year, so let's juice him up a little, or if you are from that great state, volunteer.

John Zogby is one of a few voices to come out and say it: This election has become John Kerry's to lose. With George Bush and company pretty much unable to attack lately, the economy still as the top concern (see more people believe today that the economy is worse off than before Friday's supposedly great job numbers), and poor poll numbers for an incumbent President, not to mention a frozen electorate and this little gem from Charlie Cook:

"it has long been argued that when a president is seeking re-election, it is more of a referendum on the incumbent than a contest between two candidates. If that is the case, Bush is in deep trouble."

I agree with Mr. Zogby on one major point. The electorate is pretty solid right now, and John Kerry has all the room to move up. The electorate knows George Bush, but they are just having their first beer with the good Senator in the last few weeks. John Kerry can expect a jump with his VP announcement, a jump with the Democratic National Convention, and a steady increase with every day more voters get to know him, or become engaged in the race. George Bush only has the convention. He meanwhile has nowhere to go but down, as Iraq descends into hell, the perception of a bad economy continues to be ruminated upon by an already nervous and frightened electorate. Not a whole hell of a lot of people like George Bush. Not a whole lot of people know John Kerry. One of those can be easily corrected, and I ask you, which would you rather be then?

Earlier today, I posted that my money was on a Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Bayh ticket, but my heart was on Kerry/Dean. Since that last one is NOT going to happen, let me tell you why I think Wes Clark is the best man for the job.

I must be forthcoming, when Wes Clark entered the race, I was captivated enough to leave blog for america for a few minutes. I had always sat on the line between supporting Dean or Clark, and I think that a lot of people were in that boat with me. Wes Clark brings Howard Dean's popularity and his connection with young people to the table, without Dean's "Northeastern Angry Liberal" label, plus the added bonus of national security credentials. While Dean is from Vermont, likely as blue as it gets, Wes Clark is from Arkansas, a crucial swing state this year. He has face recognition over Evan Bayh or Tom Vilsack, and could take on Cheney much better than Edwards or Gephardt. As I see it, Wes Clark is not only the man for the job, taking him would be like maximizing the good from the rest of the short list, and minimizing the bad.

Folks, Haloscan seems to be having a few problems today, so please bear with us if the comments link isn't appearing for you. Try refreshing. If the site is loading extraordinarily slow, this is why. I would just take it down, but it is my favorite part of doing this site, to come and read the comments. That, and when it goes down, it only seems to be for a few minutes. OH, and you all can use my new "Blogroll Us" link at the end of every post to add us to your own site's blogroll. Unless your site is total crap (or any one of totalcrap.com's subsidiaries), we'll probably link back to you.

Goddard has an article commenting on Iowa Governator Tom Vilsack as a front runner for John Kerry's VP slot. They see in him a Midwestern, popular, swing state, new face governor with lots of future potential.

I think that he might actually be a better choice than Edwards because, while the good Senator is also from a swing state and a new face with lots of potential, John Edwards has a good chance of outshining John Kerry, and will have a hard time turning his optimistic campaign into attack dog mode, which is where we need a VP to be at. Edwards should replace Ashcroft instead.

In other VP news, Wes Clark has endorsed New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson for the job. While this may seem strange on the surface, it seems that this was only a power play to move himself into top position for the job, as Richardson is seen as a second tier candidate for the job.

The rankings as I see them right now:

First Tier: Gephardt, Vilsack, Clark, Bayh
Teetering: John Edwards (fan favorite)

Anyone outside of this small circle would be a surprise at this point. My money is on Bayh or Clark. My heart is still on Dean, but the only time his name came up from the Kerry VP staff was reading "Worse than Watergate." Hell, I think I'm the only blogger even bringing it up.

..
Note to all Blogger Users: Stick with Haloscan until they iron out some of the problems with their comment system.

Mark Adams, welcome aboard. Progressive Perspectives from all three of our names is too damn long for the site line name, so it's now "Progressive Perspectives from voters in swing states that decided a long time ago which side they would be on, and are now trying to convince others why they are for the most part correct in their assertions of why the Bush administration is bad for our country, it's people, and the world around us."

This week in the Left Times...

Nancy Reagan supports stem cell research?
Well of course she does, but now that it's making it's rounds in news circuits, how will Bush's Christian right pandering team respond?

Will the polls begin to shift toward John Kerry?
George Bush's bubble can remain only so long. Is Kerry going to make national service a campaign theme?
Is VP time getting any closer?


Has the Iraq Prison scandal caused Bush any damage to his campaign? Or does the buck stop with Rumsfeld?
How is the media spinning this? Look for some more solid movement on this one this week from the administration.

This Yahoo/AP article has Bush and Kerry tied at 205 electoral votes each, with 138 in play.

Those 12 remaining states, although not expressed exactly in the article, are probably mostly good news for Kerry, as Independents traditionally break for the challenger, even when the incumbent is not as scandalous, polarizing, and moronic as George Bush.

The real gem buried in this article is:

"I don't think a Massachusetts liberal is going to carry Louisiana," said Jim Duffy, a Democratic strategist from Washington.

Apparently even the Democratic Strategists are pushing Bush MEME's now. What the hell is this about?

UPDATE: A more numbers based article on the same story came out with the 12 battleground states. They are Arkansas (6), Florida (27), Iowa (7), Maine (4), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Oregon (7) Pennsylvania (21), Washington state (11). If the election were held today, I would see Kerry getting the holy trinity (FL, PA, OH) as well as Oregon, Washington, Maine, Iowa, New Hampshire and probably Missouri. Bush would probably get New Mexico, Arkansas and Nevada. What do I base this on, you ask? Other than the part I mentioned above about Independents breaking to the challenger, Washington, Oregon, and Maine tend to get solid blue as an election nears. PA has trended blue in the last few elections, and has a higher voter registration of Dems. Not to mention, along with Ohio, being hard hit by Bush job losses. New Hampshire is trending Blue right now, and I have a feeling we may see a bit of a backlash on Bush in Florida, from folks still angry from 2000.

In a great move, John Kerry is capitalizing on a huge hole in the President's armor, his ignorance to the situation in Iraq. This puts John Kerry in a good position to be a correct alternative to Bush, as simple as it sounds. I think that because of this, we will begin to see our first significant poll shifts.

People complain about the lack of poll shifts, but my previous post aside: John Kerry is using a long term strategy to paint small strokes here and there to have the full picture available when people start paying attention. Most people don't know of him yet, but they will soon. What is helping Kerry's strategy, which I'm sure he didn't account for, was that President Bush would be shooting himself in the foot every few days.

To paraphrase Bill Maher, Karl Rove isn't the most savvy guy. Anyone who lets their guy try to dodge responsibility by claiming ignorance in the top office..ah hell the top office in the world, isn't the brainiest. Look for things like this to add up real soon.

The call for Rumsfeld's ouster gets louder. This is a lose lose position for Bush. If Rummy goes, people will wonder how Bush picked such a moron in the first place. If Rummy stays, people will wonder how much worse it will get, and just how ignorant he is. Like I've said, id rather see Rummy as one of those jobless statistics, but either way, it doesn't look good for W.

Strangely this only happened on two posts as far as I can see, but a few links were lost in the process of spell checking or posting..Blogger has been acting a bit funny lately. At any rate, to the best of my memory, here are the links. I'm not linking to the original story, because since that post, things have changed, so here are links back to the full sites.

Atrios
EPluribusUnum
Blog For America
Pandagon
Political Wire

It's happening again.

Two questions..Why did I never hear of this until I read Michael Moore's Stupid White Men? Second, Why did they wait four years to make this news?

Ok, a third question..Are we going to let them get away with it again?

It isn't the purging of felon voters that bothers me. In 2000, a supposed glitch caused several voters with names similar to felons (READ: AFRICAN AMERICAN [READ: GORE VOTES]) were also purged. No one made any noise about this at all when it mattered. Florida, for those with short attention spans, was THE swing state in 2000, and went red by a little more than 500 votes. That is a world changing vote my friends, and no one mentioned that little detail with the illegal purging and biased counting. Was I the only one watching TV in 2000 when W expressed surprise that Florida was called for Gore earlier in the night? I really am not one for conspiracy, but this is damn suspicious. With something as important as a Presidential Election, I would hope that everything every state is doing in regards to voting is under an electron microscope. Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter. If you are legally allowed to vote, your vote should count, right?

Well the title of this post is misleading, because unlike the Yahoo people want you to think, there will not be a major Nader factor this time around.

He might poll high (relatively), but what a person says to a robocall and which lever (or touch screen area) they pull (press) in November are two completely different things. Barring a miracle, Nader will get no more than 2 percent this time around, probably much less than that. He will not have an effect on this election, as some people worry. Should we just ignore him then? No, actually. A big reason that Nader will not be a factor is because quite a few of his supporters hate GW more than they love ol' Ralph, as opposed to like Kerry more than Ralph. This translates into cold feet in November, but in the meantime, we should embrace some of his ideas that wouldn't completely kill the Clintonism that John Kerry is trying to channel, such as a bigger hike in the minimum wage. People by and large support this measure, and John Kerry could run with it. This, and any number of issues that Kerry and Nader already agree on could be pushed from Kerry, making the Nader break vote less guilty, and shoring up the Democratic base in the mean time.

Kerry's main problem with these people is not on the issues, it is an image problem. I'll admit, back in the day when I was a rabid Deaniac, I thought Kerry was a slimeball. I think there are quite a few people that still feel that way, and while most will hold their nose and vote for him anyway, the people that are disenfranchised will probably have more of an effect than Nader himself. I did my research, followed Kerry stories, looked at his record, heard him speak, and began to replace my Bush hate with Kerry love. This man will be a great President, the problem is convincing the base of that fact.

This really isn't a choice between two evils, as some would seem to believe. If John Kerry's record ran with John Edwards personality and Howard Dean's fire, the polls would be something like 90-10. While it's a shame that personality matters that much more than actual issues for someone running a powerful country, it is the awful truth. I'm not real worried anyway, as Bush has been sinking himself lately while Kerry waits in the wings, but I would love to see the people on my side be more proud of their candidate. He really is a good guy.

Some poll action for yall.

Fox News National Poll(source)
Bush 44 - approval 49
Kerry 41

Gallup National Poll (source)
Bush 48
Kerry 49

Bush 47
Kerry 47
Nader 3

These are within the margin of error. Alan "chapter on why Fox News is A'OK" Colmes, it always seems to me that the Fox News polls are slightly skewed in a certain direction compared to other polls.

Arizona Star state poll (source)
Bush 46
Kerry 42


What that state poll doesn't show is that the President's approval numbers have sunk to a new low. Look for some movement after the Kerry ad blitz begins to sink in.

Rasmussen also has some encouraging numbers, with Kerry ahead in Wisconsin, Oregon, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Washington, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Illinois. Well within striking distance of some others as well. The national tracking poll there, however, has slipped back into a dead heat.

What these numbers show me, and I know I pick on these unnamed Dems a lot, is that those unnamed Dems are full of shit. We're doing great by almost any standard, and Bush is running scared. We've got the energy, the excitement, and something the elephants didn't expect, the money to win this thing. Now that the message is getting out there, the numbers should begin to reflect a good shift for Kerry.

Arianna Huffington has an interesting new blog post about how John Kerry should go about winning.

While it would be a dream of mine for John Kerry to become a "hedgehog" candidate with some balls out progressiveness, I don't think this will happen. I don't know that it would be the best strategy either..any move to the left would yield ground in the center for GWB, and the center isn't really happy with him right now.

What Ms. Huffington is saying is that if we are to outrun the flip flop label, we can't flip flop. I think this is a problem more with the media coverage than any actual issue, as John Kerry has been rather consistent with his voting record. The media however seems to have a need to make a story out of semantics, as in the medal/ribbon story. How do we then address the problem? I see no problem with John Kerry's continuing outfoxal of the President, but here's what we can do: George Bush is running with so many holes in his own record, let's turn the table around and put him on the defensive. Let's take a look at his record. Remember that Kyoto treaty? Remember mercury standards in drinking water? I could go on and on..and actually have at the old blog, but I won't here, the point is that George Bush has done some things that would scare the rightest of the right, and has gotten a free pass on most of them. Let's raise those issues, and show who the real flip flopper is when it comes to rhetoric and action.

This got buried under the Iraq abuse controversy, but a good step for Kerry none the less.

"I believe we need to offer teachers more pay, more training, more career choices and more options for education, and we must ask more in return," Kerry was quoted as saying, addressing questions on his education program. I for one think that this is the way to go, rather than the NCLB's focus on the student. It's trickle down education. The better the teacher, the better the student, the better future teachers, nay, the better our future.

Senator Kerry's plan calls for an extra 30 billion dollars to education over the next ten years as incentive to recruit the best teachers in the higher need areas. Honestly, I would take the next step, and socialize education, but you all know me, I'm not running for office.

It's a shame to say, but you don't hear much about education anymore. Iraq dominates the news cycle, and probably rightfully so, but that doesn't lessen the importance of education. It shouldn't be AN issue, it should be THE issue. John Kerry should make this a campaign theme, and expose the shortcomings of the "Education President." How long can the President get away with underfunding one of his keynote programs while pushing for more tax cuts and breaks? To borrow a line...BRING IT ON.

While I know that I have refrained from commenting on the prison abuse scandal in Iraq, I think now is the time to chime in.

There has been a lot of talk lately of the end of Rumsfeld, but let me put it out there: I don't think he should resign. Yet. He needs to take control and responsibility for what is happening, but the fall is not his at this moment. You know the proverbial stuff has hit the fan when even President Bush is apologizing.

While it is a shame that the leaders of our country seemed to be the last ones to find out about this scandal, it doesn't seem to me that there is much they could have done to prevent this from happening. I think we should be less focused on the abuse and more on the fact that there seems to be a problem in the chain of command when 60 minutes 2 finds out before the commander in chief. That is not to say that I think what happened or is happening over there is ok, it's far from it. It is reprehensible, and may have topped Bush's decision to go there on the all time "Why the world hates America" list. Our little problem in the Middle East just got bigger, and it is going to take a while to repair the damage done here at home and abroad. It was precisely things of this nature that turned Vietnam to shit. Let's hope against hope that the same thing doesn't transpire here.


UPDATE: I thought about this some more, and to hell with it, let him fry. Rumsfeld and while I'm at it, the entire Bush team needs to resign. The reverse midas touch has got to go.

People may have noticed something of a trend in those Presidential opinion polls you hear so much about. Something along the lines of every poll is the same, and within the margin of error. With Bush facing a new scandal nearly every week, how is that even possible? Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward, Iraq, etc.. it because John Kerry hasn't stepped up to the plate? No, actually.

While Senator Kerry has been quietly preparing his strategy and making some key decisions about the direction of his campaign, he has effectively removed himself from the action. Not to mention raising a load of money, every penny of which will be necessary. While he has done this, he has been on the ground on a near non stop schedule, delivering speeches, holding town hall meetings, and really meeting the people. He will criticize Bush only to show how he can do better. All that said, we will likely OWN the news cycle when John Kerry announces his running mate (Fingers still crossed for Howard Dean style pick, not Gephardt style pick)

Bush meanwhile is on the defensive. Slipping approval numbers aside though, the actual selection poll hasn't moved too much out of his favor. The dirty truth here folks isn't Kerry's shortcoming, but rather Bush's biggest strength, and only area he can rely on.

I work with someone who is an unabashed Bush lover. She has a family of five, lower middle class. While she knows that politically, she doesn't support George Bush's ideas, probably would not support war, she would vote for him against anyone because "he is the most godly President we have ever had. He knows the bible!" It is this person that is the archetype of hard Bush support. George W. Augustus Bush can do no wrong in the eyes of the church. It's these people that are likely getting hurt the most economically, that would drop dead for Bush if he asked, just to fill their own socially conservative agenda. Bush has this market cornered like Microsoft.

What can we do? Well dirty truth number 2 is that we probably won't be able to do much to convert these people, unless W abandoned the church and returned to coke..publicly. Since that isn't going to happen, here's what we can do. John Kerry actually has a base of people who are likely just as rabid, which is why his numbers haven't moved either. All we need to do to win this election is shore up that base, and keep it energized. I'm going to plug Howard Dean or a lesser extent, Wes Clark for VP here just because its my post and I can. Don't worry about or chastise Ralph Nader, embrace his ideas and his supporters, make it pointless for him to run.

The final dirty secret of the poll numbers are that independents and swing voters by and large are A) not fans of W, and B) likely to break for the challenger in November. We can see this trend already. While George Bush has been gaining ground in states he would already have won, John Kerry is now (according to Rasmussen) ahead in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Which is more important? To this extent, the national polls aren't all that static, just moving around in different places and more or less neutralizing each other. As any liberal blogger will remind you, the national numbers are useless when the electoral college is in play. Look at Albert 2000. So then, aren't we doing just what we should be doing?

I have been waiting since last January to see a major story that not only addresses our chances at winning this thing, but the possibly of a blowout, our way.
(full article here)

This article is spot on. Ideologies aside, Bush's situation is looking a lot similar to Carter in 1980. Bush's approval numbers are showing a downward trend. He is dealing with a crisis that is quickly spinning into chaos. His economic recovery..isn't really recovering as they had hoped. The American public is beginning to see George Bush as a miserable failure. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist)

Where does that leave us? While quite a few people are whining that Senator Kerry hasn't done enough to capitalize on this situation, I think we have the right idea. While your opponent is shooting himself in the foot, you stand off to the side and give a program on gun safety. Alright, the analogies don't work too well after 1 am, but give me a break.
There is a real opportunity for us to win this one in a landslide. What these polls that we hear so much about are not showing is an increasing distaste for George Bush. This distaste alone has probably registered more votes than Russell Simmons this year. What about generally Republican voters who have lost their job? What about that voter's generally Republican families? How about the military families?

The only people George Bush can count on at this point are people that benefit from his policies (read: rich rich rich), and people with such backward social thinking that they don't realize they are being raped. Senator Kerry can keep it this way.

Well folks, It seems they don't want to count em after all.

A new election commission today decided that we can not force any kind of checks and balances on precincts that use the dreaded touch screen voting machines.

What this means in common language is that there will be no receipt for your vote. No way to tell if it was counted properly. No way to count it again if a problem arises. With the election looking to be pretty damn close, I think it would be rather prudent to have these paper records. If they already had glitches with the system for primary votes (CA), just think of how disastrous this could be if we have a Florida repeat.

We've seen how fast Congress can act with an entire nation's nudge. The do not call list has shown us that. We as a nation should get behind the initiative for e-voting standards, including testing, bug proofing, and mainly, paper records. Don't get me wrong, E-voting is a great thing. It makes the process easier, and has the potential to attract many new voters to the game. That said, however, would you trust your computer with a decision that important? Or would you get the blue screen of death? Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Bull Moose..every one of us should stand up and say it with me now: Our vote will count.

I have cleaned up the html in here a little bit, it had become quite messy over the last month. I also switched our blog links to blogrolling, which should keep things tidy, and make it easier for me to add as i go. People that use blogrolling can click on the very first blog link, "blogroll us!" to add our site to your blogroll instantly. I would appreciate anyone that did that.

Support the Cause: Evolution debuts soon.

If they didn't learn from Fox News' Franken fiasco, they will now..you just gave Moore some free publicity.

Disney is attempting to block subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's latest documentary, Fahrenheit 911, which details the Bush relation to the Bin Laden family over the years.

Congrats Mike, on the sure success and free publicity Disney just granted you today.

I thought it was another one of those unnamed Democrats saying Kerry was off to a bad start, but this time, it's the writer of "Rewriting History," a so called rebuttal to Hillary's book. On top of this guy being a jackass, who the hell is he to say we're off to a bad start? I've addressed this before: If a bad start puts us even or ahead in the polls, and winning the election if it were held today (Rasmussen), then yeah, that must be a bad start.

Goddard has the article here.

Hopefully we can be doing this bad in November.

Hello all, tonight is the final night for er...finals for myself, so I will probably not be updating until late tonight, after a dinner party thing.

Thanks to everyone who responded to the new writer post opening. I am impressed by the response. Due to the volume, I am going to have to now make it a stipulation that you already have a blog so that I can look at your posting habits and writing style. I will have a new writer or two, plus maybe a few guest spots, very soon.

Anyways, everyone have a good day, we'll chit chat tonight.

I haven't touched this one since we were at the old blog, but it has gone and come back!

As it turns out, Bush administration officials were WRONG to withhold the true cost of their Medicare bill from congress. They needed a nonpartisan commission to tell them this? To top it all off they "probably violated the law."

Will this one stick? I've asked it before and I'll ask again, can Bush put up with a new scandal every other day?

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware has officially been name checked by the media as under consideration for Kerry VP.

Political Wire has the story here.

Biden is another establishment candidate, a la Gephardt, who I don't necessarily agree with. People keep reminding us that this election is about activating the base, so I would think that it would be best to choose a Dean Democrat, not one who has more appeal in the crossover sector. A Dean or Clark, who unlike Dean, is actually being vetted by the Kerry campaign for consideration, would energize the base and pull votes back from Nader. Why then, is the so called establishment pushing for Gep or Biden?

It honestly doesn't matter to me who he picks, John Kerry has had my vote since November 2000. That said, I would love to see something exciting here, and not just another Cheney type pick. Let's look at someone to groom for 2012.

On Yahoo headlines right now:

"Iraq tops worst places to be a reporter"

Apparently the SNL weekend update people are writing the headlines at yahoo now.

The only poll (excluding zogby) that I still trust has dropped some results.

It's some pretty encouraging stuff, should silence the Kerry doubters, and this is even before the new ad campaign begins. Notice Kerry ahead in PA (yesss), OH, and FL. Good work.

John Kerry today launched what is said by many to be the most expensive ad blitz of all time. While not coming close to George Bush in total dollars spent, sources say that this is the most expensive AD buy in a political campaign. Kerry saturated the entire swing state market, along with Colorado and Louisiana with his new positive biographical ads, in an attempt to step up after Bush's early attempts to define him failed. Look for the result of this to be our first poll movement outside of the margin of error.

This is good news for the quelling of supposed Dems that are worried Kerry has been silent. I don't see it actually, he took a week off and has been on the campaign trail ever since..what the hell are these people talking about? Hell, I even got to see him speak during this "silent spring."

John Kerry is pissing off a few people who don't understand this new campaign. Students are interested, the internet will play a big factor..it's not all about TV time anymore. I say continue what you are doing. After Bush's load has dried, we're still tied. And no, I didn't plan that to rhyme.

I applaud the effort here from ex conservative David Brock (Blinded by the Right) to form a media watchdog group to debunk unsubstantiated attacks on the left (mediamatters.org), however, we need something like this that is going to preach to more than the choir. This is fodder for the liberal blogosphere, but when it really counts, who is going to be converted by something like this? I would like to see something that is coming from an unbiased stance and debunking all of the crap we are fed on the news networks. It would ooze credibility, and perhaps convert some people along the way. Until then, how can we go about our work when people can easily call this source a liberal shill?

and adding one or two more writers.

Anyone interested should email me here.

A proper knowledge of Blogger, which is pretty easy to use, and an obsession with following politics and ousting GW are necessary. It is best if you already have a blog for me to check out your writing style. If brought on, you will also be involved in site promotion. The guidelines for posts are not very restraining, but I'm getting ahead of myself. Anyone interested email me at info@lefttimes.com, or leave a comment on this post.

was right.

The Plame scandal is about to erupt. How much longer can Bush keep up with a weekly scandal?

Folks, head over to Democracy for America. This will be the reason for our long term success. Howard Dean and company have done more for our chances this year than even John Kerry, and he is going a long way to saving the party in the long term. Check it out, volunteer, contribute if you can. This is good stuff.

Kerry/??? 04!

All signs are pointing to a Kerry running mate selection by the end of this month. Expect more speculation, more names, and more clues to drop this week. I have said all along that it is important to do this early to have a top surrogate to handle attacks while Senator Kerry defines himself. The Left Times' official prediction? I'm going to have to limp out and say I can't pick one favorite, but the three names that I see popping up and the reasons for such are Gephardt (strategy), Vilsack (swing state, up and comer), and Edwards (fan favorite.) I would put my money on one of those three, but there are a plethora of outsider picks as well. Who would I actually want to see you ask? For my own selfish reasons, Kerry/Dean would be my dream ticket, but this hasn't even been dropped by the craziest of commentators. Strategically, however, and it pains me to say this, but Gep would probably be the best. Kerry doesn't really have to worry about me and my league of voters, we'd support a cabbage for VP if there was a D beside his name. We need to look at the swing voter.

More Doubts about Kerry from supposed Democratic Party insiders
I'm not sure where these stories are coming from, but I don't know why anyone is worrying at this point. Kerry is doing a fine job, and it shows, the polls are dead even. We've even erased most of the Bush monetary advantage, and let's face it, that is all they had to run on. If this becomes about issues, we're in folks. Stop your bitching! No one but political junkies are paying attention yet.

A new book for Bush to read
Yes, the outed CIA agent book is coming out. Look for a firestorm of coverage.

Finally, on the site
Support the Cause version 2 debuts with support for those of us who are broke, as well as an expanded list of areas to contribute for those of us who aren't. A new Kerry incentive program will be announced as well, and for those of you who participated on the old blog, I haven't forgot about you. The stickers are in, and I will be emailing all of you this week. Anyone waiting to contribute to the Kerry Core until we announce the incentives, go ahead and donate. All incentives will be retroactive to...right now. With school for me all finished on Tuesday, I will be able to finish up all of the sites and hopefully grow and promote more actively, as well as, of course, returning to the normal posting frequency. Thanks everyone for sticking with us through the last week or so during my finals.

I know that our loyal readership is probably pretty angry at the slowed updates, however, I am almost finished with the work that I need to do for school. No later than Wednesday, I promise, I will be up to my old tricks, performing abortions, burning churches, being limp wristed, drinking lattes, driving hybrid, hating corporations, renouncing god, and worshiping Stalin. We'll also do the usual number of updates.

This week has been a good week to be a Democrat. John Kerry, channeling Dean, decided to go on the attack. Bush, on the defensive from a smattering of everything else, is back down in the polls, where he belongs. That coverage, mixed with new talk of John Kerry's VP choice have helped put him in the forefront of the news cycle, and new ad campaigns have been playing in swing states. We should see a new gap in the polls next week from all of this action.

Yes, even the Fox News poll.

Have a good weekend folks, keep fighting the fight.

It's becoming book of the every other week, but stop your bitching!

Arianna Huffington's new joint, "Fanatics and Fools". Check it out! A must read for any realistic progressives. We have an opportunity to change the direction of this country, and Ms. Huff tells us how it is. Go, buy now...through this link!

From the plethora of stories that I have read in the past few days, the following names have come up.

Gephardt always seems to come up first, and I'm not sure why. I've expressed my distaste for both him and a Kerry/Gep ticket. It would be too boring and insidery for Joe Average. A VP is supposed to compliment AND supplement the big gun, this ticket would do too much of the sooner. The pluses however is that he would tear apart Cheney on all fronts.

Edwards is a fan favorite, but perhaps an outside pick in reality. He is a great campaigner, possibly the next Clinton, but maybe not quite ready for Prime Time yet. I still remember a few childish antics from the debates late last year.

John McCain is probably not going to happen, and if it did, it may enrage the base. That said, this is a sure way to win the Independent vote and probably the easiest path to a victory under a unified ticket. This is the world changer, but only more likely perhaps than Bill Clinton joining the ticket.

Evan Bayh, Indiana conservative senator with an extremely high approval rating, is a good strategic choice. This guy is an up and comer, and although a bit conservative for me, could help in the rose red state of Indiana. He is the Lieberman of this year's short list, but perhaps with less schmuck factor. Bayh was seen meeting with Kerry's VP strategy crew.

Tom Vilsack, Iowa Governator supreme, has also come up quite a bit as of late. Most people don't know who the hell he is, and Iowa is not exactly the most important state. Outside pick.

Bill Richardson , New Mexico Governator supreme, would go a long way with the Hispanic vote, but this guy has some skeletons.

Ed Rendell, our own Governator, might be criminally insane, but a good guy no less.

Howard Dean could perhaps be the ultimate crowd pleaser to the base, but his name has only come up for VP in some poorly done and hardly read blogs.

Bob Graham is possibly the most repulsive campaigner this side of Cheney. Stay away.

And to the one or two people that hit the site before I updated again, you heard it here first. Specter wins, it seems, though I am still a bit skeptical with such close results. Hopefully the fight isn't over, cause any extended battle helps Hoeffel. What does this say about things? The so called Republican wing of the Republican party is a strong fighter, and all of the Specters better watch their back. For the democrats, however, a divided GOPher unit is good times. Hopefully the wingnuts will stay home in November while licking their wounds from their man Tooney losing.

It seems that the majority of remaining precincts to be counted are Tooney strongholds. This ain't over yet.

While there is a small chance that Toomey could come back in the last few precincts reporting, It seems Arlen Specter will come out bloody and bruised to take on Joe Hoeffel for Senate this November in PA. Barring a Tooney miracle of course, and possibly a recount with the results being this close, Specter is at his weakest ever. Time to come out Joe, we can win this thing.

With over 70 percent reporting back, Specter holds a razor thin lead. Not Florida thin, but the numbers keep getting closer. I have a feeling that the most pro Tooney areas would be counted last. We should know within a few hours what went down. More later.

The polls are closed here in PA, and it's looking like a dead heat. Specter or Toomey? We should know by the end of 24.
I'm not sure why I care so much about this race, I think Hoeffel stands a good chance against either of them. That said, if Specter goes down in a few minutes here, it is truly the end of an era, and the Republicans will have shifted to the far, far right as a party. It is odd, that for the first time as I can remember, Both parties are moving towards the extremes and not the center. We're in for an interesting year.

My head tells me to root for Specter, because at least with him, we don't have to worry about having both of our seats in the Senate go to wingnuts, but with that said, why not just have the real thing? I think Specter is hurting more than anyone in this newly polarized electorate, and the results will show this soon. More on it later. Also good luck to Hoeffel, who begins his spirited quest tomorrow with a cross state tour. Let's really get his name out there. Glen has already said that he would go door to door for Hoeffel if Toomey won the primary, so who else is on board?

Who to root for? My thoughts are that Hoeffel stands to win from this bitter battle, no matter who comes out on top. I think I wouldn't mind seeing Toomey win just so that the world sees that an endorsement from GWB doesn't mean shit, but that said, if I were able to vote in this primary election, I would choose Specter. Other than his jackass magic bullet fiasco, he has proven to truely be a man of the people, one of a dying breed of Republicans that does seem to give a damn.

The results, tomorrow.

John Kerry, and rightfully so might I add, has gone on the attack RE:George Bush and co. attacking his military record. It's about time! Unless there is some ultra-Jack Bauer/Alias conspiracy at work and Bush wanted Kerry to raise the issue of GWB's service again to show a new smoking gun, the VRWC is a bunch of idiots for this one. That said, the polls have been relatively static for a long long time now, so maybe it won't even matter.

I haven't seen this myself yet, but Atrios is saying that Kerry had another one of his "slips." We'll see how the media covers this one.

Atrios has been running a great campaign to point out the unfair attention that John Kerry has gotten for his pro choice stance on abortion while being a Catholic. Check it out.

I will do some more updating tonight, don't worry. I'm pretty deep into finals week and it's not looking like I'll be finished until one week from tomorrow, but I will try to stop in and update here as much as I can.

Hello everyone,
the updates will be a bit light for the next week or so, Glen and I are in the midst of finals. Take this time to check out the cause pages, and maybe suggest some more races for us to link up to.

To let John Kerry step back into the spotlight as a war hero was a rather dumb move by the Bush team. Kos speaks about it, and here is the NY times article about Kerry's newly released records. I would have thought that if there was this big of a risk for the Bush team, surely there had to be something up their sleeve, some bombshell about Kerry's Vietnam era service that could go head to head with Bush's lack of service. Not so apparently, and it's going to bite them in the ass if the media doesn't ignore this follow up story.

Honestly I'm not sure why John Kerry said his military records are available (on Meet the Press) but apparently are not, but more than that, I'm not sure how exactly the Republicans are attempting to take on a war hero over the same thing their draft dodging idiot son took a hit on earlier in the year. Let's face it, the Bush campaign is the last group of people that can criticize military service.

Why are we not winning this election in a landslide? Because the Democratic party is inept.

Let's take a look at this. Some fellow bloggers are criticizing John Kerry's lack of response, but I don't think that's the problem. Trust me, I saw him last week, and he responds. Today for example, he isn't just opposing, he is proposing some environmental changes, and I think propose at this point is exactly what he needs to do. The DNC, however, should have the heavy hitters all over the news networks responding for him, in addition to any coverage he is granted from the media. I'm not talking low level pundits, I'm talking your Clintons, Gores, Deans, Edwards, etc. Why has the DNC been lax on this?

We have basically been handed the election. The only people pleased by Bush right now are the far right wingnuts and campaign contributors. Log Cabin and RINO republicans are being bullied from the inside. People see that Bush's shortsightedness is contributing to long term hate. We've been handed three books from major insiders in the last two months with damning revelations, and not capitalized on them at all. The situation in Iraq is moving to the bad, and our guy has proposed a way out, but no one is listening. The DNC should fire its flash team and start releasing the hounds. John Kerry should pick a top hound soon. Bush can only lose this for himself so much if people don't see or understand what other choice there is.

you shouldn't expect to be out of the spotlight for too long.

Fresh off of the heels of the Clarke movement, a new credible voice moves to reveal the truth about the Bush administration and Iraq. How early were plans for this invasion laid down? Why were Saudi officials briefed before Colin Powell? Liberal Oasis has a good article on Condi's response to this from the usually compliant "Face the Nation" and more.

Alterman hits the nail on the head of something I've been trying to say for a while. Add this on to that: people that bring up Clinton when I'm trying to argue what a terrible president W is, last I checked, Clinton wasn't on the ticket this time around. It's time we got past that. Move on!

Josh Marshall has an interesting piece on the subject. The more things like this come out the more I wonder how incredibly incompetent an administration, nary the most powerful administration in the world, has to be to have done stuff like this and expected no one to find out, or worse, no one to care. This is the guy that represents us around the world. Wonder why people hate us?

I've got to say that lately the GW cartel has been out of step. It seems like since the beginning of the year, they have been putting forth new policy and programs that have been largely unpopular, very un Rovian. Mars, Gaygate, State of the Union, the flawless president, etc.. and now he is running in my home state on the Patriot Act?

I don't know that there is an issue that is more divisive to conservatives and liberals alike. This tramping of the bill of rights is universally unpopular. How do they manage to keep picking the wrong sides of all of these issues? Honestly, I'm loving it.

John Kerry is going to a place where no mainstream politician running for President has dared go before. Today, he began to criticize the Bush administration for its "sweetheart deals" with some countries (read: Saudi Arabia). After a revelation from Woodward last night that Saudi Arabian officials agreed to fix oil prices before the election to keep George Bush in office, Kerry today responded with that crushing criticism. I gotta say, I didn't expect this issue to be raised, it always seemed to be obvious to me, but on the Michael Moore side of the liberal spectrum. That said, I think this will have quite an effect. The 1-2 Clarke Woodward punch should put yet another nail in GW's political coffin.

It was pretty tough for me to get up so early, I usually don't roll around until 10:45 or so on days I have class, until the afternoon on days I don't. Not today though, I was up at an hour that I hadn't seen since high school, 6:30. I had had three hours of rest and was on the road.

After a few pit stops, I finally arrive at Pitt. They have the area gated off, so me and the crew move to get in line. It was pretty surprising, the number of people there. What Glen estimated as two thousand later was reported to be ten thousand, a stunning turnout. There are a few Bush supporters outside with signs and sticker rolls. I was pretty unhappy to find out the way the stage was set up was with two difference pools of audience, some got a certain kind of ticket and was allowed to get much closer to the stage. I didn't have the ticket, needless to say, but I am curious how you get one. Now I know my efforts haven't been big shit or anything, but I have contributed a decent amount of documented effort to the campaign, and I'm still wondering why I got the generic ticket. Does anyone know? Also thanks to Phil for emailing me back about helping out. He was on the stage behind Kerry. As we waited for the show to begin, people became a bit antsy. Just hearing people, I was afraid that most of them would leave after Bon Jovi. On to the actual rally.

The first speaker was an absolute surprise, future PA senator Joe Hoeffel. I felt kinda stupid because Glen and I screamed, a few others applauded, and most others had no clue who this guy was. Great speaker though. He introduced newly elected county commissioner, Dan Onorato, who a few more people knew. Both spoke about how we need Kerry, but the crowd at large at this point was aloof. Then, after no email Phil speaks for a bit, he announces what to some was the main event. Bon Jovi, who I didn't dislike as much as I thought I would, played three songs, and it seems only one people knew. I can't say much bad here. After this, was a short break. A few people did head out, but only a few. I moved a few steps closer and was finally able to get a clear view. After a short break and some more stock campaign music (u2 must be rolling in cash from these guys), local hero Franco Harris came out. He wasn't the best speaker, but his point stands none the less. He introduces Governor Ed Rendell, the opening act.

governor Rendell is a good guy and I am a fan. That said, I'm suprised the crazy label stuck to Dean and not him. This guy looks like he's 9 foot tall and 9 foot wide and talks like a raving maniac. After a few remarks about Bush and Kerry, it was time for the main event.

The Heinz family along with the Senator and Tom Delonge of Blink 182 come out to Hey Ya. Teresa speaks first about how this is her home, one of her sons comes out with an Ahnold/Bill Clinton impression that works the crowd, and Delonge, who's name I'm suprised isn't on the RNC webpage for calling the president illiterate, was rather popular as well. He talked about how they can't go all around the world without people pissed at him. Finally, what I had been waiting to see for months now, John Kerry is on.

His speech wasn't anything I hadn't heard before. His aura was the usual. But god damn if that man can't get me worked up. I was cheering at every applause line, the crowd was going wild, it was rather exciting. John Kerry could speak and debate the president through a wall, and I'm sure that'll come through when they actually start debating this fall. His one flaw, that he uses too many words to say things, he seems to be working on. He needs an Al Sharpton soundbyte writer on his staff to complete the circle. That said, I was impressed, and I will be at as many of these events that I can.

One last little blurb before I head out for the night, check your local listings for Meet the Press tomorrow for an hour long interview with John Kerry. See the major difference between his interview and Bush's earlier this year. Also take note, Bush's interview was taped and edited, Kerry's will be live. Enjoy.

Hey all, I will be back tomorrow with catching up on the weekend news and a review of the Kerry rally from yesterday. Unfortunately I wasn't close enough to get any good pictures, but wow, there were about 10,000 people out there, and it was a much better crowd than I had anticipated. Joe Hoeffel, Ed Rendell, I didn't dislike Bon Jovi as much as I thought I would..more tomorrow. Until then folks, have a good weekend.

Gates open tomorrow at 9am, hope to see you all there. I will report back with full coverage and hopefully some pictures, which I know you will love since there are only about 3 on the entire site here. Anyway, enjoy it if you go, and if you can't make it, watch the webcast here. I'm expecting something pretty big tomorrow, being the last day of the campus tour, and with some pretty popular special guests.

Some of the punditry are saying that George Bush has spent too much money too fast, and basically gained nothing from it. Not to say I told you so...well yeah actually I did. Ol' W has blown half of his pre convention advertising budget in a little over a month, and polls show him even or slighty behind Senator Kerry. All for naught buddy boy. That will teach you to not start unnecessary wars without having a way out.

John Kerry on the other hand is ready to ramp up his advertising effort to define himself to the voters. He has raised an unexpectedly high amount of money since wrapping up the nomination, and only spent about a quarter of what Bush has on advertisements thus far.

Flip Flops? Not really..

Here is a good article on John Kerry's voting record in the Senate. It goes on to give explanations for any "out of character" votes and describes Kerry's consistency. There are many floor quotes from the Senator as well. A good bit on the voted for it voted against it Iraq thing, it actually explains that action pretty well, and it makes sense to me. Give it a read.

The following events take place in real time from the day of April 15 to November 2. George Bush has been preparing for this time since his slim and shady victory in 2000. A new democratic heir to the throne, John Kerry, has risen from the roller coaster primary dust to take Bush on. The story up to this point:

The time, is April 2003. George Bush continues to enjoy extremely high approval ratings as he nears the end of "combat" stages of the Iraq war. The public overwhelmingly backed the military action, as they believed that they were in immediate danger. Democrats, meanwhile, considered Bush to be unbeatable coming off of the 2002 republican mandate. They struggle to find a strong candidate within a pool of no name candidates after their biggest faces, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, decide against running.

Flash forward to June 2003. The American public is growing increasingly weary with our presence in Iraq, and reasons for being there. George Bush's numbers still look good for re-election, but the slumping economy and continued questions about the war on terror begin to dog him and his aura of unbeatability. Democrats, although still afraid to break out with criticism against the extremely popular President, begin to find their voice. There are 9 democratic candidates for President: Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, Carol Mosely Braun, Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean, John Kerry, and early front runner and VP candidate under Al Gore, Joe Leibermann. A 10th candidate, Wesley Clark, was being pushed to run by both grassroots supporters and DNC brass alike. He joined the race later on in the year.

We move now to December 2003. Howard Dean has stunned the country by becoming the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination. An Al Gore endorsement puts him along his way, only to begin to become a bit tainted with continued gaffes and missteps. Wes Clark is considered his only real opponent, as well as a fan favorite to be on a 1-2 team with Dean. Dick Gephardt is considered an outside shot. John Kerry and John Edwards were in danger of becoming also rans. The rest of the candidates remain second tier. Howard Dean's message of complete political reform resonates with many, as he smashes fundraising records and gained incredible media coverage and popularity, as well as gives the democratic party a backbone, with unabashed criticism at President Bush. The President, meanwhile, began to feel the effects of democratic pounding. Still viewed as a favorite, he tried to remain above the fray.

January/February 2004. Engaging in an ad war with Dick Gephardt mixed with media saturation of "I have a scream," Howard Dean's ship sunk in Iowa, with a disappointing third. John Kerry and John Edwards, with their incredible come from behind results, became the new race. Dean, after so much excitement near the end of 2003, was only able to come up with one primary victory. His home state of Vermont, in a largely symbolic vote, gave Dean many delegates weeks after he dropped out of the race.

March 2004. John Kerry wins 9 out of 10 races on super Tuesday, and forces his last viable opponent from the race, effectively clinching the Democratic nomination. George Bush, suddenly beatable and being dogged by a growing insurgency in Iraq, quickly responds with an attempt to define Kerry as a crazy liberal. The attempts are undercut by new interest in the 9-11 commission, and revelations that George Bush didn't pay enough attention to the terror threat prior to the horiffic attacks of September 2001.

The Present: George Bush's 40 plus million dollar ad blitz has failed. More of the polled public, although not being familiar with Kerry, choose him over Bush. An economy showing slight signs of recovery are not enough to combat George Bush's lack of plans in Iraq, and faltering support for his conduct as a president and in the area of foreign policy. The candidates are neck in neck, with Kerry having nowhere to go but up. Both sides struggle to define the race. Welcome to 200 days.

What will happen in these 200 days? What issue will frame the debate in this election? Will the economy continue to rebound in the short term? Will the Bush deficit play a pivotal role? Will Iraq continue to dwindle into chaos? Will John Kerry be able to warm up and define himself to voters? Who will be his vice presidential choice and how will it effect the race? Stay tuned folks, we're in for a ride.

The financial mess that George Bush has put our country in will hurt the United States economy, as well as greatly damage the world economy. People that fear taxes, watch out: George is probably going to have to raise them.

This is what happens when you let the most god awful iteration of a political party take charge in both the legislative and executive branches of government.

Just how large is the debt? Keep in mind that this estimate does not include costs for everyone's favorite unnecessary war. And this guy is a conservative! Maybe spending is the compassionate part.

On day three of his campus tour, John Kerry continues to impress. Today, Kerry reiterated his plan for fully funded higher education in exchange for national service. It is refreshing to see a politician speaking to this constituency, as we are often ignored. As for the plan itself, it is an all around winner, one that will get more people involved in both national service and higher education, which to me, is a win win situation. Kerry even explains how this can be paid for without putting any of the burden on taxpayers, which is by shifting money from a windfall that banks get by doing student loans.

At the same rally, John Kerry addressed the President's lack of substance in his speech last night. Not only did George Bush preempt 24, he did it basically to politic and stump. Now its on at the same damn time as the Sopranos and Alias, but I digress. John Kerry called for a "smarter way" in Iraq, one that eases the burden on the United States military and taxpayers by introducing the United Nations. This is a smart move because not only does he now have more substance in his plan than the sitting "we're going in the right direction" president, but it echoes the sentiment of the population. Kerry says it doesn't have to be this way, and never did, and he is 100 percent correct.

Today, President George W. Bush gave a rare speech with a Q and A session afterwards. The speech, only the third in Bush's term, centered mostly on assuming damage control mode RE:Iraq after a few weeks of deadly fighting and declining support for the war. The questions were a bit more broad in scope, including an inquiry to the President on whether or not he had made any mistakes or failures during his tenure. Karlbot activated, and of course, he suddenly blocked out the war in Iraq, his economic plan, his space manifest destiny, the anti-gay amendment, and of course, ignoring warnings before 9-11.

When asked if he felt any responsibility for 9-11 or if he wanted to apologize to the families, he sidestepped and said in retrospect, he wished the Department of Homeland Security was in place. Let's not forget to mention that the Department was a democratic idea that George Bush opposed and subsequently took credit for.

Looking at the first stories on the speech, the media isn't exactly giving it rave reviews. George Bush, as usual, came off as a pompous moron who is incredibly disconnected with the American public, and on top of that, is afraid to admit his wrongdoings. The best part of the speech by far was his magic tie.

CBS is for old people anyway, they couldn't handle the Gipper's homophobia. He's gonna be on Rushmore one day!!
congratulations on beating FOX for the Jefferson Muzzle award for suppressing free speech.

As you read this, the proverbial stuff continues to hit the fan in Iraq. Sadr set to become a martyr. Russia's contractor to pull out. Where do we go from here?

Kos thinks cut and run is on the way. We shall see in the coming weeks how the Bush admin. will deal with its slipping popularity.

We are preempting 24 to hear the idiot son do damage control on Iraq? Now this thing to get him out of office has become more than a mission. They moved it to Sunday at 9! I'm going to have to set up 40 VCRs! Goddamn FOX promised that the rest of 24's season would not be interrupted! They wonder why it can't find an audience. I should have expected it from the network that ruined the Family Guy, Futurama, etc etc..

To hell with American Idol while I'm at it.

Again, anyone in the Pittsburgh area on Friday, there will be a Kerry rally @ Pitt main campus. Doors open at 9 am, the event, I believe, starts at 11 am. It is the final day of Kerry's campus tour, so I would expect a rather important policy speech.

Speaking of Kerry's campus tour, this is a pretty good idea. Kerry, while portraying himself as a man of the people, is staying out of the range of Bush shooting himself in the foot. While Kerry is out parading his college tax credit program, Bush is on the defensive from Iraq fallout and slipping poll numbers. Kerry does remain topical however, throwing in only soundbytes of criticism on Iraq. He is striking a perfect balance at this time, and the negative ads from Bush seemed to have had no effect. While he is at it, he gets to echo a view that quite a few in the US hold: bring internationalism to Iraq. All in all, this month will be a good one for John Kerry politically, one that may firmly put John Kerry as the front runner for President in November.

New polls this week show a steep decline in support for President Bush in general and against John Kerry. A week of Iraq plunging into chaos plus the return of John Kerry to the scene has put the Senator well ahead in most recent polls.

A year ago, this guy was unbeatable.


Kos brought up an interesting point last night. It seems he got into rant mode about the same time that I did. John Edwards wanted to bring America back together. Howard Dean wanted to reform the democratic party. Why is John Kerry running? The obvious answer is that he thinks..and I know.. that he can do a better job than Bush. That answer isn't good enough for the public, and honestly, my vote for Kerry is still about 55 percent a vote against Bush. This is more of a personality issue than his actual policy, which for the most part, does well. I do like John Kerry, and I am excited about our prospects (now we even have a chance at the Senate), but we should be landsliding Bush in the polls. We need an American public friendly soundbyte slogan, one that paints the positives of the Kerry plan, not the old Bring It on. We aren't in the primaries anymore Dorothy.

Why is John Kerry afraid of his liberal roots? Fiscal Discipline as a top campaign theme? Civil Unions? Lowering the corporate tax? Further enhancing tax cuts to the lower class? Not supporting an increase in gas taxes? Some of his themes reek of think tanks and focus groups, two terrors that have plagued corporate politics as of late.

I think we should have a balanced budget, but social programs should come before further enhancing middle class tax cuts that are already quite excessive. The rich should have to handle the majority of the taxes, because they make the most, and make far more than they need. That, however, is not an excuse to totally remove the burden from the middle class. Why do we pay far fewer in taxes than most industrial countries? It's because not only do these countries care more about their people, but because the ugly truth you don't hear is that by not letting the government handle some programs such as health care, we pay far more with inflation and bureaucratic costs. Where is the education campaign? This theme of have it both ways is a good way to get nowhere.

No gas tax? This is laziness on our government and media's part in letting taxes have a negative connotation, especially on the unusually high gas prices. True, a gas tax is regressive because all people pay the same percent, but let's look at it. First, the people that want to drive the SUVS and bigger cars would pay more because they eat more gas. If that isn't the case, SUVs would be driven and purchased less, as would our reliance on gas, and a la our reliance on middle eastern oil. The money would stimulate our economy, put money into severely underfunded social programs, move us toward energy independence with money towards fuel efficiency research, so on and so forth. The truth that the American People don't want to hear is that our gas is and has been subsidized for a long time. We pay far less than we should for it, and it shows, for our small population accounting for over 30 percent of the world's energy consumption.

John Kerry should have a heart to heart with the American people. We have grown so accustomed to having it both ways. We want to have our low prices and no unions at wal mart, but get angry when John Average's job gets shipped to India. Kerry should say, flat out, that it is a choice we as a country need to make. Which do you want?

The entry workers of the country deserve a living wage. 5.15 an hour is anemic compared to even when the law was enacted. That hourly pay would be over 8 dollars now if adjusted for inflation. Has the wage inflated with it? No. Should John Kerry be on it? Yeah.

Civil Unions are a cop out. Kerry should come out for full marriage rights. I understand that baby steps are how things get done, but Kerry himself has come out in favor of Marriage as between a man and a woman..if he admitted that it was a baby step in the right direction, we would have more common ground on this divisive issue.

Senator Kerry has some important decisions to make. He has an opportunity to run his campaign like no other before: one that listens to it's constituents. He can run on a platform of educating voters on the intricacies of government, and the choices before them. Kerry can show the voting public what a real leader is, and take strong, clear positions, but not strong enough that they can't be modified if circumstances warrant. "Steady leadership in times of change" is an idiotic slogan; change, by definition, demands adaptation. Kerry has this opportunity to take the ball because we currently have a President who has taken our country in the most wrong direction in our history. Don't get me wrong, the most nuanced Kerry position is better than any Bush position, and I defy anyone to find an example that would make me retract that statement. I fully support the candidacy of John Kerry for this presidential election, and I do think we will win. That said, we can make a difference in the way things are done this time around. A dishonest, out of touch moron runs the White House, so why aren't we polling in a landslide? Because John Kerry's nuanced positions of appeasement don't appease too many.

This isn't new, but no less relevant.

Ralph Nader, as it turns out, is just as bad as your average Washington insider. His self-righteous moralist holier than thou rhetoric doesn't hold up to some of his own actions. Check it out.

I really believe in most of the things that Ralph Nader claims to stand for, but if some of this is true, who can you trust?
If some of this is true, I would go as far as to say that his run may be a deliberate attempt to split the progressive vote. Say it ain't so, someone give me some proof otherwise.

Ralph has done a world of good, and yes, the two corporate parties do have a stranglehold on the election, and yes, he and anyone else that wants to run should be able to, but damn Ralph, don't you see how important this one is?

The root site of the above link has dirt on pretty much every candidate since 96, with a few very thin dirt, including John Kerry surprisingly. Check it out. It's a rather non-partisan site with some muck on candidates from all sides of the political spectrum.