Friends, it's time to channel our anger about the direction the Clinton campaign has taken into action. It's time for us in the netroots to lobby our Democratic elected officials, particularly those who are uncommitted or have already endorsed Clinton, to withdraw their support for her campaign, or at the very least, use their influence to demand that she dramatically change her campaign's tone.

Do elected officials really want to remain associated with a campaign defined by fear-mongering, race-baiting, and gratuitous slanders against the rising star of our party?

Below the fold, I've attached my letter to Rhode Island Senator and Clinton campaign co-chair Sheldon Whitehouse.  Please feel free to suggest improvements to it, and better yet, to adapt it to your own purposes for lobbying your own elected Democrats.  It's time for action.

nyceve:  we feel your despair.  We feel the despair borne of a political-military-industrial establishment that invents wars and ignores looming environmental catastrophe, that enriches itself without limit and without regard to the public good, that shreds the principles our society was built on, lies about it with impunity, and laughs.

But while it may be irrational to hope, hope is our only chance.  Without hope, we don't have the strength to organize and to act.  With it, then there's at least a chance we can.  Barack Obama, the Audacity of Hope guy, gets that.

Obama made not one but two major speeches yesterday.  The first, covered extensively here, was his subdued, cerebral speech to the DNC Winter meeting.  Saying repeatedly "politics is not a game," he challenged the party to treat the campaign as a unified effort to raise the political discourse of our nation, rather than as blood sport.

But it's his second speech -- to a crowd of 3000(!) students at George Mason University -- that infused me with hope, and might cheer you up too.  As a bonus, it previewed the six policy themes that may form the backbone of his campaign platform.

Excerpts and video below.

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS... why in the world the progressive netroots community isn't fully embracing the campaign of the most charismatic, inspiring, brilliant, consistently anti-war, unifying, progressive Presidential candidate we've had in 40 years?

Of course, I've heard the objections to President Obama.  They boil down to these four:

1. Obama is dark-skinned/funny-named and therefore unelectable.

2. Obama's rhetoric is insufficiently partisan, so he can't be trusted to champion progressive values.

3. Obama is too young and inexperienced to be President.

4. Obama lacks the national security credentials to be President.

Here, I attempt to dismantle each of these objections in turn.  Most importantly, regarding (4) national security, I'd like you to consider that electing President Barack Obama could effectively "re-brand America" to the world, in one fell swoop accomplishing more for the actual security of our nation -- our cities, our families, us -- than any military or diplomatic policy we could possibly enact.

Jump!

Barack Obama spoke passionately about Dr. King's legacy, weaving in themes of war, poverty, and justice, at the St. Mark Missionary Baptist Church in Harvey, IL this morning.  He received a rapturous, raucous reception, as you can hear for yourself in this rough MP3 audio.  Listen to him with this audience, and you hear his humor, charisma, and intelligence all shining through.

Allison Hantschel of the Daily Southtown reviewed the speech, and her comments would probably be of interest to the Obama skeptics on this blog.

The Obama who took to the pulpit at 10:45 a.m. to thunderous applause sounded more like the man who called the Iraq war "dumb" and "rash" than the one who has been speaking in measured terms about phased troop redeployments and foreign policy seriousness.

(continued below)

Oh no - legislation originally cosponsored by our two least favorite war apologists in the Senate, and now joined on by the Kos-dissing Barack Obama?  Time to mobilize a big effort to fight this bill, whatever it is?

Just the opposite:  the bill is the reincarnation of the 2004 Climate Stewardship Act, which is the most serious effort in the Senate to take a first step toward reducing the carbon emissions responsible for catastrophic global warming.

This AP article has the details (quoted under the fold):

President Barack Hussein Obama?  Barack... Hussein... Obama?!

I mean, sure, he's a charismatic speaker, accomplished legislator, and the living embodiment of the American dream.  And as President, sure, he'd have the potential to unite Americans across racial and cultural lines behind a common-sense progressive agenda on diplomacy, health care, education, and environmental protection.

But that name!  Let's face it folks, America would never, ever elect anybody with a name as funny as that!  I even think it's fair to say that, just by pointing out his name, they've beaten him already!

A list of other unelectably ridiculous names, below the fold...

Over at HuffPost, Dave Johnson and James Boyce pen a must-read article about the Smear Machine that tears down our Democratic leaders and accomplishments.

A large part of Obama's appeal, no doubt, is that he is a "fresh face" with genuine charisma and intelligence.  He didn't support the war, he can work a crowd in a positively Clintonian manner (and I'm not talking about Hillary), and his biography is an inspiration.  But - would he still be getting the rock star treatment if the MSM and right wing hadn't systematically torn down our party's more experienced leaders?

If Kerry, Gore, and Mrs. Clinton are already damaged goods beyond rehabilitation in the public eye, then what can we do to prevent Obama from being torn down in the same way?

Excerpts from the article below the fold...

Today's Boston Globe called attention to a horrifying aspect of Bush's war spending:  the illegal use of huge "emergency" war budgets, spent without any oversight, outside the normal federal spending processes, not even factored into the federal deficit calculations.

The emergency supplemental budgets include far less detailed information than is required in the federal budget.. And unlike the normal budget process, in which multiple congressional committees review the requests for nearly a year, the emergency expenditures are reviewed by the House and Senate appropriations committees, which have smaller staffs than the congressional armed services panels _ and they are under enormous pressure to approve them swiftly.

So far $418 BILLION of our money has been spent in this way.  Continue under the fold to see why this spending constitutes a potentially impeachable offense...

Search results for: 156.33.77.83
OrgName: U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms
OrgID: USSAA
Address: 2 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.E. 6TH FLOOR
City: WASHINGTON DC
StateProv: DC
PostalCode: 20510
Country: US

NetRange: 156.33.0.0 - 156.33.255.255
CIDR: 156.33.0.0/16
NetName: SCC
NetHandle: NET-156-33-0-0-1
Parent: NET-156-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: SEN-DMZP.SENATE.GOV

Clearly this email constitutes a misuse of government resources.  Might it have originated with a Chafee staffer?  Can any of you help with Matt's investigation?

UPDATE: rifuture.org has posted the full text of one of the emails, which is excerpted below the fold.

UPDATE #2: uh-oh: the email originated from Chafee's office. Details below the fold.

UPDATE #3: AP reports that Chafee staffer Lammis Vargas admits to having sent the anonymous slime mails from her U.S. Senate computer. See Providence Journal, Washington Post stories.

In today's Providence Journal, Froma Harrop's column ("Chafee vs. Whitehouse, Purely about party") repeats the myth that "Lincoln Chafee didn't vote very much with Bush."  In fact, Chafee's record shows a pattern of supporting Bush's agenda in key behind-the-scenes decisions, then taking a more moderate [citation]stand "just for show" after Bush's desired outcome had been assured.  For example:

• On the Medicare drug bill which was a bonanza for the pharmaceutical companies but a disaster for seniors, Senator Chafee supported the "make-or-break" procedural vote that kept the bill alive.  Later, he voted against the final bill, but by then his vote was irrelevant.  [citation]

(much more over the flip)

LULAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens, doesn't much care for the Republican TV ads that associate Mexican immigrants with the 9/11 bombers, on behalf of Linc Chafee's floundering reelection campaign.

They've sent a powerful, emotional letter to Liddy Dole and the NRSC demanding that the ad be pulled.  If this issue gets national attention in the Latino community, it could backfire on the Republicans not only in Rhode Island but across the country.  I quote the letter in its entirety, below the fold.

Meanwhile, Linc Chafee continues his cowardly refusal to disavow the ad.  This may help him survive his primary challenge (though I doubt it - the wingnuts will vote for Laffey anyway)... but is that really worth losing the votes of Rhode Island's 35000 Latino citizens (compare: 70000 registered Republicans), not to mention his reputation for integrity?

The issue at hand is Senator Lincoln Chafee's refusal, twice, to disavow a patently racist attack ad that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is running on his behalf. The ad links Mayor Laffey's acceptance of Mexican ID cards for city services in Cranston, RI to terrorism and 9/11. The ad's visuals show brown-skinned people and the Mexican flag, then shadowy figures entering government buildings and boarding airplanes. The words "Risk to Our Security!" are superimposed.

The larger issue is the power of the blogosphere to help keep an issue like this alive, when before, the pro-Chafee mainstream media would have simply let the issue die out. We have an echo chamber now. It doesn't have nearly the reach of the Limbaugh/Fox/CNN Wurlitzer, but it's something.

Follow the whole timeline below the fold....

To Sheldon, or the DSCC: go on TV now--before the September 12 primary--and denounce that Chafee ad as racist.  "I'm Sheldon Whitehouse, and I approved this message because singling people out based on their skin color is wrong."

Why?  Details below the fold.

But what about midterm elections?  We need a campaign anthem, something to put the wind at our backs as we're out there working to reclaim our government from the neocons and theocrats.

Here are some possibilities:

(1) Carly Simon - "Turn of the Tide"
(2) Tom Petty - "I Won't Back Down"
(3) Barry Manilow - "I Made It Through the Rain"
(4) Stevie Wonder - "You Haven't Done Nothing"
(5) Bruce Springsteen - Born in the U.S.A.

I've included lyric excerpts under the fold...  vote for your favorite!

The poll below lists 10 worthy recipients culled from the directory at ActBlue.com.
I hereby commit $100 to whichever option is leading the poll below on Thursday 11/10 at 3pm EST.  Please explain your vote in the comments.  Vote early, vote often!

Yesterday a friend and I drove 100+ miles to New Hampshire - my 16-month-old toddler in tow - to help canvass.  Over 200 volunteers showed up at the Salem, NH KE04 office!

I was given a list of addresses in a scary suburban "private community" in Derry, NH.  This was Bush territory, a little slice of white Alabama in New England.  Bush signs outnumbering Kerry signs 10 to 1, NRA bumper stickers, "God Bless Our Freedom," etc.  We quickly learned that the presence of 3 or 4 vehicles parked in the driveway did not necessarily indicate that anyone would be home.

(more below the fold)

It ain't necessarily so
It ain't necessarily so
The things dat de right-wing
`ll say, sure be fright'ning
But ain't necessarily so.

Li'l Dubya talks tough, but oh my
Li'l Dubya talks tough, but oh my
He caught no Osama
So fought dat Saddam-a
How many will die for his lie?

Dick Cheney says he'll keep us strong
Debating, his nose grew so long
His war is quite certain
To aid Halliburton
But everyone knows that it's wrong.

More after the fold....

Every Democrat should see it.  Every flag-waving chickenhawk wingnut should see it.  And anytime anyone suggests to you that Kerry's war service was less than heroic, or that his significant role in bringing the war to an end was less than equally heroic: all you need to do is ask whether they've seen this movie.  If they haven't, they're missing the context and the facts.

Of particular note:  (1) a very funny quote from the Nixon White House, "let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader"; (2) seeing  Kerry humiliate John O'Neill in a TV debate in the early 1970s, thereby providing context for his Swift Boat attacks this year;  (3) many striking parallels between the futility of Vietnam and the futility of Iraq.

Throughout this long election season, my friends and I have all tended to mock Kerry and roll our eyes every time he brings up his Vietnam service.  No more.  This man is someone special, someone with a particular courage and strength and life experience that our nation needs desperately right now.

Bad news:  the theater was practically empty.  This was the 9:30 show on a Saturday night in a suburb of Providence, RI (the main downtown multiplex had been scheduled to show it, but then didn't).  Unless the marketing is going better in other places, I fear this film won't have nearly the impact it deserves.