Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog - Laundry Day (My Freeze Ray)

Thank You to all Canvass Volunteers

Bill Clinton was 46 when he was elected president in 1992 – the same age as Barack Obama is now. But Clinton has questioned Barack Obama’s readiness to become president – arguing that by the time he himself ran in 1992 he had far more experience than Obama. He also states that when he decided not to run in 1988 (when he was “closer to Senator Obama” in experience) he didn’t think he “knew enough and had served enough and done enough to run” at that point in his own career. While I can understand Bill Clinton’s eagerness to undermine his wife’s most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win.

But more to the point, it strikes me as unfair to claim that Obama lacks relevant experience for the presidency. When he ran in 1992, Bill Clinton had been the governor of a small, rural southern state; as such, he had only limited experience with national issues and no foreign policy experience to speak of. Incidentally, at this point in the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton has served as an elected official in the U.S. Senate for not quite eight years, and before that a First Lady in the White House. Obama has so far held elective office for almost twelve years, at both levels of government – first as an Illinois state senator and then as a U.S. Senator. Before that he was a community organizer among Chicago’s poor, and then a civil rights lawyer – two experiences that in my view are critically relevant to anyone seeking to become president of all Americans. Obama’s international experience comes first hand – his father was a goat-herder in Kenya, and Obama spent a portion of his childhood in Indonesia. And as an African-American, with all the personal experience that implies, Obama seems particularly well qualified to understand the issues that need to be addressed in order to unify America and renew the nation’s moral authority around the world.

-Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor for Bill Clinton

On the single most important foreign policy issue of our time, I got it right.

By Jim Davenport, Associated Press Writer | September 30, 2007

COLUMBIA, S.C. --Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Sunday that the front-runner for his party's nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, does not offer the break from politics as usual that voters need.

Both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and her husband, former President Clinton, have criticized Obama for his lack of political experience.

Obama said he understands their argument.

"They want to make the argument that Senator Clinton is just an extension of the Bill Clinton presidency," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "They've been the dominant political family in the Democratic Party for the last 20 years now. So it's not surprising that they want to focus on their longevity.

But, Obama said: "My belief is that the American people are looking for a fundamental break from the way we've been doing business."

the entire piece is here.

One of the Best Ideas in Years

Sept. 30, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.

more;

"The conclusion was that if there is a pro-abortion nominee they will consider working with a third party," said the person, who spoke to Salon on the condition of anonymity. The private meeting was not a part of the official CNP schedule, which is itself a closely held secret. "Dobson came in just for this meeting," the person said.

the whole piece in Salon.

Now it's time to put my money where my mouth has been. I've believed for several months that this would not be a two-party race. Although my take has included a determined "no war" candidate on the left of the Democratic ticket, I'll take three and be quite happy, thank you.

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

The 5 year aniversary of this speech is this Tuesday, October 2. I get chills reading it again, and furious that some of our Demoratic candidates could have been so wrong then and so "experienced" now. --kenny

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

NEWSWEEK Poll: Sept. 29, 2007

This is news. Allow me to point your eyes to 5a below. The difference between "preference" (a poll number) and "likely caucus-goer" (a number that matters) is startling. Is hope alive? Hell 'ya. Question 6 asks about 1st choice/2nd choice. This is also very important in a caucus state. The full poll here.



5a. If you were attending a Democratic caucus TODAY, which ONE of the following eight presidential candidates are you most likely to support?

BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VOTERS

Democratic Candidate Preference
Total		Likely Democratic Caucus-Goer
31	Hillary Clinton/Lean Clinton	24
25	Barack Obama/Lean Obama	28
21	John Edwards/Lean Edwards	22
6	Bill Richardson/Lean Richardson	10
3	Joe Biden/Lean Biden	5
1	Dennis Kucinich/Lean Kucinich	1
1	Chris Dodd/Lean Dodd	1
0	Mike Gravel/Lean Gravel	0
*	Other candidate/Lean other candidate	*
12	Total Undecided	9

5b. Do you support the following STRONGLY or only moderately?

BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VOTERS

Strength of Support
	Clinton	Obama	Edwards
Strong	55	41	37
Not Strong/Lean	45	59	63

6. If you were attending a Democratic caucus TODAY, which ONE of the following eight presidential candidates are you most likely to support? And who would be your SECOND CHOICE for the Democratic presidential nomination? (Table will add to more than 100% due to multiple responses.)

BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VOTERS

First/Second Democratic Choice (NET)
Total		Likely Democratic Caucus-Goer
49	Total Hillary Clinton	44
48	Total Barack Obama	52
41	Total John Edwards	41
15	Total Bill Richardson	19
7	Total Joe Biden	11
2	Total Dennis Kucinich	2
1	Total Chris Dodd	2
*	Total Mike Gravel	0
1	Total other candidate	1
12	Total undecided	9