Key Ohio Endorsement For Obama

COLUMBUS, OH—Ohio Treasurer Richard Cordray today endorsed Senator Barack Obama for president, citing his unique ability to bring people together to change our politics.

"I believe in Senator Obama's inspirational message and his effort to create a politics that will bring people together," Treasurer Cordray said. "That is the kind of leadership we are working to provide in Ohio, and it is badly needed to change the federal government in Washington."

"Treasurer Cordray's distinguished record of leadership in Ohio represents the very best in our tradition of public service," Senator Obama said. "An Ohioan by birth, he has a fundamental understanding of the challenges facing working families in these difficult times. He knows how critical it is that we make quality health care affordable to every American and that our tax code stops rewarding companies that ship our jobs overseas and starts putting tax breaks back in the pockets of hardworking Ohioans.

"But Treasurer Cordray also understands that none of this is going to be possible unless we can bring people together and finally put aside our divisive, petty politics and fundamentally change the way that Washington works. The Treasurer is going to be an extraordinary asset in this movement for change, and I look forward to working alongside him as we campaign in towns and cities across Ohio in the weeks to come."

Maureen Dowd "But it’s Day 2 that I’m really worried about"

(from a column by Maureen Dowd)
After giving up drinking and becoming Texas governor, W. had supposedly changed from an arrogant, obdurate, Daddy-competing loser to a genial, bipartisan, mature winner. As it turned out, a total makeover is not possible after 40.

Hillary’s narrative echoes W.’s: After the scalding partisanship of the ’90s, she became a senator and turned the other cheek, working on legislation with Republicans who had pursued the impeachment case against her husband. She has supposedly learned from her White House mistakes on health care, Travelgate and legal issues, from her battles with the right and the press. She knows now that being obstructionist and secretive don’t work.

An appealing arc, but is it true? Her campaign shake-up showed that she continues to rank loyalty and secrecy above competence and ingenuity. She is still so guarded that she began answering questions from the press and voters only after she lost Iowa.

All of us have known big shots who keep a check on their real feelings and dark tendencies until they get the top job. Then they throw off the restraints and revert to their worst instincts, bullying others and insulating themselves with sycophants.

Hillary could be ready on Day 1 — to make up her Enemies List and banish Overkill Bill to a cubbyhole in the Old Executive Office Building. But it’s Day 2 that I’m really worried about.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Don't Veto the People's Choice!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- who may be the most super delegate of all as chair of the Democratic national convention in Denver -- gave an interview with Bloomberg TV's Al Hunt in which she laid down the law for super delegates:

"I think there is a concern when the public speaks and there is a counter-decision made to that," she said, adding quickly, "I don't think that will happen."

She said the governors, lawmakers, DNC members and others picked as super delegates are chosen through a grassroots process and are accountable to the party's voters.

"I do think that they have a respect -- it's not just following the returns, it's also having a respect for what has been said by the people," Pelosi said. "It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided."

That message will be music to the ears of Barack Obama, who's building a lead in pledged delegates and is urging the super delegates to follow the voters. He now leads 1,133 to 996 in pledged delegates, while Hillary Clinton has a 242-163 edge among super delegates, according to the latest tally by RealClearPolitics. Obama holds the overall edge, 1296-1238.

Pelosi had one more stunner in the interview: She said the Florida and Michigan delegates should not be seated if those delegates would decide the nomination.

"Well, I don't think that any states that operated outside the rules of the party can be dispositive of who the nominee is. That is to say they can't make the difference because then we would have no rules," she said.

Pelosi added, "But I do think that the best outcome for us is if one of the candidates pulls ahead and this issue is disposed of long before we get to the convention. We certainly don't want to ignore Florida and Michigan, but we can't ignore the rules which everyone else played by."

Hillary and Roger: Kissin' Cousins?

Any reasonable person who watched Roger Clemens testify before Congress this week came away with a couple of impressions -

1. Clemens cheated by using an unfair advantage to reach his greatness.

2. He lied about cheating, continues to lie, and believes he is justified in winning at all costs.

The same appears to be the case with Hillary Clinton and her attempt to "win" the Democratic nomination from Barack Obama. Quite aside from her attempts to discredit Senator Obama with questions of race, unscrupulous distortions, and negative ads - tactics that have failed as Obama continues leads in popular vote, pledged delegates, and states won, Hillary continues to try and secure the nomination that she believes is rightfully hers, irrespective of the will and choice of the voters. Hillary and her organization have increased pressure on superdelegates to vote for her even if she fails to win the majority of votes, delegates, and states.

But Hillary's strategy does not stop there. Consider the question of Michigan and Florida, where she, alone, campaigned and won delegates, in direct violation of party rules to which ALL candidates agreed and pledged, including Hillary.

Please read the transcript from Meet the Press this morning:

MR. RUSSERT: Besides superdelegates, another important issue is Florida and Michigan, and this is what happened. Back in August of '07, Howard Dean wrote this letter to all the candidates:

"As leader of the Democratic Party, I strongly urge you to adhere to the 2008 delegate selection rules. The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules. ... The 2008 Delegate Selection Rules adopted by the full DNC at its August 2006 meeting clearly provide that only four states - Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire," "South Carolina - may hold their respective contests prior to February 5, '08. The [Rules and Bylaws Committee's] finding of noncompliance included a 100 percent loss of pledged and unpledged delegates." If you tried to move your primary up, you've lost all your delegates. Florida and Michigan did it, they lost all their delegates.

The Clinton campaign put out this statement: "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the" nomination "process." "We believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC approved nominating calendar."

That was the Clinton campaign in September. Here's the Clinton campaign in February.

"With regard to Michigan and Florida, our position is clear. We're going to ask our delegates to vote to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. We do not think that" "many Americans should have" had "their votes and their voices and their preferences denied. "We had an enormous turnout, particular in Florida, the largest turnout in the history of the Democratic primary in Florida. And we believe that it is critically important that those delegates have an opportunity to express their preferences at the convention. "I don't believe that anyone seriously thinks we're going to have a national convention in which the delegations of Florida and Michigan are not going to have a say. So that is our position."

Like Roger, Hillary believes it is her right to win at all costs, by playing the game with rules that only benefit her, by cheating. This is a critical time for the so called Democratic Party - will it be, or will it not be?

But two things are clear to me, based on the question of character alone -
Roger Clemens does not belong in The Hall of Fame
Hillary Clinton does not belong in the Oval Office

Zachary Marcus

Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius, Calls on Hillary to Stop Deriding Senator Obama's...

Governor Kathleen Sebelius today called on Senator Clinton and her campaign surrogates to stop discounting the votes of Red State Democrats.

“Senator Clinton and her campaign surrogates keep deriding Senator Obama’s wins in red states by saying that her victories in the ‘big states’ are the ones that matter,” Governor Sebelius said. “ The right Democrat, like Barack Obama, can carry red states, just like the 14 Democratic governors elected in states won by George Bush in 2004. We can’t tell people their votes don’t matter and then expect their support against John McCain in November. Senator Obama is reaching to Independents and Republicans because they desperately want to change our politics. I hope Senator Clinton will follow his lead and stop dismissing Democrats that don’t live in New York or California.”

Time for President Obama

Hillary Clinton and the Betrayal of Women and Children: 35 Years of Experience - The Real Record

Submitted by BuzzFlash on Thu, 01/24/2008 - 6:35am - Mark Karlin, Editor and Publisher, BuzzFlash.com

January 24, 2008

Hillary Clinton has clearly, succinctly, and repeatedly challenged Barack Obama and John Edwards to let voters judge them or her by their records. Hillary Clinton has included her 8 years as First Lady in her 35 years of political experience, so it is appropriate to take her up on her challenge.

In this post, we will just examine one of the claims Clinton has made about her record, per her request to look closely at not just words, but her actions.

In the hot and testy debate in South Carolina, Clinton countered Obama's correct assertion that she served on the board of directors of Wal-Mart (followed by years as a corporate attorney for the Rose Law Firm) by saying, in essence, that when Obama was wet behind his ears, she was working and being inspired by the legendary Marian Wright Edelman at the Children's Defense Fund. That is true until you get to the issue of results in public office.

As we have noted in a previous editor's blog (along with the page numbers), Hillary brags in her memoirs that she was the one who lured the infamous Dick Morris back as an adviser to Bill (and Hillary) during the White House years in the mid-90s, as Bill Clinton was trying to find a way to counter the Newt Gingrich assault and the never-ending Republican attempts to investigate and impeach him.

As a result of Morris's "triangulating" advice, the Clintons embraced some cold-hearted measures, including what became called euphemistically "welfare reform." In fact, the progressive and children's advocate community considered it a Draconian measure that would punish poor children if their moms didn't find work. The Clintons, both of them, supported it, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Among those who ardently and eloquently opposed the Clinton "welfare reform" bill was Marian Wright Edelman. Her husband, Peter Edelman, quit his high-level job at the Department of Health and Human Services in protest when Bill Clinton signed the bill. He was deeply upset about what the legislation would do to helpless children.

In a July 2007 interview with Amy Goodman, Marian Wright Edelman had this to say about the "welfare reform bill" and Hillary Clinton:

AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children’s Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, “His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.” So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t—and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.

And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of—a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy who’s born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many children are sitting up—15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study—are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could not get mental health and health care in their community. This is an abomination.

That is a staggering indictment, from the woman Hillary Clinton regularly mentions as her mentor, of a gap between Hillary Clinton's words and her record. It reflects upon a political decision that she and Bill made to leave many children behind in order to ensure a second term. (The "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act," as it was cynically called, was signed in August of 1996, just about three months before the '96 presidential election.)

I can personally understand the symbolic importance and progressive act it would be to elect our first woman president. That would be joyful indeed. But not if our first woman president is not progressive.

BuzzFlash has received and posted many angry e-mails from women readers who consider any critical look at Hillary Clinton's record as an "attack" on her. Given that Clinton has invited the entire nation to investigate her record to see if she delivers on her promises, it betrays Clinton's own request not to proceed with such a task.

Does one's gender make one immune from betraying helpless children and the poor?

Just ask Marian Wright Edelman and Peter Edelman. If you think Edelman's quotation was taken out of context, read the full interview here.

And to those who might think that BuzzFlash is being fed information by the Obama or Edwards camp, you are dreaming. We are disillusioned, to say the least, that the Obama camp appears so deficient in being able to bring Hillary's checkered record on progressive issues out as a campaign issue. We don't know who they have working in their opposition research department, but you can find this stuff on Google, for Christ's sake. The Clinton campaign can run circles around the Obama and Edwards campaigns when it comes to opposition research.

Throughout the primaries, BuzzFlash has been roundly ignored by the Democratic presidential campaigns. In fact, we have only received one non-robotic e-mail (and no phone calls, faxes, or snail mail) from any of the campaigns -- and that was one about the Nevada results that we shared with our readers. (It was from one high-level Clinton adviser whom we know, but who otherwise hasn't been communicating with us since joining the Clinton campaign.)

We are actually glad we aren't hounded with spin by the campaigns. It leaves us with a clear head.

The Hillary and Bill Clinton betrayal of poor women and children in 1996 (and as Edelman notes in her interview, now having a devastating long-term impact) came to mind by chance. In the early '90s, I was an attendee at a meeting with Peter Edelman on an unrelated topic, and I was impressed by what an earnest, sincere person he appeared to be. When he resigned in 1996, I was a bit shocked. I hadn't followed the welfare debate at the time, but if he left his powerful position because of the Clintons embracing the "Welfare Reform" bill, I decided to look into it. Resignations over principle are rare at high levels of government, and it causes one to take notice.

When I heard Hillary Clinton bring up her Children's Defense Fund experience as a rebuke to Barack Obama, I recalled the '96 "abomination" as Marian Wright Edelman calls it, and just started Googling.

Amazing what Google can do to help one fulfill Hillary Clinton's request of us that we examine her 35 years of experience and see the results of her record.

And you know what, the Clinton campaign won't even be upset with this column.

Why?

For the same reason that the Clintons supported the odious "welfare reform" bill in the first place.

Because criticism from the likes of BuzzFlash will make Hillary look more "centrist" in the general election.

But meanwhile the moms and children have indeed been left behind, very far behind.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Obama, Lincoln, and the Better Angels of our Nature -

The following editorial from Madison, Wisconsin, published on Abraham Lincoln's birthday, pierces the very heart and soul of this election - it illustrates better than any piece I've read in the country, why this is the most important election of our lifetime - why we must elect Barack Obama


For Barack Obama and the better angels of our nature

At the close of his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln spoke to those who would divide the United States.

"We are not enemies, but friends," said the 16th president. "We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

On this, the 199th anniversary of Lincoln's birth, America is again divided.

The question that will be answered by voters in Wisconsin next Tuesday, and by voters nationwide in November, is whether this land must remain divided.

The seven years of George Bush's tragically flawed attempt at a presidency have strained the very fabric of this nation. Our debates about war and peace, taxes and spending, civil rights and civil liberties have developed bitter edges that suggest we are enemies: Democrat versus Republican, Red State versus Blue State, liberal versus conservative.

And yet, most Americans are still touched by the better angels of our nature.

We still believe that this great nation can and should be what Lincoln imagined: "the last best hope of Earth."

That, more than any of the vagaries of campaign finance, primary scheduling or simplistic candidate comparisons, explains why Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency has been so successful -- and why it must prevail on Feb. 19 in Wisconsin and at this summer's Democratic National Convention in Denver.

It may be mere coincidence that Obama is, like Lincoln, an Illinoisan with a relatively short resume of electoral service.

But as Obama submits himself to what his predecessor called "this great tribunal of the American people," we are reminded of the essential message of Lincoln's distant campaigning: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew and then we shall save our country."

There are some Democrats who still suggest that to support Obama requires too great a leap of faith, just as it has always been suggested of young men who bid for the presidency before the established order judges it to be their time. But the American people have a history of understanding, as they did with Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, that sound judgment and an ability to inspire should count for more than a long resume and the burden of knowing too much of what is not supposed to be achievable and too little of the infinite possibility of this unfinished American experiment.

The last of Obama's serious competitors for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, has put in more time in Washington, and she has the scars to prove it. As an activist first lady and more recently as the senator from New York, Clinton has fought her share of battles with "the vast right-wing conspiracy" that she so famously named. But she has too often seemed to fight for power as opposed to principle. She supported the draconian welfare reforms and the fundamentally flawed free trade deals promoted by Bill Clinton's administration, she voted in the Senate for the Patriot Act and the resolution authorizing George Bush to take the country to war with Iraq, and as a presidential candidate she has condoned an often crude and divisive campaign.

Clinton's record is longer. But it is not commendable.

Obama's record is shorter, and imperfect in places. But it is superior to Clinton's. As a community organizer in Chicago. Obama worked to save industrial jobs and the neighborhoods they sustain. As an Illinois state senator he was an ardent advocate of that state's historic death penalty moratorium. As a likely contender for the U.S. Senate in 2002 and 2003, he marched with anti-war protesters. As a freshman senator he worked with Wisconsin's Russ Feingold to promote sweeping ethics reforms. And as a presidential candidate he has mounted a campaign distinguished by its optimism, its vigor, its appeal to the young and the previously disengaged, and its success in upending the calculations of those who thought they controlled our politics.

Everything about Clinton suggests that, at best, she would manage a smooth transition from the Bush era.

Everything about Obama suggests that he favors a bolder break with the failed politics and policies of the Bush interregnum.

Obama proposes something far more radical than Clinton imagines: a transformation. His is the politics of faith in the prospect of democratic renewal; of the worthy dream that a divided people might unite around common purposes and lower partisan barriers to make possible dramatic shifts in the way the United States relates to the world and to itself.

Last month, Clinton and Obama sparred about this new politics.

Clinton said, "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Obama said, "This whole notion of false hopes bothers me. There is no such thing as false hopes."

Something tells us that Lincoln would have preferred Obama's response. And so, we think, will the voters of Wisconsin, a state that since it embraced another radical from Illinois 148 years ago has so frequently preferred the audacity of hope to the compromise of complacency.

As Wisconsin's Feb. 19 primary approaches, we hope that Democrats, independents and Republicans will again embrace the better angels of our nature and support the candidacy of Barack Obama in numbers so overwhelming that he can secure his claim on the Democratic nomination and, ultimately, on the presidency of a nation that is so ready to begin anew.

SEIU MEMBERS ENDORSE SEN. BARACK OBAMA

Homecare Worker Pauline Beck Says: ‘Barack Will Change America’

Washington, DC—Nurses, childcare workers, janitors and other service workers endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president today, calling him the candidate with the best vision, best plan and best strategy to lead the country to a new American Dream.

Members of the Service Employees International Union endorsed Obama to achieve economic justice, quality, affordable healthcare for every American, the freedom for workers to unite in unions, and an end to the Iraq war.

Pauline Beck, a home health care worker in Oakland, CA, said, “Barack is the right candidate for workers. He will change our country.” Senator Obama spent a day with Beck last August, helping her care for an elderly patient and spending time with Beck’s family.

SEIU members are supporting Obama with an aggressive political effort. With more than 150,000 members in the upcoming primary states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Texas, SEIU will mobilize thousands to go door-to-door, work the phones, and will send mail about their support for Obama. SEIU also will have a substantial presence on television and radio in every critical state.

“This is about more than one election. It’s about building for the next generation of America," said SEIU President Andy Stern. “Barack Obama is creating the broadest and deepest coalition of voters we’ve ever seen.”

Anna Burger, SEIU’s Secretary-Treasurer, said, “This is one of the most important presidential elections workers have faced. Families are struggling, we’re fighting two wars, and a majority of Americans are now worried that their children will be worse off than they are. Obama is the right person at the right time to lead the change we so desperately need in our country.”

###

With 1.9 million members, SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. Focused on uniting workers in three sectors to improve their lives and the services they provide, SEIU is the largest health care union, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care; the largest property services union, including building cleaning and security; and the second largest public employee union.

Austin Mayor, Will Wynn, Endorses Obama

By Chuck Lindell | Friday, February 15, 2008, 09:34 AM

Austin Mayor Will Wynn endorsed Sen. Barack Obama this morning, saying the Democratic presidential candidate “gets it” when it comes to the environment.

“Recently I’ve had conversations about energy policy with presidential candidates from both parties, and I believe Senator Obama is the only person who can move us forward on this critical issue,” Wynn said in a statement released by the Obama campaign.

Wynn has spearheaded clean-energy initiatives in Austin and spurred the U.S. Conference of Mayors to address policies aimed at reducing global climate change.

“(Obama) offers a commitment to confront our energy challenges in ways that will unite our country, help our economy flourish and protect our planet and national security for the next generation and beyond,” Wynn said in the statement.

Wynn’s predecessor, state Sen. Kirk Watson, has also endorsed Obama.

Congressman John Lewis Switches Support to Obama!

MILWAUKEE — Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Clinton's most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention.

“In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,” said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. “Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap.”

Mr. Lewis, who carries great influence among other members of Congress, disclosed his decision in an interview as the Service Employees International Union was on the brink of endorsing Mr. Obama.

“I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,” Mr. Lewis said. “He’s getting better and better every single day.”

His comments came as fresh signs emerged that Mrs. Clinton’s support was beginning to erode from some other African-American lawmakers who also serve as superdelegates. Representative David Scott of Georgia, who was among the first to defect, said he would not go against the will of voters in his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama last week.

from an article by Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy
February 15, 2008

Obama Leads Nationally and 46% to 41% Among Women

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, February 14, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama opening a double-digit lead over Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Today’s results show Obama earning support from 49% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters while Clinton attracts 37% (see recent daily numbers). Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the Obama surge is that he now leads 46% to 41% among women. Clinton retains a lead among the narrower subset of white women, but her lead in that vital demographic is down to just three percentage points. Obama now leads 47% to 44% among white voters and 69% to 10% among African-American voters.

On the Latino Vote in Texas - Rafael Anchía: Obama is preaching the politics of hope - not division

05:24 PM CST on Thursday, February 14, 2008

During recent weeks, I have watched with increasing dismay the media suggestions that Latinos will not vote for Barack Obama in the Democratic primary because of underlying racism or tension that exists between African-Americans and us.

What surprises me most is the overly facile and inaccurate juxtaposition of Latino vs. African-Americans as a "race" conflict. I chair the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund and, in that capacity, work with Latinos at every level of government across the country.

And guess what? We are black, indigenous, white and everything in between. We are also blond-haired and blue-eyed, we are Catholic and Protestant, Republican and Democratic, and, as far as I have been able to determine, we are not unanimously supporting one candidate more than another. The idea that all Latinos speak with one political voice is a false dichotomy and makes flawed assumptions that show a basic ignorance of Latinos and our very diverse culture.

As the son of a Mexican mother and Spanish father who grew up in a Cuban and El Salvadoran neighborhood, I have lived this diversity and recognize that Latino Democratic primary voting trends are much more about familiarity with the candidate and much less about race.

Hillary Clinton has done well among Latinos during the early Democratic primary season and figures to continue that success in Texas. However, rather than suggest she might win a greater share of the Latino vote in Texas because of racism, a more responsible view would acknowledge that the Clinton brand is still strong here. She campaigned in South Texas for George McGovern in the 1970s, was the first lady of a neighboring state in the 1980s and was the first lady to a president popular among Latinos for most of the 1990s.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, Texas provides Sen. Barack Obama with a huge opportunity to court Latinos. Texas Latinos have a recent history of supporting non-Latino African-American candidates. Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk and Houston Mayor Lee Brown were elected and then re-elected against Latino challengers (Margaret Donnelly and Orlando Sanchez, respectively) with sizeable support from Latinos.

After beating Latino candidate Victor Morales in the Democratic primary runoff in 2002, Mr. Kirk actually did as well as or better among Latinos in the Rio Grande Valley during his senatorial bid than Laredo gubernatorial candidate Tony Sanchez.

And while Mr. Obama is referred to as a "black" candidate, in truth he is of mixed race, as are many Latinos. And, as the son of an immigrant, his experience can affirm that the American dream is still intact for everyone, regardless of where one's parents were born.

His dedication to his family, strong work ethic, opposition to the war in Iraq and deep faith are all qualities that are important to Latino voters. A recently released analysis of Super Tuesday results by the Willie Velasquez Institute shows that Mr. Obama is making important strides among Latino voters, including among late-breaking undecided Latinos.

Super Tuesday results also showed that Mr. Obama makes up big ground among all voters who see him and are exposed to his message. With the Texas Democratic primary still several weeks away, there is time for Barack Obama to further connect with Texas Latinos.

With all the distracting talk of an African-American-Latino electoral divide, it is easy to lose perspective of the ultimate goal of electing a president who can bring the United States together.

Our main focus should not be on who can appeal to which racial or ethnic group more than another, but which candidate can unite all races, ethnicities, age groups, faiths and economic classes as a nation to address our common challenges and to restore our historic position as a respected leader of the free world.

I am the Latino son of immigrants, but, rather than engaging in the contrived politics of division, I want Barack Obama, a black man of mixed ethnicity, to be my president. How's that for the politics of hope?

Rafael Anchía is a state representative from Dallas, the 2005 LULAC "National Man of the Year" and chairman of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials Educational Fund.

Obama Represents Women's Best Hope - Washington State Feminists and Mothers Speak Out

HELEN P. HOWELL AND VICKIE WALLEN - GUEST COLUMNISTS

Given the disastrous results of the Bush administration, including our immersion in an unjustifiable war, an economy on the verge of a recession, loss of respect and stature in the global community, and increased suffering at home, the need for fundamental change in the quality of our country's leadership is essential.

Like many women, we would be excited to help elect a woman president. At this pivotal moment in our history, however, the gender of our next president is not our foremost concern. Because of the troubled state of the union, our priority is for the Democrats to select as our nominee the candidate who is best positioned to win in November, and to navigate our nation out of the current morass, unite us and move the country forward.

We are a diverse group of women who have spent years working for equal rights, social justice and a powerful political voice for all women. Two of us are women of color, and one of us is a lesbian. All of us are mothers with a deep concern for the future of our children and our nation.

Sen. Barack Obama is the candidate with the energy and vision to lead our country in these difficult times -- to make our nation safer, restore our standing in the world and inspire Americans to be active participants in our democracy. He transcends the cynical politics of yesterday and inspires us to believe that tomorrow can be better. His message of hope and unity, his character and integrity, his keen mind and thoughtfulness, his belief in people and his optimism inspire us and move us to action.

He speaks directly and authentically to the broad range of issues that we care about, including the war in Iraq, poverty, education, equal opportunity, health care and the environment. His experience as the son of a single mother, husband of a working mother and father of two young daughters has given him a firm understanding of the challenges and concerns of working women and their families, as well as a firm commitment to addressing them.

Obama's unique background and experiences allow him to identify with the diverse circumstances and struggles of others, thereby lessening the divisions among us and enhancing our shared beliefs.

The fact that he is a unifying leader rather than a technocrat adds to his appeal. We agree with him that our country must be brought together before significant policy changes can occur. Certainly, no president can do it alone. An engaged electorate and strong, active coalitions are needed to overcome stalemate and create new possibilities and change. Obama is uniquely able to bring potential allies -- including independents and Republicans -- together.

Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, is perceived as a more polarizing figure in our country, and we fear she will unify and energize the right wing of the Republican Party. Furthermore, while perhaps a master of policy analysis and the mechanics of the policymaking process, neither of those strengths will help her unite a fractured country or overcome gridlock to achieve fundamental change.

Our other major concern about Clinton is that she has demonstrated a troubling propensity to compromise some core Democratic principles. When we consider, for example, her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, her absence and silence during the 2006 battle to defeat the South Dakota abortion ban (Obama was the only U.S. senator to assist with fundraising efforts for the campaign against the ban), and the racially charged comments by her and her husband during the campaign for the South Carolina primary, we easily choose Obama as our candidate.

We are free, as feminists, to choose the candidate who speaks to our collective aspirations. Barack's community organizing and advocacy work demonstrate his passion and commitment to the issues that matter most to us.

As mothers, we are also struck by the powerful way in which Obama has energized young people. One of us, the daughter of Aki Kurose, a lifetime civil rights and peace activist, who fought for many of these same issues, has two children who will be voting for the first time in November. They are thrilled by Obama's candidacy and have become active in his campaign. Obama understands that engaging the next generation is crucial to the destiny of our nation, and he has empowered young people to lift their voices and shape their future. Like Aki Kurose's grandchildren, they have responded by participating in the nominating process in record numbers.

Obama is the leader we need now. He represents our best hope to lead America into the future.

Helen P. Howell has served as counsel to U.S. Sen. Patty Murray and serves as a national board member for Planned Parenthood. Vickie Wallen has served as the state ombudsman for families and children and as a senior policy adviser and legal counsel for former Gov. Mike Lowry. Ruthann Kurose also contributed to this column. She is a founding member of May's List, a political action committee established to elect women leaders to state office.

Obama: The Best Candidate for Choice - by Frances Kissling

For over the thirty five years, Frances Kissling has been the leading international voice on women, religion and reproduction. She is currently working on a book on ethical dilemmas and abortion as a Fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University. A prolific writer and lecturer, Kissling is the co-author of Rosie: The Investigation of a Wrongful Death (The Dial Press, 1978). She has published in the New York Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, The Nation, American Prospect, New Republic online, Salon.com, Irish Independent, The Guardian, Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion, OGlobo,(Brazil) Gazeta Wyborza (Poland) and numerous other journals and publications. For 25 years she was president of Catholics for A Free Choice. Best known for combining serious political advocacy with humor, Kissling once noted that she spent 25 years looking for a government she could overthrow that couldn't put her in jail and she found it in the Vatican.

(from the Huffungton Post)

In a recent Huffington Post article, an impressive group of women leaders examined Hillary Clinton's Senate record on reproductive rights and concluded that "Hillary Clinton is the best choice for president of the United States." The viewpoint of these leaders is important, they are all knowledgeable insiders, committed feminists and have extensive professional experience with Senator Clinton. The 10 endorsers, including Martha Burk, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, and Gloria Steinem, rightly identify themselves as "women who have spent our careers fighting to protect a woman's right to choose."

As another woman leader who has spent her career fighting to protect a woman's right to choose, with a special emphasis on protecting women's religious freedom, I see the record through a different lens. I have endorsed Senator Obama. While I believe in the nitty gritty of a day-to-day legislative agenda, there will be little difference between Clinton and Obama, I am convinced that in the larger struggle to complete the social transformation promised by Roe, Obama's instincts and values will bring us closer to that transformation.

There is no doubt that not even the most anorectic model could slip through the "space" between Obama and Clinton on some major choice issues. Both will nominate Supreme Court justices who support Roe; both will lift the global gag rule within days of taking office with a coterie of choice leaders standing behind them: and UNFPA can expect that its funding will be restored as both will certify that the agency is not involved in coercive programs in China. The Clinton endorsers rightly point to Clinton's leadership role in the Senate on over the counter availability of emergency contraception and expanded support for Title X and Medicaid family planning funds, but does anyone expect that Senator Obama would not be equally supportive?

Of course, Obama enters the arena with a shorter record and on some of the more controversial reproductive health issues, we don't know what he would do or how he would use his office to advocate for women's reproductive rights. I suspect that in some areas he may fall short and we will need to work hard to prevent that. I also more than suspect, based on her record as a Senator and the record of the Clinton administration, that there are a number of areas where Senator Clinton is more likely to disappoint us and I am surprised at the short memory of my friends and colleagues who are supporting Senator Clinton. While allowing for a change of heart, we need to remember those failures.

While Burk and others noted in their letter of support Senator Clinton's leadership on Medicaid family planning funding, they studiously ignored the question of whether the Senator has led efforts to restore Medicaid funding for abortions. She has not. In fact, in the last years of his presidency it was Bill Clinton who signed into law a permanent Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, a presidential first. We might have expected that the Senator with eight years in the Senate who our colleagues tell us is "the one candidate whose leadership on this issue is unparalleled" and who is considered one of the best across the aisle players might have tried to overturn that Amendment and shown a stronger commitment to poor and low income women than we saw in Senator Clinton.

Another controversial issue that went unmentioned was the question of whether the health care plan of Senator Clinton will give religious organizations the right to refuse to provide services they consider "immoral" -- emergency contraception, voluntary sterilization, condoms to prevent HIV, and assisted reproduction come to mind. Will the Clinton plan require abortion coverage? Some of us still remember the battles we had with Senator Clinton when as First Lady and health care reform honcho she was at first unwilling to include abortion as a mandated service. To the end the Clinton health care reform plan included the broadest right of refusal to provide services ever introduced in federal legislation. It would have allowed any provider, religious or not, to refuse to provide any service they deemed immoral and still participate in the plan and reap the benefits of participation. Has Senator Clinton changed her mind on these issues? It is perfectly plausible that she has, but it is the responsibility of reproductive health and women's rights advocates to secure those commitments now, not simply trust that the woman they know and love will do the right thing if elected.

Other issues mentioned by my colleagues also require more careful scrutiny. Senator Clinton has led the charge for the Prevention First Act which would expand family planning services and education dramatically thus reducing the need for abortion. The bill has languished in both the Senate and the House for almost four years, including the last two years when Democrats have had a clear majority. It seems fair to ask how high a priority this legislation was for the Senator when the bill never came to the floor for a vote in spite of the Senator's power, a Democratic majority and considerable Republican support for family planning.

To be fair, this is one of those situations where the fact that the Senator has a longer record works against her as well as for her. My candidate, Barack Obama, needs to be asked by the pro-choice community the same questions I ask Senator Clinton. Our task as advocates for sexual and reproductive health and rights and women's rights cannot be limited to electioneering or the idea that getting Democrats elected means the most equitable and progressive reproductive health policies will be supported. We must first and foremost be advocates for both the positions that will make women's lives better and the style of leadership that will enhance feminist values best.

The role of a president is not the same as that of a senator. I fully expect that whichever of the two, Obama or Clinton, become president, I will be fighting with them for more than either is ready to give. I am more suspicious of Senator Clinton because as much as I respect her, she has more than once failed the movement. The struggle for reproductive health and rights over the next decade cannot continue to be about defending against bad legislation or being the biggest pit bull in the fight; it is no longer about "winning" the culture war. It is about completing the social transformation that Roe began but did not solidify. That task, I believe, will best be accomplished by a president who sees her or his role as calling us to greatness. It is not about beating anti-abortion advocates to death; it is about listening to the majority of Americans who believe that abortion should be legal and highly regulated, acknowledging what it is that they are afraid of and making them less afraid. I think Barack Obama is the person who can do that. I deeply believe he is the best hope we have to ending both the abortion wars and the war in Iraq.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Endorses Obama

By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 2:30 PM PST, February 14, 2008

Columbus, Ohio -- The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, one of the nation's largest labor organizations and a force in battleground state politics, voted today to support Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.

The move is a blow to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose campaign had also sought the union's backing. The UFCW is a prize because it is one of the largest in the country and is particularly influential in states with upcoming primaries: Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

In Ohio, the union has 70,000 members who work in supermarkets and food processing.

That makes the union more influential than even the United Steelworkers, which now represents 56,000 workers in the state. Both campaigns have been aggressively courting the steelworkers union nationally, because of its influence in all three states. But as recently as this past weekend, the steelworkers union leadership decided to remain neutral.

In Texas, the UFCW has 26,000 workers, many of them Latinos working in the meatpacking industry.

The decision was made at 5 p.m. vote of the UFCW board, meeting by conference call. The union considers both Clinton and Obama as friends, said Jill Cashen, a union spokeswoman. But leaders were impressed at the appeal of Obama, particularly to younger members.

More than 40 percent of the UFCW membership is under 30, Cashen said, and the union became aware of Obama's appeal to that age group. "And our young people have become engaged in politics as never before," she said. "It's a sea change."

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

Obama Srikes Back With New Wisconsin Ad

Zogby Poll: Obama Cruises, Clinton Lags, in Election Match-Ups against McCain, Huckabee

Released: February 13, 2008

Barack Obama has gained strength in prospective general election match-ups against Republicans John McCain and Mike Huckabee, while Hillary Clinton does not fare as well, a new nationwide Zogby Interactive poll shows.

The online survey shows that Obama would defeat both McCain and Huckabee, while Clinton would lose to McCain and only defeat Huckabee by a small margin.

Clinton struggles among political independents, trailing McCain by a wide margin and Huckabee by a slim margin in that demographic, the survey shows. Against both men, she wins less than 80% of her own party. However, she does better among Democrats than either McCain or Huckabee does among Republicans. Huckabee wins just 70% support in a match-up against Clinton, while McCain wins 72% of the GOP support against her.

Obama has much stronger Democratic Party support, winning 87% backing of the Democrats when pitted against Huckabee, and 84% of the Democratic support against McCain. Among independents, Obama leads McCain by a 46% to 33% edge and Huckabee by a 48% to 31% advantage.

Former Hillary Superdelegate in New Jersey Switches to Obama

Juan Melli Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:48:58 PM EST

Christine "Roz" Samuels, a superdelegate from Montclair, New Jersey, who was supporting Hillary Clinton announced she was now supporting Senator Barack Obama for President today, citing his ability to unite the country:

"I now support Barack Obama because he has brought about a new wave of hope and energy to this country, especially among our young people, who represent our future. People want to see change. Barack can help unite this country and help us embrace our diverse nation.

"I am also proud to support Senator Obama because he spoke clearly and forcefully against the war in Iraq from the start. I know he has the leadership to make sure we bring our young men and women home as quickly and carefully as possible, and ensure all Americans have access to affordable health care."

Samuels served as Secretary-Treasurer of the Newark Teachers' Union, Local 481 from 1995 until 2007. Samuels is a former Commissioner of the Essex County Board of Elections, a member of the Montclair Democratic Committee, and active in the Montclair and state-wide NAACP.

Texas House Democratic Leader, Jim Dunnam, Endorses Obama

By Ken Sury | Thursday, February 14, 2008, 11:47 AM

Trib political reporter David Doerr has received an e-mail that Texas House Democratic Leader Jim Dunnam today announced his strong endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy for presiden.

Dunnam released the following statement:

“It gives me great pride to endorse Barack Obama for President. The constituents I serve, and all the people of Texas, are tired of politics as usual. In Texas — and across the rest of the country — we want a president who will finally put doing what is right above corporate special interests and radical partisan agendas. We want change we can believe in, not the same old Washington-style promises made and promises broken.

“Texas House Democrats are fighting hard to improve our public schools and bring health coverage to the uninsured. With Barack Obama as president, we will have a remarkable ally in achieving those vital goals and many more.”