Court allows casino vote that may boost Obama

Justice is done. Judge rules that there will be no rule change six days before the election. The casino workers will be allowed to caucus at their workplace.

Sorry Hillary you lose the court battle and you will also lose voters. We will not forget how you tried to keep folks from voting....totally dirty....totally undemocratic!

Story is here.

Breaking News--OBAMA WON NEW HAMPSHIRE....

There was nothing wrong with the exit polls folks. (BTW, there was nothing wrong with the exit polls in 2000 in FLA and 2004 in Ohio.)

The Election Defense Alliance reports the following discrepancies between the electronic machine totals and the hand count totals:

Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%

Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%

No wonder Barack Obama's supporters were so stunned at the election results. They "knew" their candidate had won....looks like they were right to be stunned.

Amazing that it was Dennis Kucinich, not Barack Obama, who requested the recount. The wrong candidate is being featured by the Corporate Media.

Speaking of the Corporate Media. Only two days ago, NBC invited Dennis Kucinich to participate in the network's January 15 Democratic Presidential Debate. NBC has suddenly decided to "dis invite" Dennis Kucinich, thereby declaring him a "loser." Is this the payback for the New Hampshire Ballot recount. Looks like Kucinich is threatening the powers behind the curtain. The public needs to hear much more from this candidate than the corporate media is allowing. Why should the corporate media have so much power to decide what candidates get to use "our" public platform. This decision should no longer be left in the hands of corporate elites controlling "our" media.

It would really be slap in the face of democracy if Barack Obama and John Edwards show up for that Presidential debate without Dennis Kucinich being allowed to participate.

I'm including John Edwards because he has already been on the losing end of a presidential election, lost in Ohio, and his running mate, John Kerry, neglected to question the Ohio votes...which also confounded the exit polls.

No one knows who is behind whatever occurred to create these discrepancies. However, it has been well established that electronic voting can be manipulated. One manipulation actually "switches" the totals and it looks like that is what occurred in New Hampshire. There hasn't been time to discover who may be behind the election rigging in New Hampshire.

The stolen New Hampshire elections gave Hillary Clinton's campaign an illegal shot in the arm. Hopefully, the news of this stolen primary will expose the threat to our democracy I expect that Americans will not take the news of what happened in New Hampshire lightly.

At the very least, America deserves a President who will stand up and do what's necessary to insure that our elections are honest and democratic. Hillary Clinton is yelling that we should look at actions not words. The actions of Dennis Kucinich speak volumes.

I'll be sending Dennis Kucinich a campaign contribution to help offset the costs of this voter recount. We at least need his voice and his wisdom to continue in this presidential campaign. I wonder if Barack Obama, who is sitting on a pile of money, will do the right thing and at least offer to pay for the recount in New Hampshire.

Edwards...Obama....Edwards...Obama

Paul Loeb and I seem to be in the same boat. We are currently supporting two presidential contenders--Obama and Edwards. Both of us are wondering who we will end up voting for. (I may even be in worst straits....my heart continues to cry out for Dennis Kucinich. I know without a doubt that Dennis is the best presidential candidate. (But, at this time, due to factors such as our biased corporate media, I'm not able to see Kucinich as able to dispell the corporate media myths by November 2009.)

On the Obama side is charisma and momentum that reminds me of Robert Kennedy. New voters and independents are filling his tent. He can raise our hopes in a time when our hopes need raising and he might be able to unify this country so we can once again be the UNITED States of America.

But there are valid reasons to support John Edwards. His positions on health care, poverty, and fighting corporate influence are stronger than Obama's. Edwards will not hesitate to fight the "malefactors of great wealth" that currently dominate our government. We have entered a new era where robber barons are on the rampage and Edwards is speaking out strongly against them. We need more folks to fight for the public's interests. Edwards also took a strong stand on the Iraq War before Obama did.

I love Obama's message of hope and how he can inspire us, but Edwards gives us the real, unadulterated picture...of what it means for a country as rich as America to leave so many people without health care, decent jobs, and a future.

According to Paul Loeb:

So I was delighted when Obama and Edwards beat [Cinton] in the Iowa caucuses. But that doesn't mean Edwards should necessarily drop out. His presence pushes Obama to deal with the hard issues of power and wealth in America--ones that, to be honest, Obama has too often skated over in recent years. If voters do develop reservations about Obama, Edwards offers a strong alternative. While Edwards obviously remains a distinct longshot, his numbers are strong enough that voters deserve at least a chance to further weigh his promise--he's more than just a symbolic candidate. And I do want to see Obama tested just at least a bit more before we hand him the nomination.

On a national level a surge has begun for John Edwards. The Rasmussen poll shows Hillary dropping 7 points to 36%, Barack gains one point for 25%, and John Edwards gained 9 points to 23%. Maybe John Edwards is the known commodity so he is in a good position to gain wayward Hillary supporters. Maybe the polls showing Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who can defeat all the Republican contenders is attractive to Hillary's former supporters.

I want John Edwards to stay in the race. Since Edwards, unlike Obama, is not relying on corporate funding for this race it is up to folks like me to help him remain in the race. It's important for many reasons for the Edwards campaign to continue. We need the dialogue to continue on what a rich country like America should be doing for all it's citizens...instead of no dialogue while our treasury continues to be drained by Dick Cheney, George Bush and their "elite" cronies. I hope you will also consider sending a campaign contribution to the John Edwards campaign.

Who knows maybe the Democratic party will end up with a dream ticket of Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket? I just hope their mutual policy platform more closely resembles Edwards current policies stands if they should merge into one ticket.

New John Edwards AD

WOW, New Hampshire is going to be "way interesting...."

I'm betting that Hillary is going down again....so my predicition is Obama will win, Edwards will come in second, and Hillary will lose once again.

Meanwhile, the corporate media, of course will be raking in extra money with the Obama and Clinton camps buying up lots of ad time.....such a fraudulent use of "our" publicly owned airwaves, i.e. a public presidential election is one of the biggest revenue generators for corporate broadcast media. Buzz...Buzz...

The Democratic Dream Ticket?

I'm in such a quandary. On the issues, my first choice is Dennis Kucinich and my second choice is John Edwards. However, the corporate media has done such a fine job of portraying Dennis as a "kook." Until this is remedied, if ever, I'm afraid he's not "electable" until instant run off elections become the norm in this country. (Of course, we know the "status quo" corporate establishment types in both parties will continue to fight the instant run off concept that gives voters greater choices....)

I listened to Michelle Obama speak last night. I don't believe that Obama is correct on some of his issues. A major issue for me is health care. I'm confused that Obama can see that cutting out the middle man in student loans saves the tax payer millions of dollars that can be used by students and yet he doesn't see the logic of cutting out the middle man in health care?

However, that being said...I do believe that Obama is the best candidate for working to unify our country and restoring the United States of America. That would be a plus for our country and after years of being pressured to be fearful and attack each other a refreshing change of course. Plus I do believe the man's values are in the right place so maybe he'll be open to the concept and practicality that universal health care offers for us all.

I saw Michelle Obama speak in New Hampshire last night. I want Michelle Obama for President!! In comparison, Hillary Clinton looks like the status quo, corporate girl she is. Just proves my point that when we do elect a woman for president in this country we can do much better than Hillary Clinton.

Then I think, okay I'm leaning towards Obama now....even though I believe John Edwards is better on my issues...What if....we could get an Obama / Edwards ticket? Now wouldn't that be something? I just hope John Edwards will go for it and strikes a deal (that maybe strengthens that health care issue that Obama is currently lacking....

Now we know the press keeps clamoring about a feud between Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, both good women imo. Maybe Michelle will be able to see that her husband is safer with a VP like Edwards....I doubt vehement opponents would want to "replace" Obama with Edwards....It's probably along the same kind of thinking that matched up Bush with Cheney?

But at least, in this instance we are talking the Luke Skywalker team and not Darth Vader.

Buzz....Buzz

Corporate Girl--Hillary Clinton--REFUSED to do interview with Michael Moore

H/T to Cliff Garstang at Cobalt 6 for this one. It's worth distributing widely.

Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008
Who Do We Vote For This Time Around? A Letter from Michael Moore

Friends,

A new year has begun. And before we've had a chance to break our New Year's resolutions, we find ourselves with a little more than 24 hours before the good people of Iowa tell us whom they would like to replace the man who now occupies three countries and a white house.

Twice before, we have begun the process to stop this man, and twice we have failed. Eight years of our lives as Americans will have been lost, the world left in upheaval against us... and yet now, today, we hope against hope that our moment has finally arrived, that the amazingly powerful force of the Republican Party will somehow be halted. But we know that the Democrats are experts at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and if there's a way to blow this election, they will find it and do it with gusto.

Do you feel the same as me? That the Democratic front-runners are a less-than-stellar group of candidates, and that none of them are the "slam dunk" we wish they were? Of course, there are wonderful things about each of them. Any one of them would be infinitely better than what we have now. Personally, Congressman Kucinich, more than any other candidate, shares the same positions that I have on the issues (although the UFO that picked ME up would only take me as far as Kalamazoo). But let's not waste time talking about Dennis. Even he is resigned to losing, with statements like the one he made yesterday to his supporters in Iowa to throw their support to Senator Obama as their "second choice."

So, it's Hillary, Obama, Edwards -- now what do we do?

Two months ago, Rolling Stone magazine asked me to do a cover story where I would ask the hard questions that no one was asking in one-on-one interviews with Senators Clinton, Obama and Edwards. "The Top Democrats Face Off with Michael Moore." The deal was that all three candidates had to agree to let me interview them or there was no story. Obama and Edwards agreed. Mrs. Clinton said no, and the cover story was thus killed.

Why would the love of my life, Hillary Clinton, not sit down to talk with me? What was she afraid of?

Those of you who are longtime readers of mine may remember that 11 years ago I wrote a chapter (in my first book) entitled, "My Forbidden Love for Hillary." I was fed up with the treatment she was getting, most of it boringly sexist, and I thought somebody should stand up for her. I later met her and she thanked me for referring to her as "one hot s***kicking feminist babe." I supported and contributed to her run for the U.S. Senate. I think she is a decent and smart person who loves this country, cares deeply about kids, and has put up with more crap than anyone I know of (other than me) from the Crazy Right. Her inauguration would be a thrilling sight, ending 218 years of white male rule in a country where 51% of its citizens are female and 64% are either female or people of color.

And yet, I am sad to say, nothing has disappointed me more than the disastrous, premeditated vote by Senator Hillary Clinton to send us to war in Iraq. I'm not only talking about her first vote that gave Mr. Bush his "authorization" to invade -- I'm talking about every single OTHER vote she then cast for the next four years, backing and funding Bush's illegal war, and doing so with verve. She never met a request from the White House for war authorization that she didn't like. Unlike the Kerrys and the Bidens who initially voted for authorization but later came to realize the folly of their decision, Mrs. Clinton continued to cast numerous votes for the war until last March -- four long years of pro-war votes, even after 70% of the American public had turned against the war. She has steadfastly refused to say that she was wrong about any of this, and she will not apologize for her culpability in America's worst-ever foreign policy disaster. All she can bring herself to say is that she was "misled" by "faulty intelligence."

Let's assume that's true. Do you want a President who is so easily misled? I wasn't "misled," and millions of others who took to the streets in February of 2003 weren't "misled" either. It was simply amazing that we knew the war was wrong when none of us had been briefed by the CIA, none of us were national security experts, and none of us had gone on a weapons inspection tour of Iraq. And yet... we knew we were being lied to! Let me ask those of you reading this letter: Were YOU "misled" -- or did you figure it out sometime between October of 2002 and March of 2007 that George W. Bush was up to something rotten? Twenty-three other senators were smart enough to figure it out and vote against the war from the get-go. Why wasn't Senator Clinton?

I have a theory: Hillary knows the sexist country we still live in and that one of the reasons the public, in the past, would never consider a woman as president is because she would also be commander in chief. The majority of Americans were concerned that a woman would not be as likely to go to war as a man (horror of horrors!). So, in order to placate that mindset, perhaps she believed she had to be as "tough" as a man, she had to be willing to push The Button if necessary, and give the generals whatever they wanted. If this is, in fact, what has motivated her pro-war votes, then this would truly make her a scary first-term president. If the U.S. is faced with some unforeseen threat in her first years, she knows that in order to get re-elected she'd better be ready to go all Maggie Thatcher on whoever sneezes in our direction. Do we want to risk this, hoping the world makes it in one piece to her second term?

I have not even touched on her other numerous -- and horrendous -- votes in the Senate, especially those that have made the middle class suffer even more (she voted for Bush's first bankruptcy bill, and she is now the leading recipient of payoff money -- I mean campaign contributions -- from the health care industry). I know a lot of you want to see her elected, and there is a very good chance that will happen. There will be plenty of time to vote for her in the general election if all the pollsters are correct. But in the primaries and caucuses, isn't this the time to vote for the person who most reflects the values and politics you hold dear? Can you, in good conscience, vote for someone who so energetically voted over and over and over again for the war in Iraq? Please give this serious consideration.

Now, on to the two candidates who did agree to do the interview with me...

Barack Obama is a good and inspiring man. What a breath of fresh air! There's no doubting his sincerity or his commitment to trying to straighten things out in this country. But who is he? I mean, other than a guy who gives a great speech? How much do any of us really know about him? I know he was against the war. How do I know that? He gave a speech before the war started. But since he joined the senate, he has voted for the funds for the war, while at the same time saying we should get out. He says he's for the little guy, but then he votes for a corporate-backed bill to make it harder for the little guy to file a class action suit when his kid swallows lead paint from a Chinese-made toy. In fact, Obama doesn't think Wall Street is a bad place. He wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan -- the same companies who have created the mess in the first place. He's such a feel-good kinda guy, I get the sense that, if elected, the Republicans will eat him for breakfast. He won't even have time to make a good speech about it.

But this may be a bit harsh. Senator Obama has a big heart, and that heart is in the right place. Is he electable? Will more than 50% of America vote for him? We'd like to believe they would. We'd like to believe America has changed, wouldn't we? Obama lets us feel better about ourselves -- and as we look out the window at the guy snowplowing his driveway across the street, we want to believe he's changed, too. But are we dreaming?

And then there's John Edwards.

It's hard to get past the hair, isn't it? But once you do -- and recently I have chosen to try -- you find a man who is out to take on the wealthy and powerful who have made life so miserable for so many. A candidate who says things like this: "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy." Whoa. We haven't heard anyone talk like that in a while, at least not anyone who is near the top of the polls. I suspect this is why Edwards is doing so well in Iowa, even though he has nowhere near the stash of cash the other two have. He won't take the big checks from the corporate PACs, and he is alone among the top three candidates in agreeing to limit his spending and be publicly funded. He has said, point-blank, that he's going after the drug companies and the oil companies and anyone else who is messing with the American worker. The media clearly find him to be a threat, probably because he will go after their monopolistic power, too. This is Roosevelt/Truman kind of talk. That's why it's resonating with people in Iowa, even though he doesn't get the attention Obama and Hillary get -- and that lack of coverage may cost him the first place spot tomorrow night. After all, he is one of those white guys who's been running things for far too long.

And he voted for the war. But unlike Senator Clinton, he has stated quite forcefully that he was wrong. And he has remorse. Should he be forgiven? Did he learn his lesson? Like Hillary and Obama, he refused to promise in a September debate that there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq by the end of his first term in 2013. But this week in Iowa, he changed his mind. He went further than Clinton and Obama and said he'd have all the troops home in less than a year.

Edwards is the only one of the three front-runners who has a universal health care plan that will lead to the single-payer kind all other civilized countries have. His plan doesn't go as fast as I would like, but he is the only one who has correctly pointed out that the health insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a seat at the table.

I am not endorsing anyone at this point. This is simply how I feel in the first week of the process to replace George W. Bush. For months I've been wanting to ask the question, "Where are you, Al Gore?" You can only polish that Oscar for so long. And the Nobel was decided by Scandinavians! I don't blame you for not wanting to enter the viper pit again after you already won. But getting us to change out our incandescent light bulbs for some irritating fluorescent ones isn't going to save the world. All it's going to do is make us more agitated and jumpy and feeling like once we get home we haven't really left the office.

On second thought, would you even be willing to utter the words, "I absolutely believe to my soul that this corporate greed and corporate power has an ironclad hold on our democracy?" 'Cause the candidate who understands that, and who sees it as the root of all evil -- including the root of global warming -- is the President who may lead us to a place of sanity, justice and peace.

Yours,

Michael Moore (not an Iowa voter, but appreciative of any state that has a town named after a sofa)
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Danny Glover Speaks Out

Danny Glover is simply stating the obvious...LISTEN to what John Edwards is saying, where he has come from and what he's done in his life. He's the most viable presidential contender who has a RECORD of taking on the corporations....unlike Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. Obama's record with corporations still has to play out but Hillary Clinton earned the nickname "Corporate Girl" because she know what she needs to do to raise big bucks from her corporate donors.

So at least take the time to give Edwards and his proposals an honest hearing. If you have to work for a living, or have to live a balanced life within a balanced budget to make ends meet...I think you will like what you hear.

Danny Glover is on my very short list of who I'd love to meet over dinner and converse with. I've long admired him as being a true grass roots activist who cares about the average American who has to earn money to support their family.

A Canadian Tale For Americans Today

I keep hearing that this next Presidential Election is being referred to as "The Perfect Storm." I surely hope so. Out of all the Presidential candidates from both sides of the isle I can think of only three candidates who are seem as small mice....but they have grand ideas. On the Democratic side the candidate with the greatest ideas is Dennis Kucinich. The only other Democratic candidate with a decent idea for this country is John Edwards.

The Republicans have a little mouse with a few ideas--Ron Paul.

No surprise that the corporate FAT CATS who own our media do everything they can to minimize these candidates....the only candidates who have any idea what life is like for over 90% of the people in this country.

It's time to stop electing the FAT CATS who make up the top 1-2% of our nation. If the parties refuse to nominate one of these candidates my Perfect Storm will consist of a write in name for my ballot....

It appears that both parties are "owned" by corporations. I "hope" that the Democrats are able to keep fighting the temptation...they still have a decent number of representatives willing to fight for our civil liberties, our environment, and Fair Trade. If not....Hopefully, within the next ten-15 years a viable mouse party is going to emerge...I am tired of being disappointed with the parties that are currently running Washington.

We need to hear more from REAL Democrats!!

No End In Sight

If you missed the wonderful evening at the Naro Tuesday night the film--No End In Sight--is definitely worth seeing. It's the finest film about the Iraq War and will give everyone a good idea of how we have come to this quagmire. It's definitely well researched. If you work for a living, (and if you have a family) this film will give you the kind of information that the most ardent news junkie has....and in a short few hours instead of weeks/months of research. An additional plus is that the film is well edited, uses great footage, so it's not a boring documentary of just talking heads. You can find the show times here.

Tuesday's nite viewing was special since David Swanson (afterdowningstreet.org) was there to talk and facilitate the discussion after the film. It was definitely a fine discussion. I am becoming more impressed with American citizens. It seems that the majority of us have woken from a deep slumber and nothing the corporate media is "propagandizing" these days is sticking. Folks are definitely starting to put 2 and 2 together.

I was surprised to find that the audience speakers were definitely not going to support Hillary Clinton should she become the Presidential nominee. Hillary is viewed as too far to the right and a "corporate girl." I believe the "corporate girl" moniker is accurate. Folks "love" Dennis Kucinich but unless everyone who "loves" him sends him $100. we don't believe he stands much of a chance given the media blackout on his campaign. (And when the media does decide to cover something it is usally biased in an anti-Kucinich manner).

Folks loved the idea proposed by David Swanson that Edwards and Obama joining together now to form a ticket because this would head off the establishment/corporate Democrats hope of having her be the nominee...the corporate torch bearer so to speak.

Someone who knows how to fight what ails us

THIS IS WHAT WE NEED IN AMERICA...Change that will benefit American people and create a fair, just system for us all.