" title="" class="" />

bruce springsteen in first. but you knew that. trying to put up a video. sorry.

DFAM IS FIRST TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you DFAM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNY_5ll5YQo

Gore coy on domestic plans

By Fiona Harvey and Brooke Masters
updated 1 hour, 56 minutes ago

When the United Nations convenes a crucial meeting to discuss the future of the Kyoto protocol in Bali next month, Al Gore will make the keynote speech urging ministers to forge agreement on a successor.

Proponents of a new agreement hope his visit will be more successful than that of Bill Clinton at a similar meeting two years ago, which did not produce a breakthrough.

Mr Gore will come fresh from his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in Oslo a few days before. Mr Gore earns up to £50,000 ($100,000, €70,000) a time for speaking engagements and by his own estimate, he makes "about a dozen speeches a week".

The influence the former vice-president exerts internationally among governments is clear from the roll-call of world leaders he is regularly photographed with.

In the last few weeks, he has held meetings with President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, eager to shore up his own environmental credentials at home, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Gordon Brown, the UK prime minister, numbers among his previous conquests.

Mr Gore's influence in US politics is also still considerable. Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are still neck and neck in some polls, and the backing of Mr Gore could prove a valuable fillip to their campaigns. All of the candidates have spoken at some length on global warming, seeing it as an issue on which they can distinguish themselves from Republicans and from each other.

But Mr Gore himself is still somewhat coy on the issue. After winning the Peace Prize last month, Mr Gore appeared to rule himself out of the next presidential race. But when asked by the Financial Times last week, he warned: "I have not made a Sherman statement." ... full article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21759787/

Heavy, heavy hearts in California today.  There's no doubt in my mind we would have succeeded in our efforts to place Al Gore on our primary ballot.

But we've been asked to stop collecting signatures.  Guess "shell shocked" is the word. 

23.

Linda*in*SFNM
Tue, 11/13/07
9:30 am

Mr. Gore's office has asked that the Draft movement stop all Ballot movements.

It is a sad day indeed if this means we don't have the opportunity to vote for him for President. We will not see any of the changes that need to be made.

As nothing changes for the folks who are running, I cannot of course support them and will writen in Mr. Gore, I shall say CIAO!

My heart is indeed very heavy, because we all lose.

Be well and good health to all.

Time for
a COOL
change,
GORE!!!
------------

7.

Suzanne Harris
Tue, 11/13/07
11:15 am

Heavy, heavy hearts in California today. There's no doubt in my mind we would have succeeded in our efforts to place Al Gore on our primary ballot.

But we've been asked to stop collecting signatures. Guess "shell shocked" is the word.
-------------

There is no reasons of having "heavy hearts", imo.

The draftee is telling us: "I can't save you, sorry...., unless you save yourself!"

We should be thankful Gore for telling that to us!

Tell Congress to Stand Up for American Values

This isn't just about the 10 million kids who desperately need the SCHIP program, this is about the direction of our country. It's time for Congress to take a stand and send a message to this President and his Administration that they will not continue to allow our most basic values to be swept aside. This is the moment that we stand up and say: "no more." We can win this fight, but it is going to take all of us. Start by telling your Members of Congress to override the President's veto of the SCHIP Reauthorization Act today.

http://act.truemajorityaction.org/t/50/c...

Better link

Tell Congress to Stand Up for American Values

This isn't just about the 10 million kids who desperately need the SCHIP program, this is about the direction of our country. It's time for Congress to take a stand and send a message to this President and his Administration that they will not continue to allow our most basic values to be swept aside. This is the moment that we stand up and say: "no more." We can win this fight, but it is going to take all of us. Start by telling your Members of Congress to override the President's veto of the SCHIP Reauthorization Act today.

send your message http://act.truemajorityaction.org/t/50/c...

Suzanne wrote "Heavy, heavy hearts in California today."

At least we can't say Gore didn't give very concrete signs that he wasn't intending to run.  I understand the tug of unrequited longing, but I just think as a political election strategem, it falls short of the more conventional models.

Ed Schultz: the story is "out there" that the Clinton campaign, (Begala and Co.) is putting the "heat" on Wolf Blitzer to go easy on the debate Thurs. and not ask her any Tim Russert type questions.

The strong arming will continue after the election.

I wonder if someone would explain to me exactly what the term "military industrial complex" means? I saw on c-span,Pres Eisenhower giving a farewell speech in which he warned against the Military industrial complex  & now I hear it used alot. Thanks.

habeaus corpus, an attack on our country.

thank you bruce and thank you dfam. you are both the best.

Quick drop in, then have work to do.

I, too, friends am sad about Al Gore's indication that he isn't running, but Howard Dean said it, and it's still true.  We do have the power if we will use it.

This from a friend.  It is something we might  take action on.  I intend to write a letter tout suite after I log off.

Nancy Pelosi has said if she gets 10,000 hand written letters she will put the impeachment of Cheney back on the table. Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

Quick drop in, then have work to do.

I, too, friends am sad about Al Gore's indication that he isn't running, but Howard Dean said it, and it's still true.  We do have the power if we will use it.

This from a friend.  It is something we might  take action on.  I intend to write a letter tout suite after I log off.

Nancy Pelosi has said if she gets 10,000 hand written letters she will put the impeachment of Cheney back on the table. Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

impeach both of the sob's now.

jao wrote "I wonder if someone would explain to me exactly what the term 'military industrial complex' means?"

If you're interested in an in depth response to this question, I urge you to visit this site for Eugene Jarecki's fascinating and revealing 2005 film "Why We Fight," and to see the film if at all possible   It explores the subject in riveting detail.

jao --

Military-industrial complex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

President Dwight Eisenhower famously referred to the "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address.
A military-industrial complex (MIC) is composed of a nation's armed forces, its suppliers of weapons systems, supplies and services, and its civil government.

The term "MIC" is most often used in reference to the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. It is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the (Congress and Executive branch). This sector is intrinsically prone to Principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-in...

I noticed in the overnight some discussion of the pledge of allegiance to the flag.  I agree the "under god" needs to be dropped, but more is really required for the pledge to serve any purpose in promoting citizenship.

A while back I wrote that I saw the United States not as a place but an idea

That idea is embodied in our Constitution.  It’s not a perfect document, and that we’ve changed it 27 times shows that we are a nation that learns from our experience, but it is a remarkably resilient model for self-governance.  It, and the ideas behind it, are what make this nation unique, and why, as I said before, “wherever Americans live by the principles and laws of our nation, beginning with those ideas embodied in our Constitution and reflected in the Declaration of Independence, that place is America, whether those people are in Kansas or on the Moon”.

This is why I think it’s past time to change the “Pledge of Allegiance”.  Every tinpot dictator has a flag.  Only we have our Constitution.

No other pledge or oath taken by a member of the government, military of citizenry of the United States is to the flag, rather it is to the Constitution, for example:

The Presidential oath of office: "… will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Senators’, Representatives’ and military oath: "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same."

Therefore I’d suggest substituting a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in all public and private instances where such a pledge is appropriate.  "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and promise to preserve, protect and defend it. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It may seem a very minor thing, but in these days, with leaders who wrap themselves in the flag while dismissing the Constitution as inconvenient when it gets in their way, this constant reminder of what the United States is will have a positive effect on the polity.  And, after 12 plus years of reciting it in school, maybe the next generation of leaders will have a better understanding of what and who this nation is.

19., 21., 21 was posted before 19 was even written. 19. is time stamped 12:58 and was posted at 1:16 ET.

21. is now 22. This blog is fubar'd.

24.  Good on you, Rich.

Do you think we need an act of Congress? 

Although I have been calling on Gore to decide, and I am glad that he finally did, apparently telling those who support him to stop, I take no happiness in what must be a disappointing day to those who worked hard to get him to run.

I think you all should listen to bruce's new cd, "magic". the words and the stories are insightful.

last nite driving home from dc, my husband and I listened to the words and music for about 2 hours. amazing. the video is upstream of one of the songs.

listen and  your heart will break.

bruce is a true patriot. as are you.

Do you think we need an act of Congress?

The Pledge is codified in Title 4 of the US Code, so yes, it would take an act of Congress to change it.

I actually think the military/industrial complex has evolved into a self-destructive relationship.  From a reliance on the production of military hardware and materials that tide us over the slumps, we've morphed into a society where civilian industrial enterprise and commerce has become dependent on military might to "level the playing field" and enforce contracts (sort of like the mafia uses strong-arm tactics) and as a result the quality of our production and the efficiency of our enterprise has gone way down.  People buy from us because they have to, not because we've got the best product.

The nuclear fuel fiasco is perhaps the most blatant example.  The U.S. has no objection to Iran turning to nuclear energy production, AS LONG AS IT AGREES TO BUY THE PROCESSED FUEL from the U.S. producer or its Russian subsidiary.  Meanwhile, Russia is pissed because it perceives that it was tricked into surrendering old weapons for reprocessing the uranium which the U.S. is then re-selling at a much higher price than the free market would ask.  And to top it all off, this U.S. commitment to enriched uranium is interfering with technological innovations that would use much less lethal stuff. 

jao wrote "I wonder if someone would explain to me exactly what the term 'military industrial complex' means?"

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Although I have been calling on Gore to decide, and I am glad that he finally did

Only you have decided. Gore just asked people not to put his name on ballots. 

But we've been asked to stop collecting signatures. Guess "shell shocked" is the word.

I think you should go right on doing it. Gore has merely cleared himself from any culpability in the matter. 

Therefore I’d suggest substituting a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution for the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag in all public and private instances where such a pledge is appropriate.

Pledges should just be for addicts and wife beaters. 

Sitka wrote "Gore has merely cleared himself from any culpability in the matter."

No doubt he would hate to be culpable for actually ending up a presidential candidate under some auspices besides declaring himself for the office. 

No doubt he would hate to be culpable for actually ending up a presidential candidate under some auspices besides declaring himself for the office.

And now he isn't. Carry on. He can always refuse later. 

Sitka wrote "[Gore] can always refuse [to be a candidate] later."

Yes, and so he might be if an unusual confluence of events winds up preventing the selection of a nominee during the primary process, but the real danger is that the longer he remains on the margins, the stronger the ties to the declared candidates become to voters.  It isn't just money.

Consider if, for example, Gore had reneged on his decision in December 2002 to stay out of the 2004 race, after Dean began speaking to voters in September.  After how many months would you have been willing, after switching your allegiance to Dean, to forget about Dean's candidacy in order to support Gore?  All the way to Dean's announcement in June?  After the Sleepless Summer Tour?  Longer?

People have been looking at these present candidacies at least since January, much longer in the case of Edwards.  More and more of them have begun to have an an emotional investment in the candidate or candidates they've been following.

No doubt he would hate to be culpable for actually ending up a presidential candidate under some auspices besides declaring himself for the office.

So what? It's their decision. 

After how many months would you have been willing, after switching your allegiance to Dean, to forget about Dean's candidacy in order to support Gore?

I wouldn't have switched, period. 

People have been looking at these present candidacies at least since January, much longer in the case of Edwards.  More and more of them have begun to have an an emotional investment in the candidate or candidates they've been following.

Repeat: So what? It's their decision. I just hope Gore's supporters keep trying to get him onto ballots or encouraging write ins. Just as with the DFA poll, it will make an important statement about how people really feel.

No doubt he would hate to be culpable for actually ending up a presidential candidate under some auspices besides declaring himself for the office.

Yes, and so he might be if an unusual confluence of events winds up preventing the selection of a nominee during the primary process, but the real danger is that the longer he remains on the margins, the stronger the ties to the declared candidates become to voters.

So what? It's their decision. 

Sitka wrote "I wouldn't have switched, period."

Me either, which is the difficulty for Gore I was describing. 

Sitka
Tue, 11/13/07
2:16 pm

Seems to me you honor the man by honoring his wishes.

This is an end to the draft Gore movement. I'm saddened he didn't enter the race, but that disappointment came much earlier than today for me.

People can always write in whomever they want. But many ballots don't allow unapproved write ins so you'd be literally throwing your vote away.

One has to wonder what DFA HQ thinks progressive means.  I do not like some candidates being left out.

Dear Monica,

The mainstream media and Beltway pundits have made up their minds. The Presidential Primary is already over.
Not so fast. The media isn't going to vote on caucus day -- but we are.
That's why Dennis Kucinich fought hard for your support in the DFA Pulse Poll.
Why John Edwards was first to respond to DFA members with his positions on Iraq and Global Warming.
Why Barack Obama is using DFA Training Academy materials to give his supporters the skills to win.
You know that primaries matter -- and this primary is the biggest of them all. Democracy for America is not going to let the pre-ordained front runner walk away without a fight.
Chip in $15 right now and support DFA's fight for a Progressive President.
http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/PrimariesMatter
Last week over 150,000 DFA members voted in our Presidential Primary pulse poll. No candidate was able to walk away with a majority, but one thing was clear. DFA members will not settle for the pundit's top choice.
DFA members are the boots on the ground fighting for progressive change. We are the caucus-goers, the early primary voters, the ones whose votes actually count.
DFA members support bold candidates with big ideas. Progessive candidates like Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards and Barack Obama. DFA members support candidates who are going to take our country in a new direction, stand for principles and make change happen.
We will not triangulate a third way. This race is not a foregone conclusion. Support DFA with a $15 contribution right now.
http://www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/PrimariesMatter
Together, we will show the pundits that primaries matter.
Thank you for putting your contribution into action.
-Rachel
Rachel Moss

Finance Director

Monica wrote "I do not like some candidates being left out."

I don't even like some of the candidates being left in.

Seems to me you honor the man by honoring his wishes.

I'll do what I think best and encourage others to do the same. But if it is the end of the Draftgore movement, it's also the end of participation in the process for many who find no one they can support in the candidates. I'm also much more likely to look outside the Democratic Party for candidates up and down the line.

Me either, which is the difficulty for Gore I was describing.

To describe a difficulty doesn't make it relevant. 

Sitka
Tue, 11/13/07
3:07 pm

WHAT? Why are you here if you aren't willing to support Democrats? Isn't that what you say to others when they express doubts, Sitka.

It was obvious Gore wasn't going to enter. There are many good candidates in the field in the primaries. You are welcome to do whatever you want, but I'm sure others will regain their senses and choose one. Maybe not as enthusiastically, but they'll choose.

Sitka wrote "To describe a difficulty doesn't make it relevant."

Thanks for the pithy observation.  By the same token, your failure to recognize the somewhat obvious relevance of a difficulty does not thereby make it irrelevant.
 

There is a DFA prescence in Miami.

There is almost NONE here in my part of Virginia.

So...........................when I get a message from Howard saying how well WE did in Va. Oh no you don't.

No Howard is the DNC but he is still the reason we have DFA.

I have asked for training here in Va. Nada.

So, no you didn't do much here in my part of VA. I did much more by myself then you ever could.

So please don't try to raise funds on the backs of those that you would not help. Don't do it.

Or you are just mimicking the dlc.

Why are you here if you aren't willing to support Democrats?

"I'm also much more likely to look outside the Democratic Party for candidates up and down the line."

Think before you react. 

It was obvious Gore wasn't going to enter.

It still isn't obvious. When he says , "I am not and will not be a candidate for the Democratic nomination." then it will be obvious.

At any rate, this latest developement isn't going to garner any more support for Edwards, which is what you've been angling for all along. 

Thanks for the pithy observation.

Any time. 

Sitka
Tue, 11/13/07
3:26 pm

Edwards would have been out if Gore had entered. But I still wanted him to enter the race, just before Labor Day. Now that he's out, I take no joy in the fact it will keep Edwards in the race.

He will win Iowa on his own. And then challenge Clinton for the nomination. Either Edwards or Obama would be an acceptable challenger to Clinton. I'm counting on Edwards to begin to surge.

He will win Iowa on his own. And then challenge Clinton for the nomination.

As long as we're predicting...... 

<>At best he'll make another deal to get 2nd in Iowa and then lose the rest of the primaries too. But Hillary won't choose him for VP. 

Phil gave me 25-1 odds Edwards would get more than 15% on the first vote without a deal, but then backed out when I took him up on it. 

7.

Suzanne Harris
Tue, 11/13/07
11:15 am

...There's no doubt in my mind we would have succeeded in our efforts to place Al Gore on our primary ballot. ...


---

Indeed.

California Draft Gore new totals at Act Blue

Supporters 520 Raised $33,094

Hot List

1. Rick Noriega
2. Donna Edwards
3. California Draft Gore
4. Blue America PAC
5. John Edwards

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Dear Friends:

I am deeply concerned about the recent oil spill that is impacting the Bay Area and beyond. I'm working both to assess why this spill occurred and to make sure that it is cleaned up quickly and to the highest possible standards. I am including my letter to the Coast Guard regarding this incident, pasted below. You can count on me to continue working to ensure that the Bay Area environment and economy do not suffer in the long run.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

---------------

November 8, 2007

Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant
United States Coast Guard
2100 Second Street, SW
Washington, DC 20593

Dear Admiral Allen:

As I am sure you are aware, yesterday morning at approximately 8:30 a.m. PST, a container ship struck the western span of the Bay Bridge, resulting in an approximately 100-foot gash in the hull and the puncture of a fuel tank.

Initially, the U.S. Coast Guard thought only 140 gallons had spilled from the vessel, which was the estimate reported by the ship's owners. We have now learned that the magnitude of the spill was grossly underestimated, and the accident has resulted in the spill of 58,000 gallons of heavy-duty bunker fuel oil into the San Francisco Bay.

My immediate concern is for the health and safety of the public as well as the birds, fish and wildlife of the Bay. To that end, it is crucial that the U.S. Coast Guard work in conjunction with the relevant federal, state, and local agencies to effectively mitigate this oil spill as quickly as possible.

But I am also very troubled by the Coast Guard's delay in delivering accurate information to the public and the city of San Francisco. Many questions remain as to why it took an entire day to determine the gravity of this spill, and whether the Coast Guard took appropriate measures to conduct drug and alcohol tests on the ship's pilot and navigators in a timely fashion.

I know my staff had a preliminary discussion with officials this afternoon, but I would like the U.S. Coast Guard to provide me with a phone briefing on the status of this oil spill, its current and projected impacts, and the actions the U.S. Coast Guard has taken with regard to containment and clean-up as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

The veto, of a measure providing $150.7 billion in discretionary spending for the Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, was announced as Bush was en route to southern Indiana to deliver an economics speech at which, his spokeswoman said, he would criticize Congress for its "wasteful spending."

OK. Vetoing a health, education, and jobs bill is just what I expect from Bush. But increasing the War Dept. budget yet again is NOT what I should expect of DCDems -- even though I've come to.

I