Metro Jacksonville

In conversation with noted local Democrat, Anne Pacjic, about the mass exodus of Jacksonville Republicans to the Democratic Party, Anne revealed that Obama will be making a visit to the city very soon.

Her source? Her daughter who is on the capaign trail with the Democratic Nominee at this very moment.

More updates as the dates become available.

Mass exodus of Republicans to Obama??  hahaha.  That is a good one.  Show me something to prove this is happening, please.  Obama actually has a real problem with exodus of Dems, who are upset about his treatment of Clinton, to McCain.

The Pajcics, BTW, are long time Democrats by virtue of their occupation - ambulance chasers.  This is a major constituency of today's Democrat party along with environmentalist extremists, limousine liberals, the guilty rich, actors and alternative lifestylers.  So much for the old Dem Party of the little man.  Those fellows are now Republicans.

I think you know what I meant by the phrase "Little Man".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_man

And now you are claiming that Jim Minion was a regular conservative Republican who was sickened by the Reps and is now a Dem??  That is funny to hear considering he ran for City Council last year as a Democrat and he doesnt appear to have ever been a conservative or a Republican when you talk with him (although he is a nice guy).  His "minions" were also far left radical kids in their 20s - I met a number of them.  So, nice try but no cigar.   ;)

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 10, 2008, 02:25:00 PM

The Pajcics, BTW, are long time Democrats by virtue of their occupation - ambulance chasers.  This is a major constituency of today's Democrat party along with environmentalist extremists, limousine liberals, the guilty rich, actors and alternative lifestylers.  So much for the old Dem Party of the little man.  Those fellows are now Republicans.

ROFL!!! HA HA HA!!! This is a classic case of the Faux pot (pun intended) calling the kettle black.

And BTW, I just love the references to the "Democrat" party. It sounds so ignorant. HA HA HA, it lowers you to my level!

You are a laugh riot. 

And that's a good point from Lauren, are you a real person or just a Fox News web bot? That would explain everything.

Quote from: Midway on June 10, 2008, 10:25:52 PM

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 10, 2008, 02:25:00 PM

The Pajcics, BTW, are long time Democrats by virtue of their occupation - ambulance chasers.  This is a major constituency of today's Democrat party along with environmentalist extremists, limousine liberals, the guilty rich, actors and alternative lifestylers.  So much for the old Dem Party of the little man.  Those fellows are now Republicans.

ROFL!!! HA HA HA!!! This is a classic case of the Faux pot (pun intended) calling the kettle black.

And BTW, I just love the references to the "Democrat" party. It sounds so ignorant. HA HA HA, it lowers you to my level!

You are a laugh riot. 

And that's a good point from Lauren, are you a real person or just a Fox News web bot? That would explain everything.

1)  Sorry but I dont do PI law.
2)  I used the "Democrat Party" moniker just for your benefit.  Do not derive a false sense of superiority from my use of this phrase.   ;)

Quote from: stephendare on June 10, 2008, 05:48:52 PM
you are welcome to ask Jim.  He is a very nice guy btw.

I have already spoken with him.   :)

Quoteabout the mass exodus of Jacksonville Republicans to the Democratic Party

RG, i think we are still waiting some hard numbers or evidence.  i think we may be waiting a while.  if there are no numbers, this is just called propaganda.

Indeed.  Agitprop is a very old tradition among the Bolshevik left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop

QuoteDo you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?   * 624,636 responses

89% -Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.

4.1% - No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."

4.8% - No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.

2% - I don't know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/

A self-selected poll on the most liberal news network website is hardly representative of the real opinions of Americans.  Nice try though.   ;)

It represents the opinion of 624,636 people.

MSNBC is not a RiversideGator approved news source? Nice try.

Obama is making a fundraising stop in Jacksonville on Friday, June 20th at the Prome Osborne. General seating at the reception is $500/person and VIP seating is $2300/person, standard rates for a political fundraiser. There have been discussions about providing for a "General Admission" that would not include the sit down event, but would probably get the ticket holder entrance to the venue. No word yet on if the General Admission will actually happen, but there has been pressure from the local party office to allow more of the general public attend the event.

Quote from: Lunican on June 11, 2008, 01:10:26 AM
It represents the opinion of 624,636 people.

MSNBC is not a RiversideGator approved news source? Nice try.

This is a nation of 300+ million.  Also, are multiple votes allowed?  And, if the consumers of news source skew Democrat, this would be the obvious result.  This is not a scientific or accurate poll of the American people or likely voters and we both know it.

Quote from: chris on June 11, 2008, 08:30:30 AM
Obama is making a fundraising stop in Jacksonville on Friday, June 20th at the Prome Osborne. General seating at the reception is $500/person and VIP seating is $2300/person, standard rates for a political fundraiser. There have been discussions about providing for a "General Admission" that would not include the sit down event, but would probably get the ticket holder entrance to the venue. No word yet on if the General Admission will actually happen, but there has been pressure from the local party office to allow more of the general public attend the event.

What a tremendous waste of money.  You would be better off doing this with it:

(http://www.valleywag.com/assets/resources/2006/08/satire-is-dead.jpg)

"It represents the opinion of 624,636 people. "


Isn't that the total number of MSNBC viewers LOL!!!

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 11, 2008, 11:03:51 AM

Quote from: chris on June 11, 2008, 08:30:30 AM
Obama is making a fundraising stop in Jacksonville on Friday, June 20th at the Prome Osborne. General seating at the reception is $500/person and VIP seating is $2300/person, standard rates for a political fundraiser. There have been discussions about providing for a "General Admission" that would not include the sit down event, but would probably get the ticket holder entrance to the venue. No word yet on if the General Admission will actually happen, but there has been pressure from the local party office to allow more of the general public attend the event.

What a tremendous waste of money.  You would be better off doing this with it:

(http://www.valleywag.com/assets/resources/2006/08/satire-is-dead.jpg)

now that was awesome.  hilarious!  but so true!

Looks like Obama is too liberal for even some Democrat Congressmen:

Quote Okla. Dem calls Obama liberal, declines to endorse

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) â€" Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.

    However, Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.

    "I think this is an important time for our country," Boren said in a telephone interview. "We're facing a terrible economic downturn. We have high gasoline prices. We have problems in our foreign policy. That's why I think it's important."

    Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPG6u74pnrtTlz9Fs6pexEYSfdGAD917CV983

I don't consider FL to be in play in the general election, at least not at the moment.  Unless Bob Graham or some other Floridian is put in as VP, that isn't TOO likely to change.   

There are too many people there that are McCain's age.  That said, Obama will run a 50-state campaign, and it has been close in the last two elections, so it could tighten up some, but probably not enough.

In other states the shift of voters from GOP to Dem is well documented.  The northern suburbs (Philly, DC, etc.) being prime examples. 

I thought this long but interesting article from a conservative news source was quite appropriate to this thread.   Stephen isn't the only conservative not blindly following the Bush dogma.

QuoteMr. Right?
The rise of the Obamacons.

Bruce Bartlett,  The New Republic  Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008


The New Yorker is hardly the optimal vehicle for reaching the conservative intelligentsia. But, last year, Barack Obama cooperated with a profile for that magazine where he seemed to be speaking directly to the right. Because he paid obeisance to the virtues of stability and continuity, his interlocutor, Larissa MacFarquhar, came away with the impression that the Illinois senator was an adherent of Edmund Burke: "In his view of history, in his respect for tradition, in his skepticism that the world can be changed any way but very, very slowly, Obama is deeply conservative."

As The New Yorker's assessment shot across blogs, many conservatives listened eagerly. A broad swath of the movement has been in open revolt against George W. Bush--and the Republican Party establishment--for some time. They don't much care for the Iraq war or the federal government's vast expansion over the last seven-and-a-half years. And, in the eyes of these discontents, the nomination of John McCain only confirmed the continuation of the worst of the Bush-era deviations from first principles.

But it was hardly inevitable that this revolt would translate into enthusiasm for the Democratic standard-bearer. After all, you could see similar signs of unhappiness four years ago, and none of that translated into mass defections to the John Kerry camp. And, despite Ann Coulter's vow to campaign for Hillary Clinton over John McCain, the old bête noir of the right would have never attracted many conservatives. That's what makes the rise of the Obamacons such an interesting development. Conservatives of almost all ideological flavors (even, gasp, some supply-siders) have been drawn to Obama--out of a genuine affection and a belief that he may actually better embody movement ideals than McCain.

There have been a few celebrated cases of conservatives endorsing Obama, like the blogger Andrew Sullivan and the legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. But you probably have not have heard of many of the Obamacons--and neither has the Obama campaign. When I checked with it to ask for a list of prominent conservative supporters, the campaign seemed genuinely unaware that such supporters even existed. But those of us on the right who pay attention to think tanks, blogs, and little magazines have watched Obama compile a coterie drawn from the movement's most stalwart and impressive thinkers. It's a group that will no doubt grow even larger in the coming months.

The largest group of Obamacons hail from the libertarian wing of the movement. And it's not just Andrew Sullivan. Milton and Rose Friedman's son, David, is signed up with the cause on the grounds that he sees Obama as the better vessel for his father's cause. Friedman is convinced of Obama's sympathy for school vouchers--a tendency that the Democratic primaries temporarily suppressed. Scott Flanders, the CEO of Freedom Communications--the company that owns The Orange County Register--told a company meeting that he believes Obama will accomplish the paramount libertarian goals of withdrawing from Iraq and scaling back the Patriot Act.

Libertarians (and other varieties of Obamacons, for that matter) frequently find themselves attracted to Obama on stylistic grounds. That is, they believe that he has surrounded himself with pragmatists, some of whom (significantly) come from the University of Chicago. As the blogger Megan McArdle has written, "His goal is not more government so that we can all be caught up in some giant, expressive exercise of collectively enforcing our collective will on all the other people standing around us in the collective; his goal is improving transparency and minimizing government intrusion while rectifying specific outcomes."

In nearly every quarter of the movement, you can find conservatives irate over the Iraq war--a war they believe transgresses core principles. And it's this frustration with the war--and McCain's pronouncements about victory at any cost--that has led many conservatives into Obama's arms. Francis Fukuyama, the neoconservative theorist, recently told an Australian journalist that he would reluctantly vote for Obama to hold the Republican Party accountable "for a big policy failure" in Iraq. And he seems to view Obama as the best means for preserving American power, since Obama "symbolizes the ability of the United States to renew itself in a very unexpected way."

You can find similar sentiments coursing through the Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich's seminal Obamacon manifesto in The American Conservative. He believes that the war in Iraq has undermined the possibilities for conservative reform at home. The prospects for a conservative revival, therefore, depend on withdrawing from Iraq. Thus the necessity of Obama. "For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one," Bacevich concludes.

How substantial is the Obamacon phenomenon? Well, it has even penetrated National Review, the intellectual anchor of the conservative movement. There's Jeffrey Hart, who has been a senior editor at the magazine since 1968 and even wrote a history of the magazine, The Making of the American Conservative Mind; and Wick Allison, who once served as the magazine's publisher.

Neither man has renounced his conservatism. Both have come away impressed by Obama's rhetorical acumen. This is a particular compliment coming from Hart, who wrote speeches for both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. They both like that Obama couches his speeches in a language of uplift and unity. When describing his support for Obama, Allison pointed me in the direction of a column that his wife (who has never supported a Democrat) wrote in The Dallas Morning News: "He speaks with candor and elegance against the kind of politics that have become so dispiriting and for the kind of America I would like to see. As a man, I find Mr. Obama to be prudent, thoughtful, and courageous. His life story embodies the conservative values that go to the core of my beliefs."

But, if you're looking for the least likely pool of Obamacons, it would be the supply-siders. And you can even find some of those. Take Larry Hunter, who helped put together the economics passages in the Contract with America and served as chief economist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He concedes that Obama is saying the wrong things on taxes but dismisses it as electioneering. Of far greater importance, in Hunter's view, is that Obama has the potential to "scramble the political deck, break up old alliances, and bring odd bedfellows together in a new coalition." And, what's more important, he views the Republican Party as a "dead, rotting carcass with a few decrepit old leaders stumbling around like zombies in a horror version of Weekend at Bernie's, handcuffed to a corpse." Unless the Republican Party is thoroughly purged of its current leadership, Hunter fears that it "will pollute the political environment to toxic levels and create an epidemic that could damage the country for generations to come."

I know what Hunter and the rest of the Obamacons are talking about. As a conservative, I share their disgust with a Republican Party that still does not see how badly George W. Bush has misgoverned this country. But, while I am sympathetic to the Obamacons and have a number of friends that are, I am not one of them. I'm not ready to join the other side.

Still, I have enjoyed watching the phenomenon, which has the potential to remake the political landscape. It will also produce some of the good comedy that inevitably accompanies strange bedfellows. The blogger Dorothy King, an archeologist and strong conservative, recently outed herself as an Obamacon. This was a culturally awkward position for her. She wondered, "Do I now, as a newly minted Obamaphile liberal elitist, have to serve my guests Chablis? Or would any old chardonnay do? ... Am I even meant to admit to going to the supermarket? Should I pretend to only go to the local Farmers' Market?" There, undoubtedly, will be much more of such dislocation in the months to come.

Bruce Bartlett is the author of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.

A few apostate conservatives and liberal Republican turncoats do not make a movement.  Show me some actual poll numbers where this is happening in large numbers.  The last poll I saw on the issue showed more Dems supporting McCain than Reps supporting Obama. 

Also, there is the not insignificant matter of Jewish voters not supporting Obama to the traditional degree that they normally support Dem candidates:

QuoteDoing it at the AIPAC meeting enabled McCain to sow further doubts about Obama among Jewish voters. Jews vote heavily Democratic as a rule; exit polls show that John Kerry won 76 percent of the Jewish vote in 2004 and Al Gore won 79 percent in 2000.

But Obama, the likely Democratic nominee, has had problems with Jewish voters, routinely losing them by wide margins to rival Hillary Clinton. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, Clinton won more than 60 percent of the Jewish vote, according to exit polls. A recent Gallup poll found Obama leading McCain among Jews by 61 percent to 32 percent, well below the Democratic norm.

Miami Herald, Tue, Jun. 03, 2008
http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/555866.html

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 11, 2008, 11:22:54 AM
Looks like Obama is too liberal for even some Democrat Congressmen:

Quote Okla. Dem calls Obama liberal, declines to endorse

    OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) â€" Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.

    However, Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.

    "I think this is an important time for our country," Boren said in a telephone interview. "We're facing a terrible economic downturn. We have high gasoline prices. We have problems in our foreign policy. That's why I think it's important."

    Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jPG6u74pnrtTlz9Fs6pexEYSfdGAD917CV983

14 GOP Congressmen don't sem too happy with McCain either.

QuoteNew Gang of 14 won’t back McCain 
By Kristen Coulter and Bob Cusack 
Posted: 06/11/08 07:48 PM [ET] 
At least 14 Republican members of Congress have refused to endorse or publicly support Sen. John McCain for president, and more than a dozen others declined to answer whether they back the Arizona senator.


Many of the recalcitrant GOP members declined to detail their reasons for withholding support, but Rep. John Peterson (R-Pa.) expressed major concerns about McCain’s energy policies and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) cited the Iraq war.



A handful of other Republicans on Capitol Hill made the distinction between “endorsing” and “supporting,” adding that while they have not endorsed, they do support McCain.


In recent weeks, much of the discussion and debate about party unity has been on the Democrats’ side, amid their protracted presidential primary. Yet achieving harmony is a concern on both sides of the aisle this year.


It is not unusual for certain factions of the Democratic and Republican parties not to embrace their respective candidates for president. McCain’s campaign seized on some Democrats’ reticence about Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), issuing a release on Tuesday that highlighted that Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) is not endorsing the presumptive nominee. While some conservative Democrats have yet to endorse Obama and didn’t back Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004, there are both centrist and conservative Republicans representing various parts of the country who are not embracing McCain.


Republican members who have not endorsed or publicly backed McCain include Sens. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Jeff Sessions (Ala.) and Reps. Jones, Peterson, John Doolittle (Calif.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Wayne Gilchrest (Md.), Virgil Goode (Va.), Tim Murphy (Pa.), Ron Paul (Texas), Ted Poe (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Dave Weldon (Fla.) and Frank Wolf (Va.). [Wolf contacted The Hill following publication of the article to correct his staff’s error. His staff had said he has “yet to endorse McCain” and did not return follow-up phone calls this week].

Again, show me poll numbers.  Otherwise, this is meaningless argument by anecdotal evidence.

Speaking of anecdotal evidence, a Clinton delegate to the Dem convention has now endorsed McCain.  Wow.  Read more here:

Quote
Delegate’s reversal stuns party
Wisconsin Democrat now publicly supports McCain
By CRAIG GILBERT
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: June 14, 2008

Washington - As an avid supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries, Debra Bartoshevich is not alone in her frustration over Clinton's defeat.

She’s not alone in refusing to support Barack Obama.

And she’s not entirely alone in saying she’ll vote this fall for Republican John McCain instead.

But what makes her unusual is that she holds these views as an elected delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this summer.

“I’m sure people are going to be upset with me,” said Bartoshevich, a 41-year-old emergency room nurse from Waterford in Racine County, and convention delegate pledged to Clinton.

Joe Wineke, chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, reacted with disbelief when first told Friday afternoon that one of his state party delegates is now a McCain supporter.

“Not a delegate? To the national convention?” said Wineke, who was getting ready for the start of the Wisconsin state party convention Friday in Stevens Point.

“We have a Clinton national (convention) delegate who says she’s voting for John McCain?” Wineke repeated, for clarification. “I’ve never heard of such a thing.”

Wineke said “almost everybody I know who was for Hillary” is solidly behind Obama now. As for Bartoshevich, he said, “my suspicion is she doesn’t know what she’s getting into” because “the delegates to this convention will be very upset.”

Asked if publicly supporting the other party’s presidential nominee could affect a delegate’s convention status, Wineke said, “I never thought I’d ever get a question like this.”

After some preliminary checking, Wineke said he assumed Bartoshevich would remain a delegate.

But Friday night, after a story about Bartoshevich appeared on the Journal Sentinel’s Web site, he had apparently reconsidered. At the state Democratic Party convention, party members, including Clinton supporters, unanimously passed a resolution asking the national party not to seat Bartoshevich at the Denver convention. Wineke spoke in favor of the resolution.

Another pledged Clinton delegate, Paula Dorsey of Milwaukee, offered the resolution.

Dorsey said trying to expel her fellow Democrat from the party’s convention “hurts my soul and it hurts my heart,” but it is the party’s presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), whom convention delegates must support.

An unusual decision

The McCain campaign said that, nationally, it was not aware at this point of any other delegates to the Democratic convention (it may know of an alternate, it said) who have come out for the Republican candidate.

In an interview, Bartoshevich expressed lingering unhappiness over the Democratic nominating process, said Clinton was treated unfairly by the party and said she has deep reservations about Obama’s lack of experience and his judgment.

“I’m kind of disenfranchised,” she said.

She said she planned to vote for Clinton at the convention, but in an Obama-McCain matchup in November, “I will not be voting for Obama. I will cast my vote for John McCain.

“I just feel you need to have somebody who has experience with foreign matters.”

She said a series of controversial Obama associations, including but not limited to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago developer Tony Rezko, reflected poorly on his judgment. And she echoed the complaints of many of Clinton’s most ardent supporters that Clinton was treated unfairly in the nominating process and by the party.

“No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her â€" that’s by Susan B. Anthony,” said Bartoshevich, referring to the suffragist.

Bartoshevich called herself a “devoted Democrat” who had never voted for a Republican for president.

“I’m on a lot of the (pro-Clinton) blogs, and so many people, male and female, feel the same way as I do,” said Bartoshevich, who was listed as a Racine County co-chair for the Clinton campaign and who traveled outside Wisconsin to volunteer for Clinton. “The Democrats jumped on this wagon of Barack Obama, and nobody really knows him.”

Hoping to tap into discontent among Clinton supporters, the McCain campaign is reaching out to them in a variety of ways, including a telephone “town hall” meeting today targeted to non-Republican voters.
McCain aide alerted press

Encouraged by her sister, who has served in Iraq, Bartoshevich signed up as a supporter with “Citizens for McCain,” an arm of the campaign targeting Democrats and independents. She said she got a call from the McCain campaign, which then provided her name to a reporter.

Polls suggest that Democrats are largely rallying around Obama after a divisive nominating fight, a phenomenon that has occurred in past intra-party fights, scholars say. But it remains to be seen whether Obama is hurt in the fall by any softness among Clinton’s core constituencies, especially white women and older and lower-income whites.

“History tells us that the vast majority of pledged (Clinton) delegates will in fact be quite enthusiastic about Obama by the time they get to Denver,” said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard lecturer, a member of the Democratic National Committee and an expert on the nominating process.

Kamarck, who supported Clinton in the primaries, said it was too soon to tell whether discontent among Clinton supporters becomes a significant factor or “whether it’s just magnified because we have the Internet.”

Clinton has not formally released her pledged delegates, and it would not be unusual, given the modern history of the party, for most of them to cast their votes for Clinton at the convention. But that would depend on whether Clinton allows her name to be put forward for the nomination. Clinton hasn’t made that clear, but she has urged her delegates to help Obama defeat McCain.

Professor Byron Shafer, a University of Wisconsin-Madison scholar who is an expert on conventions, said it’s the fact that Bartoshevich is a convention delegate, subject to the partisan tendencies and pressures common to party activists, that makes her public support for McCain so unusual.

“The competitive partisan dynamic is usually strong enough that even the people not willing to line up at the convention on record for the nominee are still unlikely to be willing to line up publicly for the other party’s nominee,” Shafer said. “It’s a pretty far-out move.”

Steven Walters of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this report from Stevens Point.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=762052&format=print

show us poll numbers.  meaningless speculation by anecdotal evidence otherwise.

I am the only one to show poll numbers.  Specifically, Jewish voters, a traditional Dem voting block, are supporting McCain in higher numbers than usual for a Rep Presidential candidate.

But, for more anecdotal evidence, we have none other than Joe Lieberman, US Democrat Senator and former Democrat VP nominee, supporting McCain for President.  I wonder how much more press there would be if say Cheney had endorsed Obama.  Hmm...  Wonder why...  Read more here:

QuoteLieberman irks Democrats by criticizing Obama

Jun 15, 11:00 AM (ET)

By ANDREW MIGA

WASHINGTON (AP) - Joe Lieberman is fast becoming the Democrats' public enemy No. 1.

The four-term Connecticut senator, who came tantalizingly close to being Al Gore's vice president in 2000, not only has been campaigning for his pal, presumed Republican nominee John McCain, now he's publicly criticizing the Democrats' standard-bearer, Barack Obama. Lieberman has strayed before, most notably switching from Democrat to independent in 2006 to hold onto his Senate seat after a Democratic primary loss.

But the latest betrayal has upset Democrats, who often answer in clipped but polite tones when asked about Lieberman. The reason: The independent still caucuses with the Democrats on most issues except the Iraq war, and he holds their slim political majority in his hands.

"There's a commonly held hope that he's not going to be transformed into an attack dog for Republicans," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., an Obama supporter.

Lieberman has wasted no time in questioning Obama's positions on Iran and Israel, two topics on which Lieberman and McCain agree. Just one day after Obama clinched his party's nomination, Lieberman joined Republicans on a McCain campaign teleconference call assailing Obama following his foreign policy address to a leading Jewish group.

Lieberman accused Obama of blaming U.S. policies for "essentially sort of strengthening" Iran.

"If Israel is in danger today, it's not because of American foreign policy, which has been strongly supportive of Israel in every way," he said. "It is not because of what we have done in Iraq. It is because Iran is a fanatical terrorist, expansionist state."

Later that day, during a budget vote in the Senate, Obama led Lieberman to a corner of the Senate floor for a pointed private conversation. Without elaborating, Obama told reporters the chat was about politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had a similar private conversation with Lieberman.

For his part, Lieberman said he assured Obama he would avoid personal attacks.

"I said, and we agreed, that any time I get out there mostly I'm going to be talking positively about John McCain - and anytime I would take issue with Barack Obama, it would never be personal because I have the highest regard for him personally," he said.

Still, Democrats were irked. Lieberman seemed to be breaking new ground - shifting gears from simply promoting McCain to taking shots at Obama.

"I'm glad that Barack Obama had a direct conversation with Joe," Sen. Dick Durbin, Obama's fellow Illinois senator, told reporters. "I hope that Joe will realize that even though he's a friend of John McCain's and feels differently on the war, there are so many other issues Barack stands for that have been a part of Joe's career."

Lieberman's Connecticut colleague, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, said he's heard McCain talk about keeping a civil tone to the campaign.

"It might be a good message for him to convey to his supporters," said Dodd, also an Obama supporter.

Obama had backed Lieberman in the 2006 Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut. After he lost to Ned Lamont, an anti-war candidate, Lieberman defied party leaders and ran as an independent in the general election. Leading Democrats - Obama, Dodd and Kerry among them - then backed Lamont. Lieberman was re-elected with support from the GOP, including praise from the White House and fundraising help from prominent Republicans.

Oddly, Lieberman befriended and dispensed advice to Obama when the Illinois senator arrived in Washington in 2005.

"We have established a very good relationship," Lieberman says. "I have a lot of affection for him."

Call it Lieberman's version of tough love.

The Connecticut lawmaker is willing to speak at the Republican convention this summer if McCain asks. He also has been mentioned as a potential McCain running mate.

Democrats have reason to tolerate Lieberman's actions. If he were to caucus with the GOP, the balance of power in the narrowly divided Senate would slip away, especially with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling brain cancer. Democrats need Lieberman to maintain their 51-49 Senate majority.

Beyond Iraq, Lieberman tends to vote with Democrats on major issues.

"Joe and I have known each other 40 years," said Dodd. "On almost every issue, Joe is a mainstream Democrat."

There is speculation that if Democrats bolster their Senate majority this fall, they could seek payback by stripping Lieberman of his Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chairmanship.

While there's no serious talk afoot about punishing Lieberman, Kerry said, "I can't tell you what happens next year."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080615/D91AIUPG1.html

good news for McCain!

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 16, 2008, 01:06:26 AM
I am the only one to show poll numbers.  Specifically, Jewish voters, a traditional Dem voting block, are supporting McCain in higher numbers than usual for a Rep Presidential candidate.

I don't know much about Stephen Dare's comment about Jax Republican's switching over, but if you want just general poll numbers, here's a few:

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/06/10/article-0-018B5C7700000578-722_468x342.jpg)

Here's a World view of Obama and McCain:

Source: Pew Research Center

There's quite a few countries that aren't all that convinced that things will be better under a new Administration but the majority of these polled favor Obama.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080612/us-global-poll/images/NYOL58806130154.jpg)
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5834388.html

QuoteUS women voters head to Obama after Clinton departure: poll

WASHINGTON (AFP) - De facto Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has rapidly picked up support from women voters in the wake of Hillary Clinton's withdrawal from the campaign, according to a Gallup poll out on Wednesday.

Between the eve of the final primaries on June 3 and Monday, Obama's support among all women in polling matchups with Republican rival John McCain has jumped to give him a 13-point margin in this voter group.

According to Gallup, in its surveys covering June 5-9, Obama was supported by 51 percent of women voters compared to 38 percent for McCain.

A week earlier, Obama topped McCain with just a 48-43 percent spread.

Gallup pointed out that Obama's support among women voters is now close to the steady 52 percent level Clinton had in earlier theoretical matchups with McCain, whom she led in this group by 12 points.

It said that the shift of older and married women to Obama appeared to explain his surge.

Married women backed McCain 52-40 percent in the previous poll, and are now evenly split 45-45 percent over the two.

Meanwhile unmarried women liked Obama by 57-32 percent and 57-31 percent in the earlier May 27-June 2 poll and the most recent poll, respectively.

"Now that Clinton is no longer campaigning and the focus of voters' decision-making is a choice between Obama and McCain, female voters may be taking a second look at Obama," Gallup said.

"Indeed, his current 13-point advantage over McCain is essentially the same advantage that Clinton held over McCain throughout her active candidacy."

Among male voters Obama also picked up ground on McCain. McCain led his Democratic rival in the earlier poll by six points, 49-43 percent. In the newest poll, McCain maintained only a two-point spread, 47-45 percent.

The Gallup poll was conducted between May 27 and June 2 among 5,270 voters and has a two-point margin of error.

A Rasmussen Institute poll carried out June 7-9 shows that Obama is ahead of McCain by seven points, 50 percent against 43 percent.

An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll to appear Thursday in the newspaper confirms the tendency in Obama's favor.

Forty-seven percent of those polled plan to vote for Obama against 41 percent that support McCain, a broader margin for Obama when compared to the same poll in April (46-43 percent).

According to the poll, 54 percent of those surveyed believed "it is important to look for a person who will bring greater changes to the current policies even if he is less experienced and tested," against 42 percent that supported a "more experienced and tested person even if he brings fewer changes to the current policies."

And 59 percent said they believed it was "time to have a president who will focus on progress and help move America forward," against 37 percent who said it was "time to have a president who will focus on protecting what has made America great."

The WSJ/NBC poll was conducted June 6-9 among 1,000 voters, and has a 3.1 point margin of error.

Quotehttp://www.electoral-vote.com/

Jun. 16

Obama 304 McCain 221 Ties 13

(http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Jun12.png)

At the site you can click on individual states for the latest polls.

obama definitely LOOKS cooler than McCain in that pic.  :)  i'll give him that. 

QuotePoll: N.C. up for grabs for McCain, Obama

Raleigh, N.C. â€" Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are in a dead heat in the presidential race in North Carolina, according to a new WRAL News poll.

A survey of 500 likely voters Tuesday by polling firm Rasmussen Reports shows McCain has 45 percent of the vote and Obama has 43 percent. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

The results are similar to a WRAL News poll released days after the state's May 6 primary, when McCain topped Obama by a 48 to 45 percent margin.

McCain got his his strongest support in the latest poll from voters age 50 or older, while Obama leads among younger voters, according to the poll. McCain also leads among married and wealthier voters, as well as those who say they regularly attend church.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/3032997/

Quote from: Driven1 on June 16, 2008, 10:58:10 AM
obama definitely LOOKS cooler than McCain in that pic.  :)  i'll give him that. 

(http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/mccain-angryu.jpg)

now look at both photos and tell me which one YOU think would negotiate with terrorists???

;)

Quote from: Driven1 on June 16, 2008, 10:58:10 AM
obama definitely LOOKS cooler than McCain in that pic.  :)  i'll give him that. 

McCain for President, Obama for best friend!

Lake:  Interesting stat re women.  Unfortunately for the Dems, men also vote and they vote for the Republicans typically in larger numbers than women vote for the Dems (in recent Presidental elections at least).

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 16, 2008, 12:41:46 PM
Lake:  Interesting stat re women.  Unfortunately for the Dems, men also vote and they vote for the Republicans typically in larger numbers than women vote for the Dems (in recent Presidental elections at least).

Good observation.  The McCain's ability to attract a large percentage of white males is the only thing keeping this election from being a runaway.  Here are some more polls.

QuoteObama's Clues to Wooing the Latino Vote

By Marcela Sanchez
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, June 13, 2008; 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON -- One of the key questions emerging since Sen. Barack Obama secured the Democratic nomination is whether he will be able to woo Hispanic voters, a significant segment of the electorate in several battleground states. Sen. Hillary Clinton frequently beat Obama 2-to-1 among Latinos during the primary.

The most optimistic argue that the migration to Obama will come naturally -- and that Hispanics favored Clinton because of better name recognition. Now in the general election, when the choice is between a Democrat and a Republican, a majority of Hispanics will no doubt flock to Obama. Recent Gallup Polls show Obama winning 62 percent of Hispanic registered voters nationwide, compared with 29 percent for Republican Sen. John McCain.

Even those more skeptical concede that at least a majority of Latinos will vote Democratic in November. At their height of popularity, Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush garnered around 40 percent of Latino votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/12/AR2008061201944.html


Right now, its a virtual tie.

(http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080615DailyUpdateGraph1_mki04ojkk.gif)

(http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080615DailyUpdateGraph1a_oiekafh3.gif)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107854/Gallup-Daily-ObamaMcCain-Race-Reverts-Virtual-Tie.aspx

A poll out today gives Obama an 11 point lead in Ohio.  It's never wise to put too much stock in any one poll [outlier do happen], but if that becomes a trend, then obviously the Clinton voters are coming home to the Democratic nominee.

No Republican has ever won the presidency without winning Ohio. 

Another poll out yesterday has Obama up in Virginia by 1 point, 45-44.  Virginia has not supported a Democrat for POTUS since 1964, but the VA GOP has gone from politically dominance to almost total meltdown.  There may be 'reverse coattails' in Virginia as well.  Polls in the open senate seat show the Democrat, former Governor Mark Warner (no relation to the retiring John Warner), has opened up nearly a 2-1 lead over the former GOP Governor, James Gilmore.   BTW,  Mark Warner will be a name you hear in the future for POTUS. 

Without a doubt, Virginia's electoral votes are fully in play, a first in my lifetime.     

If Obama wins Ohio by 11 and VA by any number, it is a blowout.  We will see.  It is a bit early still and Obama is benefiting from the bump he got from apparently winning the Dem nomination. 

Indeed, it is early.  Too early to predict anything, but indicative that these states are in play.

But, perhaps things are not going as well as expected in the Obama campaign:

Quote
'Danger Signs' as Clinton Supporters Resist Obama
Democratic Candidate Leads but Still Struggles to Win Over Key Groups
By JAKE TAPPER
June 17, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama has emerged from his bruising battle for the Democratic presidential nomination with only a six point lead over Sen. John McCain and claiming his Republican rival has been getting a "pass" from the media.

A ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Obama, D-Ill., leading McCain, R-Ariz., by a margin of 48 percent to 42 percent. It is a surprisingly small lead considering that the incumbent Republican president George Bush is at record lows and public opinion overwhelmingly feels the country is on the "wrong track".

No Bounce, Resistance from Clinton Supporters

The poll indicates that Obama did not get the traditional "bounce" in the public's opinion by finally defeating Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and getting her endorsement as the Democratic presidential candidate.

While leading among young voters and other key demographics, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos saw what he called "danger signs" for Obama.

In an exclusive network interview with ABC News, Obama said that his long Democratic primary battle with Clinton, which wasn't settled until early June, spared McCain critical scrutiny.

"While we were doing that, John McCain basically was getting a pass, both from the media . . . as well as from other opponents. And so I think that explains it," said Obama of the close race.

It is an ironic accusation from Obama.

During the bitter Democratic fight, the Clinton camp repeatedly complained that Obama was getting a pass from the media.

Obama Targets Key Groups

Obama has been trying to shore up key components of the geographic and demographic components he will need to win the presidency.

He accepted the endorsement Monday night of former vice president and global warming guru Al Gore in Detroit. It was the second major endorsement Obama staged in the key state of Michigan, having announced the backing of former presidential contender John Edwards in Michigan as well.

Obama was trying to make up for lost time in the swing state because he had avoided Michigan during the primaries as the Democratic Party punished the state for holding its primary earlier than the party wanted.

Obama also tried to head off any inroads McCain might make among women voters by arguing on GMA that "on almost every single issue that's important to women, he [McCain] has been on the wrong side."

"You know, he's in favor of judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He has opposed equal pay," Obama said, and charged that McCain also fought a program to insure children and to protect women from discrimination.

Women, particularly married white women, however, may be a problem for Obama, according to the Washington Post/ABC poll.

It showed that McCain has a 20 point advantage over Obama among married white women, a group that George Bush also won in the last two presidential elections.

Stephanopoulos told GMA that the figure was a "danger sign" for Obama. "This is a huge gap that Obama has to close if he's going to do well."

Question of Experience

Obama faces an additional problem that only half of the voters saying he has the necessary experience to be president.

"If you look at the key question of experience, that may be what's holding him back," Stephanopoulos said. "Only 50 percent of voters say that Barack Obama has the experience to be president. A full 46 percent say, no, he doesn't have the experience . . . That's one of the reasons they are going on the foreign trips."

Obama has talked publicly about going to Iraq, but ABC News has learned that he is adding Afghanistan to his travel itinerary.

The crucial political battle appears to be shaping up around independent voters between the age of 30 and 64.

"Those middle of the road independent voters, they are breaking right down the middle," Stephanopoulos said. "This is going to be a key battleground for both campaigns going into November."

While Obama runs well among younger voters, they are not always reliable when it comes to showing up at the polls. Meanwhile, he is 12 points behind McCain among the more reliable older voters.

In addition, nearly a quarter of Clinton's voters are holding back on their support, according to the ABC News/Washington Post poll.

"If that number stays that high, it will be difficult for Barack Obama to win," Stephanopoulos said.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/Story?id=5183218&page=2

Wow.  If Obama were to still lose despite all the advantages Dems have this cycle, libs like Stephen and Midway would just come unhinged.  It is almost worth it for me to donate some cash to McCain whom I have never really liked.   :D

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 16, 2008, 12:41:46 PM
Lake:  Interesting stat re women.  Unfortunately for the Dems, men also vote and they vote for the Republicans typically in larger numbers than women vote for the Dems (in recent Presidental elections at least).

Sen. Barack Obama holds an edge over Sen. John McCain nationally, according to the latest Reuters/Zogby telephone survey.

Obama leads McCain, 47% to 42%, with 12% saying they prefer someone else or are not yet sure about their selection in the race.

Key findings: He holds a double-digit lead among women, while McCain holds a six-point lead among men. Both candidates are winning about four of every five voters from their own party, but Obama enjoys a substantial 22-point lead among political independents.

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 18, 2008, 12:22:26 AM
Wow.  If Obama were to still lose despite all the advantages Dems have this cycle, libs like Stephen and Midway would just come unhinged.  It is almost worth it for me to donate some cash to McCain whom I have never really liked.   :D

Democrats are taking a gamble on a somewhat untested candidate, and a minority, when this election should be an easy one (provided Hillary wasn't the nominee).  That is a testament to McCain's appeal to independents more than anything.

However, the payoff is commesurate with the risk.  A solid win by Obama could solidify a strong Democratic allegiance among minorities, and the youngest generation of voters.  Plus his 50-state campaign could bring in some additional House and Senate seats that otherwise might be left on the table.  He has already brought new states into play versus Gore and Kerry.

QuoteThe latest Quinnipiac Swing State polls shows Sen. Barack Obama -- with strong support among women, blacks and younger voters -- leading Sen. John McCain among likely voters in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania The results show:


In Florida, Obama edges McCain 47% to 43%
In Ohio, Obama tops McCain 48% to 42%   ( note this is smaller than the other poll, variations are typical)
In Pennsylvania, Obama leads McCain 52% to 40%

Notable: This is the first time Obama has led in all three states. No one has been elected President since 1960 without taking two of these three largest swing states in the Electoral College.

Gator, maybe it is YOU you needs to worry about becoming unhinged.

updated poll map:

Obama 344 McCain 194

(http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Pngs/Jun19.png)

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

A new Insider Advantage poll out tonight has McCain winning Georgia by 1 point.  Unless it is a fluke, you can change GA to a lighter shade of Red. 

Obama announced his first ad buy of the general election.  It will run in 18 states, including 4 that haven't voted for a Democrat since 1964 (Virginia, Alaska, North Dakota and Indiana) and one that hasn't voted Democrat since 1976 (NC).  The complete list :

Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virginia. 

An Obama Presidency will be an utter disaster if he wins.  Mark my words.

QuoteObama to visit Jacksonville today

He'll attend a fundraiser, but will not make any public appearances.

By The Times-Union


Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will visit Jacksonville today for a $500-a-person fundraiser. He is not expected to make any public appearances.

This will be his first visit to Jacksonville this year.

Police said they do not anticipate any special traffic problems before the private fundraiser, which starts at 6 p.m. at the Prime Osborn Convention Center.

Obama stopped visiting Florida in August. He made that decision after the Democratic National Committee decided to strip both Florida and Michigan of delegates to the national convention because the two states moved their primaries to earlier dates, a violation of party rules.

Obama made his first Florida appearance this year in late May, after he had virtually secured the Democratic nomination.

Source: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062008/met_292936391.shtml

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 19, 2008, 11:46:08 PM
An Obama Presidency will be an utter disaster if he wins.  Mark my words.

I'm sure in YOUR mind, he will be a disaster no matter what happens for the next four years.  Mark my words.

Just wait and see and remember my prediction.  He is no run of the mill moderate Democrat.  He is a far left radical like this country has never seen.

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 20, 2008, 01:43:19 PM
Just wait and see and remember my prediction.  He is no run of the mill moderate Democrat.  He is a far left radical like this country has never seen.

playing d advocate here for the "other" side RG...what would be a run of the mill moderate democrat?  i actually do agree with you that Obama is fairly far left-leaning (no Ted Kennedy though), but i'm curious if we who are the more noble ones could pick a moderate dem to run for the President - one that actually had a shot too - who would it be?

If I could choose a Democrat, I would choose Lieberman (although he was too moderate for the Dems so basically they threw him out of the party) or maybe some moderate governor like Bayh.  Historically, I would choose Truman, Moynihan or Lawton Chiles.

The trouble with Obama (to use one issue as an example) is he is hostile to and totally ignorant of the free market.  The policies he advocates will stifle growth and kill jobs and business.  And, he would have a Democrat Congress if elected and thus nothing standing in the way of him being as leftist as he wants to be - think of an American version of Hugo Chavez.  Some Democrats are even already talking about nationalizing the oil industry!  He will raise all federal income taxes (including SS and medicare) to 50%, he will increase spending, he will increase regulations, he will increase capital gains taxes, he will nationalize the medical system, and he will increase environmental constraints on business.  It will be TERRIBLE for the economy.  Like a perfect storm of stupidity not seen in this country since the New Deal made the Great Depression worse and more prolonged.

I could agree with Lieberman.  Don't know that much about Bayh...just seen him as a talking head on a few programs. 

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 20, 2008, 02:15:32 PM
If I could choose a Democrat, I would choose Lieberman (although he was too moderate for the Dems so basically they threw him out of the party) or maybe some moderate governor like Bayh.  Historically, I would choose Truman, Moynihan or Lawton Chiles.

The trouble with Obama (to use one issue as an example) is he is hostile to and totally ignorant of the free market.  The policies he advocates will stifle growth and kill jobs and business.  And, he would have a Democrat Congress if elected and thus nothing standing in the way of him being as leftist as he wants to be - think of an American version of Hugo Chavez.  Some Democrats are even already talking about nationalizing the oil industry!  He will raise all federal income taxes (including SS and medicare) to 50%, he will increase spending, he will increase regulations, he will increase capital gains taxes, he will nationalize the medical system, and he will increase environmental constraints on business.  It will be TERRIBLE for the economy.  Like a perfect storm of stupidity not seen in this country since the New Deal made the Great Depression worse and more prolonged.

Obama is a Left of center, middle of the pack Democrat.  There is nothing in his rhetoric or record that says he is off the Left deep end.  Taxes would primarily rise on those that have received the lion share of the cuts the last 8 years.  A return to the Clinton level of taxation, would no doubt happen.  The economy was fine then. The gloom and doom that the GOP predicted when Clinton raised taxes did not occur, in fact the opposite happened. 

Historically the last 40 years, budget deficits are lower under Democrats. If President "deficits don't matter" Cheney turns the keys over to his cousin Barack next year, there is no reason to believe that won't continue.

Your last sentence shows just how much your rigid ideology has warped your mind.  Hoover's policies took a very bad  downturn and turned it into a severe and devastating depression.  The New Deal is the only thing that kept things from getting even worse.   Another term under Hoover, and Communism would have looked good by comparison.  By ANY measure, the economy improved tremendously from 1933 when the New Deal started until the war effectively ended what then remained of the depression.   
       

Here's the bouce that some thought had eluded Obama.  Given the length and vigor (to put it nicely) of the Democratic race, it was no surprise it would take more than a week for it to show itself. 

Two STRONG caveats though.  1) This poll is probably an outlier, as it is the only one to show this kind of gap (yet, any way).  Time will tell on that. 2) the GE campaign is only beginning, there will be plenty of see-saw before it's over.

QuoteBarack’s Bounce
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll shows the Democrat with a 15-point lead over McCain.

Michael Hirsh
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 3:37 PM ET Jun 20, 2008
Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

In the previous NEWSWEEK Poll, completed in late May when Clinton was still fighting him hard for the Democratic nomination, Obama managed no better than a 46 percent tie with McCain. But as pollster Larry Hugick points out, that may have had a lot to do with all the mutual mudslinging going on between the two Democrats. By contrast, in recent weeks Clinton has not only endorsed Obama but has made plans to campaign with him. "They were in a pitched battle, and that's going to impact things. Now that we've gotten away from that period, this is the kind of bounce they've been talking about," said Hugick.

The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country. That matches the previous low point on this measure recorded in June 1992, when a brief recession contributed to Bill Clinton's victory over Bush's father, incumbent George H.W. Bush. Overall, voters see Obama as the preferred agent of "change" by a margin of 51 percent to 27 percent. Younger voters, in particular, are more likely to see Obama that way: those 18 to 39 favor the Illinois senator by 66 percent to 27 percent. The two candidates are statistically tied among older voters.

Obama's current lead also reflects the large party-identification advantage the Democrats now enjoyâ€"55 percent of all voters call themselves Democrats or say they lean toward the party while just 36 percent call themselves Republicans or lean that way. Even as McCain seeks to gain voters by distancing himself from the unpopular Bush and emphasizing his maverick image, he is suffering from the GOP's poor reputation among many voters. Still, history provides hope for the GOP. Hugick points out that in May 1988 when the primaries ended, Democrat Michael Dukakis enjoyed a 54 percent to 38 percent lead over George H.W. Bush. But Bush wound up winning handily. "Those results should give people pause," Hugick says, saying that a substantial number of voters, about 5 percent, have also moved into the undecided column. A significant improvement in the economy, or continued advances in Iraqâ€"an issue McCain has identified with strongly as the senator who championed the "surge" firstâ€"could alter the Republican's fortunes.

For now, however, Obama is running much stronger at this point in the race than his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Al Gore, who both failed in their bids to win the White House. In a July 2004 NEWSWEEK Poll, Kerry led Bush by only 6 points (51 percent to 45 percent). In June 2000, Gore was in a dead heat with Bush (45 percent to 45 percent)â€"which is essentially where he ended up when that razor-thin election was finally decided.

Most other national polls have shown Obama with a 4 to 5 point lead over McCain so far. Random statistical error can explain some of the difference in poll results. The NEWSWEEK survey of 1,010 adults nationwide on June 18 and 19, 2008, has a margin of error of 4 points. But the latest evidence of his gaining ground goes well beyond that margin.

Obama seems to have built his margin in part by picking up a key slice of Clinton's support, including women. Women voters in the new poll prefer him over McCain by 21 points (54 percent versus 33 percent). Defections to McCain by Hillary Clinton supporters are also down significantly since she dropped out of the race and endorsed the Obama. In the new poll, registered Democrats and Democratic leaners who supported Clinton during the primaries now favor Obama over McCain by 69 percent to 18 percent. In last month's survey, Clinton supporters backed the Illinois senator by a significantly smaller margin, 53 percent to 34 percent. Registered independents have also moved toward Obama, backing him by a 48 percent to 36 percent margin after splitting about evenly in last month's poll.

Obama's personal ratings have improved, as well: 62 percent of voters overall say they have a favorable opinion of him compared to only 26 percent who have an unfavorable opinion. By comparison, McCain's ratings are 49 percent favorable to 37 percent unfavorable, representing a drop from his previous 54 percent favorable rating. In the previous poll, coming at a time when Clinton's attacks on him were still fresh in Democrats' minds, Obama's favorability ratings were just 55 percent favorable versus 40 percent unfavorable. In the new survey, Clinton supporters' view of Obama have turned solidly positive (70 percent favorable versus 18 percent unfavorable).

Obama is trusted more to handle what may prove the biggest issue of the 2008 election--the economy and jobsâ€"by a wide margin (54 percent to 29 percent). He also has a sizable advantage on energy policy, 48 percent to 34 percent, despite McCain's attempts this week to turn voters his way by supporting some new oil drilling and renewing his call for a gas-tax holiday. Voters do not lean as strongly to Obama on the issue of the Iraq War, but he is still preferred over McCain by 46 percent to 40 percent.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/142465

Obama bought in $1mm tonight in Jacksonville. 

Very respectable.

Obama a moderate?  Nope:

QuoteJune 20, 2008
Obama: A False Moderate?
By Michael Gerson

WASHINGTON -- It was not quite a Roger Mudd moment, but it was close. Mudd, you might recall, posed a simple question to Ted Kennedy in 1979: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's vague, unprepared answer raised serious questions about his candidacy.

Recently, Jake Tapper of ABC News asked a similarly blunt question of Barack Obama: "Have you ever worked across the aisle in such a way that entailed a political risk for yourself?" Obama's response is worth quoting in full: "Well, look, when I was doing ethics reform legislation, for example, that wasn't popular with Democrats or Republicans. So any time that you actually try to get something done in Washington, it entails some political risks. But I think the basic principle which you pointed out is that I have consistently said, when it comes to solving problems, like nuclear proliferation or reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, that I don't approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective."

For a candidate running as a centrist reformer, this is pretty weak tea. Ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are important issues but they have hardly put Obama in the liberal doghouse. When I recently asked two U.S. senators who are personally favorable to Obama to name a legislative issue where Obama has vocally bucked his own party, neither could cite a single instance.

The contrast to John McCain is stark. Contrary to some depictions, McCain is not a moderate. He is a conservative with a habit of massive, eye-stretching heresy. He has supported gun control legislation, the expansion of the AmeriCorps service program, and campaign finance and comprehensive immigration reform -- leaving many conservatives in fits of sputtering, red-faced outrage. He joined the moderate Gang of 14 on judicial nominations and supports mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

McCain has the scars to show for it. Sen. Mitch McConnell dismissed McCain's campaign finance legislation as "stunningly stupid." Another Republican senator, quoted on background in 2001, vented: "Every time McCain accuses President Bush's budget of favoring the rich or sides with Sen. Ted Kennedy on his patients' bill of rights or Sen. Joe Lieberman on more gun control or all those other Democrats on restricting the First Amendment on campaign finance reform, it's news only because he's a Republican. It's 'man bites dog,' and it hurts us far more than if he were attacking our philosophy and agenda as an independent or a Democrat."

This is not to argue that defying your party is uniformly admirable. Sometimes McCain's courage gets mixed up with his pride -- and maybe, in the end, they are indistinguishable. But the same could be said of Winston Churchill, who changed parties more than once. We tend to admire this kind of disruptive independence.

Obama's four years in the Senate have provided fewer opportunities for heresy than McCain's 22. Yet Obama draws scrutiny to this subject by making his transcendence of political categories one of his main campaign themes. He has shown occasional hints of independence on education -- supporting charter schools and merit pay for teachers. But for the most part, Obama's post-partisanship is more a matter of tone. He speaks movingly about the positive role of religion in our common life. He urges fathers to meet their moral and economic responsibilities to their children. He rejects the demonization of pro-lifers (though he refuses to oppose partial-birth abortion). He defends the good intentions of Democratic senators who voted for Chief Justice John Roberts (though he was one of only 22 senators who voted against Roberts).

These are welcome gestures, but they are not policies. Perhaps Obama is just conventionally liberal. Perhaps he has carefully avoided offending Democratic constituencies. Whatever the reason, his lack of a strong, centrist ideological identity raises a concern about his governing approach. Obama has no moderate policy agenda that might tame or modify the extremes of his own party in power. Will every Cabinet department simply be handed over to the most extreme Democratic interest groups? Will Obama provide any centrist check on congressional liberal overreach?

It is an odd thing when a presidential candidate bases his campaign on a manifest weakness. Rudy Giuliani ran on a platform of foreign policy experience while lacking it completely. Obama promises post-partisanship while doing little to demonstrate it in the Senate. And the independent voters so eagerly courted in this election may eventually ask about Obama the odd but appropriate question: What dogs has this man bitten?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obama_doesnt_bite_dog.html

QuoteObama blasts offshore oil push

From the Northbank, he says lifting embargo 'wouldn't do a thing' for gas prices

(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/mdControlled/cms/2008/06/21/293344714.jpg)

By Charlie Patton, The Times-Union

Barack Obama came to Jacksonville for the first time this year Friday and accomplished two purposes:


He blasted John McCain's call for lifting the embargo on offshore drilling at a news conference held on the Northbank Riverwalk, then attended what local Democratic officials said was probably the most successful one-day fundraiser for a Democratic presidential candidate ever in Jacksonville .

In his first visit to Florida since McCain, who will be his Republican opponent in Nov-ember's presidential election, called for lifting the ban on off-shore drilling, Obama said doing that "would have long-term consequences for our coastline, and no short-term benefits."

Citing a 2007 report from the Department of Energy, he said drilling "wouldn't do a thing to lower gas prices."

"The politics may have changed, but the facts have not," he said.

Following the late afternoon news conference, Obama went to a fundraiser at the Prime Osborn Convention Center that left Jacksonville Democrats, disorganized and discouraged by their lack of electoral success in recent years, thrilled.

Party officials estimated that almost 400 people attended and that by the end of the day Obama had raised more than $1 million here.

Obama spoke for 31 minutes, then waded into the crowd to shake hands for several more minutes.

Obama told the crowd he is confident that he will win on the issues. As a result, he said, the Republican strategy will be "to make you afraid of me."


He ticked off charges that will be made against him: too young, too inexperienced, "he's got a funny name."

Then he paused: "Did I mention he's black."

He waited for the laughter to die down, then added, to perhaps the biggest cheer of the night, "He's got a feisty wife."

As if to prove Obama's prediction, a heckler outside the convention center shouted at two women leaving the fund-raiser that they'd "burn in hell" for supporting Obama. He said that Obama is a Muslim who will "take away all our weapons."

One of the women, 20-year-old Mary Cumpton, said she supports Obama partly because he "represents change from the terrible policies of the Bush administration."

But Cumpton, who said she grew up in a very conservative family, said Obama also represents personal change to her, "defining my own values and beliefs."

"It's a huge election," said her friend, 20-year-old Kasi Walters. "It's history, and we want to be a part of it."

As for the heckler? "He's another reason I'm voting for Obama," Cumpton said.

Other Obama supporters were equally upbeat after the event.

Mark Hodges, a 15-year-old student at Stanton College Preparatory School, who came with his father, was one of those who shook Obama's hand. He called Obama's speech "all I had hoped for and more" and said he is looking forward to 2012, when he can vote to re-elect Obama.

Joe Louis Barrow Jr. called Obama a man whose appeal crosses racial and economic lines. Barrow, who is executive director of The First Tee and the biographer of his father, the great heavyweight champion Joe Louis, said Obama "transcends all segments of our society."

Matthew Kane, 28, owner of a Jacksonville software company and local co-chair of Generation Obama, an organization of young professionals, called Obama the "most inspiring candidate since John F. Kennedy."

Obama's afternoon news conference, which was not announced in advance, was held on the Riverwalk behind the Yates YMCA.

That drew the attention of about 40 people working out, who walked outside to watch it.

As Obama started to walk away, several shouted out in support, mostly "we love you!" He turned around, walked back and shook hands.

One of those who shook his hand was Richard Faulkner, 62. Faulkner said he is a Republican but is still undecided about whom he will support. But he said Obama "has some good ideas."

During the news conference, Obama was asked whether he'll need to do a lot of catching up after not campaigning in Florida during the January primary.

"I've got a lot of work to do everywhere," he said. "This is going to be a tough general election."

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/062108/met_293344521.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/v/v8fkbEuCQss

Obama emerging from the St Johns River:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2491279480_c71135f0a7.jpg?v=0)

Obama: 

Quotetoo young, too inexperienced

wrong on every issue.

He walked over Biscayne Bay today.  Finally someone is starting to talk about the importance of investing in mass transit and cities.

QuoteObama to Miami: We need City Hall, not McCain

I'll also launch a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years, and create nearly two million new jobs. The work will be determined by what will maximize our safety, security, and shared prosperity. Instead of building bridges to nowhere, let's build communities that meet the needs and reflect the dreams of our families. That's what this bank will help us do.


And we will fund this bank as we bring the war in Iraq to a responsible close. It's time to stop fighting a war that's stretching our Guard, straining our Reserves, and leaving your police and fire stations understaffed; a war that hasn't made us safer, and should have never been authorized and never been waged. It's time to stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and start investing that money in Phoenix, Nashville, Seattle, and metro areas across this country.


Let's invest that money in a world-class transit system. Let's re-commit federal dollars to strengthen mass transit and reform our tax code to give folks a reason to take the bus instead of driving to work - because investing in mass transit helps make metro areas more livable and can help our regional economies grow. And while we're at it, we'll partner with our mayors to invest in green energy technology and ensure that your buses and buildings are energy efficient. And we'll also invest in our ports, roads, and high-speed rails - because I don't want to see the fastest train in the world built halfway around the world in Shanghai, I want to see it built right here in the United States of America.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/obama_to_mayors_we_need_city_h.html

What's McCain's feelings/ideas for improving our cities?

He feels that cities should pay for their own improvements which makes sense to me.  Why should someone in California fund our mass transit?  Why dont we fund our own?

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 21, 2008, 10:33:21 PM
He feels that cities should pay for their own improvements which makes sense to me.  Why should someone in California fund our mass transit?  Why dont we fund our own?

Ideally, it would be best to develop a network that connects the cities in the country, just like the Interstate highways do.  To effectively pull off such a plan, the Federal Government will have to play a role.  Nevertheless, here's a portion of that speech that may answer your question.

QuoteBut understand - while the change we seek will require major investments by a more accountable government, it will not come from government alone. Washington can't solve all our problems. The statehouse can't solve all our problems. City Hall can't solve all our problems. It goes back to what I learned as a community organizer all those years ago - that change in this country comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom up. Change starts at a level that's even closer to the people than our mayors - it starts in our homes. It starts in our families. It starts by raising our children right, by turning off the TV, and putting away the video games; by going to those parent-teacher conferences and helping our children with their homework, and setting a good example. It starts by being good neighbors and good citizens who are willing to volunteer in our communities - to keep them clean, to keep them safe, and to serve as mentors and teachers to all of our children.

That's where change begins. That's how we'll bring about change in our neighborhoods. And if change comes to our neighborhoods, then change will come to our cities. And if change comes to our cities, then change will come to our regions. And if change comes to our regions, then I truly believe change will come to every corner of this country we love.

Throughout our history, it's been our cities that have helped tell the American story. It was Boston that rose up against an Empire, and Philadelphia where liberty first rung out; it was St. Louis that opened a gateway west, and Houston that launched us to the stars; it was the Motor City that built the middle class; Miami that built a bridge to the Americas; and New York that showed the world one clear September morning that America stands together in times of trial.

That's the proud tradition our cities uphold. That's the story our cities have helped write. And if you're willing to work with me and fight with me and stand with me this fall, then I promise you this - we will not only rebuild and renew our American cities, north and south, east and west, but you and I - together - will rebuild and renew the promise of America. Thank you.

full speech: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/obama_to_mayors_we_need_city_h.html

Now, what is McCain's plan to deal with our failing infrastructure?  It has to be more than saying its the sole responsibility of individual municipalities.  That line of thinking ended up with a bridge collapsing during rush hour traffic in Minneapolis, flood water taking over New Orleans and Iowa and Jacksonville residents being forced to pay high gas prices with no realistic transportation alternatives available.

Perhaps I misspoke.  That is my plan for helping cities.  Let them help themselves by lowering the overall tax burden on individuals.  Then, cities can feel free to tax their people as they please and provide whatever level of amenities which the people of those cities deem appropriate.  McCain probably has some basic level of federal funding with which he is comfortable.  I have not read his position on this topic.

As for creating a national mass transit network, I agree that this should be the jobs of the feds.  This is where public subsidies for Amtrak could help tie the nation together better.  However, even if McCain opposes this, I am not a single issue voter and the balance of the issues for me weigh in favor of McCain.  Again though, I do not know his position on this topic.  He is not a fan of what he perceives as wasteful spending though, I can tell you that.

Quote from: vicupstate on June 21, 2008, 12:29:51 AM
Obama bought in $1mm tonight in Jacksonville. 

Very respectable.

And yet McCain has narrowed the money gap significantly:

QuoteMcCain closes the cash gap against Obama

By JEANNE CUMMINGS | 6/21/08 6:23 AM EST

For the first time in the campaign, Republican John McCain in May raised about the same amount of money, $22 million, as Democrat Barack Obama.

McCain also closed the gap in the amount of cash the two parties’ presumptive presidential nominees have in the bank at their respective disposals as they enter the first phase of the general election.

McCain reported having about $32 million in cash for primary-related expenses at the end of May.

Obama reported having $43 million in hand at the start of June â€" but about $10 million of that is dedicated to the general election.

Obama’s fundraising in May marked a sharp dropoff after months of record-breaking donations. Even in difficult times, such as the key loss he suffered in Pennsylvania in April, Obama brought in a steady flow of cash that usually topped $30 million a month.

The surprising cash parity between McCain and Obama means the candidates begin the general campaign more evenly matched than many experts expected, although things could change swiftly given Obama’s ability to raise money through small online contributions.

According to Obama’s campaign, the drop in donations was caused in part by a shift in focus from bringing in big money to homing in on the delegates needed to clinch his party’s nomination.

At the same time, he was forced to burn through his cash reserve in the final round of primaries, which were hotly contested by a significantly underfunded Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The New York senator raised just $16 million in May and spent $19 million. Her campaign ended the primary with more than $20 million in debts, including $11 million in loans from her own bank account.

According to Clinton fundraisers, her priority now is raising enough money to pay off vendors who have waited months for payment. Some of those bills are due in Iowa, home of the first presidential caucus in January.

Obama spent $27 million in May, about $6 million more than Clinton.

The Illinois senator doled out $4 million for television ads, $3.3 million for travel, $3 million for direct mail, and nearly another $3 million for phone banking. He spent another $1.7 million on print advertisements and nearly another million dollars on Internet ads.

Meanwhile, McCain spent just $12 million.

The Arizona senator dropped about $3.5 million on television ads and spent another $1.4 million on postage. No other spending category for the month of May reached a million dollars.

Having effectively wrapped up his party’s nomination, McCain spent the month focused almost exclusively on replenishing his coffers. His schedule was dominated by money-generating events that helped produce his biggest fundraising month to date.

It won’t be known for another month whether June produced a rush of donations for Obama after Clinton conceded. In 2004, Democratic Sen. John F. Kerry received a windfall of $44 million in the month after he emerged as the nominee.

But even if McCain has closed the gap as of now, Obama could open it back up quickly. His fundraising schedule this month has been ratcheted up. Next week, he will attend a star-studded fundraising event in Hollywood. Also next week, Clinton will publicly join forces with Obama, sending a signal to her formidable fundraising arm to do the same.

Still, his near-equal financial position with McCain may have played a part in Obama’s decision this week to forgo public financing and unleash the full force of his fundraising apparatus in the general election.

In interviews, Obama's Campaign Manager David Axelrod has cited the Democrats' prolonged primary, which gave McCain a head start on fundraising for the general election, as a key reason for opting out of the system that would otherwise have given each candidate $84 million to spend in the general.

By opting out, Obama hopes to use his likely financial advantage to stretch the presidential battlefield and force McCain to spend money defending what had been traditional Republican strongholds.

This week, he began a $4 million ad campaign in nearly a dozen swing states. They range from perennials such as Missouri, Ohio and Florida to new battlegrounds in Colorado, North Carolina, Georgia and Alaska.

The presumptive Democratic nominee has also used his funds to station nearly 20 full time workers in Georgia to build a broad grass roots operation and register new voters.

Experts estimate that more than half a million voting-age African-Americans are not registered, and the campaign is aiming to put as many of them on the rolls as possible.

It may already be working: While most polls give McCain a ten-percentage point edge in the Peach State, one new poll released this week shows McCain and Obama running even there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11241.html

Note that these numbers are through the end of May only and do not include recent fundraising by either campaign.

BTW, the Minneapolis bridge collapse looks to have been caused by a design flaw rather than a failure to invest in infrastructure.  While this story makes a good Democrat talking point, its accuracy is clearly in doubt according to the NTSB:

QuoteAs of early 2008, the NTSB has not determined the likely cause of the collapse, but did identify a design error that may have contributed to the failure.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge

There has been concerns about this and the bridge was slated to be replaced in 2020, but the bottom line is the design did not have enough redundancies built in to hold it up in case of a small structural problem.  Also, improvements were being made at the time of the collapse so the weight of the equipment may have contributed to the disaster:

QuoteOfficials with DHS said there was no indication that terrorism was involved.[122] Although officials emphasized that the cause of the collapse had not yet been determined, Peters cautioned states to "remain mindful of the extra weight construction projects place on bridges."[123] Within days, bridge inspections were stepped up throughout the United States.[124]

FHWA advised states to inspect the 700 U.S. bridges of similar construction[125] after a possible design flaw in the bridge was discovered, related to large steel sheets called gusset plates which were used to connect girders together in the truss structure.[126][127] Officials expressed concern about many other bridges in the United States sharing the same design and raised questions as to why such a flaw would not have been discovered in over 40 years of inspections.[127] This flaw was first discovered by an independent consulting firm hired by MnDOT to investigate the cause of the collapse.[127]

On January 15, 2008 the National Transportation Safety Board announced they had determined that the bridge's design specified steel gusset plates that were undersized and inadequate to support the intended load of the bridge,[128] a load which had increased over time.[129] This assertion was made based on an interim report which calculated the Demand to Capacity ratio for the gusset plates.[128] The NTSB recommended that similar bridge designs be reviewed for this problem.[128][130][131]

    "Although the Board's investigation is still on-going and no determination of probable cause has been reached, interim findings in the investigation have revealed a safety issue that warrants attention," said NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker. "During the wreckage recovery, investigators discovered that gusset plates at eight different joint locations in the main center span were fractured. The Board, with assistance from the FHWA, conducted a thorough review of the design of the bridge, with an emphasis on the design of the gusset plates. This review discovered that the original design process of the I-35W bridge led to a serious error in sizing some of the gusset plates in the main truss."[13]

On March 17, 2008, the NTSB announced an update on the investigation. The announcement gave updates in the areas of load capacity, design issues, computer analysis and modeling, digital image analysis, and analysis of the undersized and corroded gusset plates. The investigation revealed that photos from a June 2003 inspection of the bridge showed gusset plate bowing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_Bridge

River, doesn't it seem a little premature to be such a sore loser? The election is months away.

QuoteFor the first time in the campaign, Republican John McCain in May raised about the same amount of money, $22 million, as Democrat Barack Obama.

McCain also closed the gap in the amount of cash the two parties’ presumptive presidential nominees have in the bank at their respective disposals as they enter the first phase of the general election.

i think this is a trend you will see continue.

Quote from: Lunican on June 22, 2008, 12:48:12 PM
River, doesn't it seem a little premature to be such a sore loser? The election is months away.

I am neither sore nor a loser. 

Quote from: chris on June 11, 2008, 08:30:30 AM
Obama is making a fundraising stop in Jacksonville on Friday, June 20th at the Prome Osborne. General seating at the reception is $500/person and VIP seating is $2300/person, standard rates for a political fundraiser. There have been discussions about providing for a "General Admission" that would not include the sit down event, but would probably get the ticket holder entrance to the venue. No word yet on if the General Admission will actually happen, but there has been pressure from the local party office to allow more of the general public attend the event.

Silly me...and I thought 500 bucks was a little high for a seat.
  From the Atlanta Journal:

Obama visit confirmed
Saturday, June 28, 2008, 02:39 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will be in Atlanta on July 7 raising money, his campaign confirmed Saturday.

It will be Obama’s first visit to the state since securing the nomination earlier this month. It is the first visit to the state by either Obama or John McCain since March, when McCain visited shortly after wrapping up the GOP nomination.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution obtained a copy of the invitation to the long-rumored Obama event. A trip here by Obama has been the topic of much speculation for several weeks but the campaign had until Saturday not been willing to confirm details.

According to the invitation, the event will begins at 6 p.m. at 103 West, on West Paces Ferry Road in Atlanta. Tickets ain’t cheap: $2,300 per person for the general reception and $10,000 for a VIP reception and photo line.

You can see the invitation after the jump.

Co-chairs for the event, according to the invitation, are: Pinney Allen and Buddy Miller, Donna and Michael Coles, Barb and Kirk Dornbush, Norrene and Eugene Duffy, Daniel Halpern, Steve Leeds, Karol Mason, Marianne Spraggins and Chris Womack, and co-hosts are Cathy Hampton, Michelle and Kenneth Taylor and Rodney Strong.

The event itself is a joint fund raiser for Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The first $2,300 of any contribution will go to Obama’s primary campaign account, which must fund his campaign until the convention in late August. The next $2,300 from the same individual will go to his general election account and up to an additional $28,500 will go to the DNC.

â€" Aaron Gould Sheinin

Quote from: RiversideGator on June 23, 2008, 12:08:39 AM
I am neither sore nor a loser. 

lol