Buckeye State Blog - NH Project

Translating the Walmart PR Spin

wuwm — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:41:44 -0700

Walmart's hometown newspaper, the Northwest Arkansas Morning News, has an interesting article up today about Walmart executives meeting with 200 of their cronies at a conference and outlining their plans for 2009. It could be a watershed year for progressives, but the Bentonville behemoth has some plans of its own and they ain't pretty.

So I thought I'd go through each one of Walmart's plans and translate some of their PR spin – or wipe the lipstick off the pig, if you will. All stats and figures are compliments of WakeUpWalmart.com, with whom I do some work.

On Growth Projections, Walmart sez:

"Worldwide capital spending is projected to be $13 to $14.5 billion through next year and will add up to 20 million square feet next year, up from the 18 million square feet added last year."

The ugly truth is, Walmart stores currently occupy more square acreage nationwide than the island of Manhattan. Talk about steamrolling the little guy and unfettered sprawl.

On Union Legislation:

"'I thought it was titled the 'forced choice act,'" [Walmart CEO Lee] Scott joked. "We like driving the car and we aren't going to give the steering wheel to anybody but us."

Funny. The Wall Street Journal broke a story in August about mandatory meetings Wal-Mart was having where they were telling their employees not to vote for Democrats. This is, hands down, a disgusting abuse of power, and it may just be illegal too!

On Getting into the Mortgage Business:

Scott said the retailer was recently on the verge of offering mortgages.

Wow, mortgages? Walmart can't even take care of its own employees. The average two-person family (one parent and one child) needed $27,948 to meet basic needs in 2005, well above what Wal-Mart reports that its average full-time associate earns. Wal-Mart claimed that its average associate earned $9.68 an hour in 2005. That would make the average associate's annual wages $17,114.

# # #

The list could go on but thankfully these are the only big topics that Lee Scott addressed. If you're willing to join the fight to combat Walmart's ugly business practices, I urge you to join WakeUpWalmart.com today!

Rep Zach Space: Bring up and vote YES on Rove Contempt Citation

paper ballots now — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:23:13 -0700

Please, Call Congressman Zach Space and urge him to bring up and vote YES on the Rove Contempt Citation:

D.C. phone 1-202-225-2065

District phone 1-330-364-4300

In July, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove, demanding his testimony about his own role in the politicization of the Department of Justice and politically motivated prosecutions of Democratic leaders. Karl Rove refused to even show up for the hearing, claiming that Congress has no power to compel senior White House officials to testify. That's outrageous.

Now that a U.S. District Judge has ruled that White House aides like Rove can't claim immunity in order to refuse to testify before Congress, there's no room for Karl Rove to hide any longer -- but our time is running out. If Congress adjourns at the end of September and nothing's been done, all of our effort goes down the drain. So now we must pull out the stops and turn up the heat.

Please urge the full House to vote Karl Rove in contempt, forcing him to show up and testify!

www.contemptforrove.com

Mich. GOP Targets Foreclosure Victims for Election Day Dirty Tricks

Project Vote — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:27:49 -0700

Cross-posted at Project Vote's Voting Matter's Blog

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Partisan political operatives in Michigan are taking voter caging operations to depths that would surprise even the most cynical observers of American elections. If their plans are put into action, thousands of Michigan foreclosure victims may find that they will not only have lost their homes this year, but also their vote.

Operatives in the closely contested state, which is home to thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure, are "gearing up for a comprehensive voter challenge campaign," according to Eartha Jane Melzer of the Michigan Messenger Wednesday. The state allows parties to send election challengers to polls to challenge the eligibility of voters if they "have good reason to believe" a voter is ineligible. In this case, the GOP of Macomb County--a "key swing county" with a foreclosure rate in the top three percent in the nation--has announced plans to challenge the voting eligibility of foreclosure victims based on residency.

"We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses," Macomb County GOP chairman James Carabelli told the Messenger.

J. Gerald Herbert, a former voting rights litigator for the U.S. Justice Department, questions what he calls a "mean-spirited" and possibly legally-baseless tactic: "You can't challenge people without a factual basis for doing so...I don't think a foreclosure notice is sufficient basis for a challenge, because people often remain in their homes after foreclosure begins and sometimes are able to negotiate and refinance."

Teresa James, attorney for Project Vote, agrees. In a statement released today, James explains that Michigan law allows challenges at the polls only if the challenger "knows or has good reason to suspect" a voter is ineligible. According to James, the Michigan Secretary of State has clarified this to require that challenges should be based on "reliable sources or means."

"Republican challengers with only a list of foreclosure notices will have NO evidence or reliable source to suggest that eligible voters have moved and are no longer eligible to vote," says James.

"The Macomb County party's plans to challenge voters who have defaulted on their house payments is likely to disproportionately affect African Americans who are overwhelmingly Democratic voters," Melzer writes. "More than 60 percent of all sub-prime loans - the most likely kind of loan to go into default - were made to African-Americans in Michigan..."

Melzer points out that Republican presidential candidate John McCain's regional headquarters is in the office of the state's largest foreclosure law firm, Trott & Trott, whose founder has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the campaign. McCain "stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state," Melzer writes.

"At a minimum, what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systemic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote," says Herbert. "When you are comprehensively challenging people to vote, your goals are two-fold: One is you are trying to knock people out from casting ballots; the other is to create a slowdown that will discourage others." This type of disruption would be expected in areas with high foreclosure rates, particularly the Detroit metropolitan, where one in every 176 households received foreclosure filings during the month of July, according to Melzer.

"You would think [the Macomb GOP] would think, 'This is going to look too heartless,'" says David Lagstein, head organizer for Michigan ACORN, which has registered 200,000 new voters statewide and provides foreclosure-avoidance assistance.

"The Republican-led state Senate has not moved on the anti-predatory lending bill for over a year and yet have time to prey on those who have fallen victim to foreclosure to suppress the vote," Lagstein says.

Michigan is not the only swing state at the risk of voter caging issues this election. At the urging of Project Vote and other voting rights advocates, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner recently issued a binding directive to all county election boards, instructing them that parts of the state's challenge laws in relation to residency challenges based only on returned mail were unconstitutional. It is unclear, however, whether Brunner's directive will prevent partisans from filing frivolous challenges anyway, which--however baseless--could have a chilling effect on voter turnout. And the Michigan Messenger reports that Franklin County, Ohio director of elections Doug Preisse and the chair of the local GOP have said they do not rule out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.

In Project Vote's statement, Teresa James says "The GOP's plan is a cynical partisan attempt to suppress the vote of thousands of low-income and African-American voters, a replay of the 2004 threats of mass challenges...In America you get to vote even if you're behind on your bills. All Americans--particularly those members of the community hit hardest by the economic crisis--deserve a voice and a vote on Election Day."

Quick Links:
"Voter Caging." Project Vote.
James, Teresa. "Caging Democracy: A 50-Year History of Partisan Challenges to Minority Voters." Project Vote. September 2007.

In Other News:

'No-Match, No-Vote' Law Draws Criticism - Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE - Advocacy groups predicted Wednesday that thousands of people, mostly the poor and minorities, will be denied the right to vote through no fault of their own under a new Florida voter registration law.

Can young people actually make a difference this year? - Slate
In 2004, the "youth vote" was supposed to break all records. It did and it didn't-but either way, it didn't make a difference for John Kerry, even though he won 54 percent of voters under 29. So it is with this year's youth vote: Even if it exceeds that of four years ago-Barack Obama currently commands about 60 percent of the under-29 cohort-it will be nearly impossible to say whether it made a difference.

ACLU launches campaign to get former prisoners to register to vote - Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin [N.Y.]
ALBANY -- The New York Civil Liberties Union today kicked off a six-week campaign to educate county election boards and former prisoners on the voting rights of convicted felons.

Erin Ferns is a Research and Policy Analyst with Project Vote's Strategic Writing and Research Department (SWORD).

HB 545

dadof3 — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 05:53:42 -0700

I am a single father of three children. I have had a career in the aviation field since serving 7 years in the U.S. Navy. I make mid 40's for yearly income. Then I pay my monthly bills and there is no more room for anythng else. There have been several times that these payday advance businesses have saved me from a grim financial time. In this position, I haven't got family, friends to rely on and have to resort to "survival of the fittest." When a check is returned at my bank, it is the equivelant charge of getting a payday loan of $250 (the fee would be $37 vs. a $35 fee from my bank.) Granted, of course there is a loan involved but the money was used for food, gas etc.

Why is it in the interest of our local state gov. to forbid this? I have spoken to people that are well off with money and everyone of them have agreed that these loans should be terminated, the business should be put under as if they are loan sharks. I have never been late on payment so I wouldn't know what happens if you don't pay, surly it isn't good though. Nevertheless, it is a way out of $100's of dollars in bank fees.

Do you think more thought could have been put into this decision. It will effect me more than I like to think. I am not reliant on these payday loans to get by in my everday life, however there are times I don't know what I would do without them. More times than their decision of "4." This could actually cause a downward spiral by not being able to get assistance if needed.

Of course there hasn't been any thought put into the actual effect it has on people that need these payday loans. It has saved myself and my 3 children several times. Why would there be a limit put on an almost instantanious savior (if you will). Please explain the reasoning? Please explain why I'm limited to 4x a year of feeding my children if the help is needed. There is truly no assistance for middle class. There is more assistance for a woman who purposely intends a free meal ticket by having numerous children. And for the wealthy, a good credit score is all that's needed to advance in life. So where is the help for the common middle class parent that has worked throughout his life.

Thank you and if this is in the wrong place my appologies

Jane Mitakides

Ross1985 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:45:17 -0700

Everyone should watch the congressional race in Ohio's third district. Jane Mitakides The Democratic challenger seems to be out campaigning her opponet Mike Turner. It seems that everyone I talk to is behind the challenger, this is most likely due to her charisma and reputation as someone who can get the job done. Mitakides has shown me that there is someone who cares about veterans rights, the enviroment(her campaign is carbon neutral) and the work force in Ohio that so desperately needs a boost. I hope everyone reading this will research the candidate and make the right choice in November. JANE IN 08!!

McCain Recieves Hit Below the Waterline

Schmennis — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 20:15:45 -0700

From ABC news

Dan Senor: Condoleezza Rice Is Pursuing the VP Spot

April 06, 2008 11:48 AM

Lindsey Ellerson

--> ABCNews’ Mary Bruce Reports: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is actively courting the vice presidential nomination, Republican strategist Dan Senor said

This is a REAL problem for McCain supporters as reported in the Washington Post White Men Emerge as Key Voting Constituency

Mccain might be facing the some of the same issues that Obama campaign is facing with the white male vote.

In the fierce campaign between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, a battle dominated by questions of race and gender, white men have emerged as perhaps the single critical swing constituency.

The competition for the support of white men, particularly those defined as working class, will shape the showdown between Clinton and Obama in Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary on April 22.

Although, on the surface Condi Rice might look like good competition to the republicans, but this might actually help the Clinton campaign. Republicans might hope for "crossover" black female voters however, black females will still vote for Obama and stay within their party. This makes white male voters even more important.

What will the democrats do if Rice is given the V.P. nod? Obama/Clinton ticket? Or Clinton/Obama ticket? or another choice?

Steam shoots from EARS!

Schmennis — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:19:33 -0700

I have been waiting for someone to comment on this story in the Dispatch all day.

Sexual harassment alleged Two attorney general's office employees complain of supervisor's inappropriate comments, touching It is all over the blogs here.

Without investigating the veracity of the allegations, the attorney general’s office is trying to settle sexual-harassment complaints filed by two women against a supervisor in the office.

The complaints, filed Monday, allege that Anthony Gutierrez, a section chief for Attorney General Marc Dann, sexually harassed the women at work or in the Dublin condo once shared by Gutierrez, Dann and Leo Jennings III, Dann’s communication chief.

Vanessa Stout, 26, and Cindy Stankoski, 26, filed the complaints against Gutierrez with the Equal Employment Opportunity office. They were surprised to be approached two days later by Angela Smedlund, the agency’s EEO officer, who acknowledged “a problem,” the women said.

Dann was at the condo when they arrived. Already there was Dann’s scheduler, Jessica Utovich, who, according to the complaint, “walked in w. pj’s and laptop” and lay down on the floor to work on her computer.

Stankoski said by that time, she was feeling very tipsy and asked if she could lay down. Gutierrez told her she could use his bedroom. She awoke several hours later, she said, to find three buttons of her pants undone and Gutierrez lying beside her wearing only underwear.

Danns female scheduler was the one that posted the details of an affair with Dann on her myspace page.
Dann hired Gutierrez in January 2007, even though Gutierrez’s background check uncovered 27 tax liens and civil judgments and a personal bankruptcy.
Dann’s former driver KILLED somebody, his “top fiscal watchdog” lied about being a CPA, and his former “top cop” was double-dipping by remeaining on the payroll for the Youngstown police department.
Someone please!!!!!! explain this to me because I can't even see straight right now.
I am so let down right now I feel like ignoring politics forever.

Jerid's Encounter with 'Control the Message'

Magi1 — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 09:25:43 -0700

I found this in The Public Relations Strategist (PRSA) magazine and was amazed how relevant it was to Jerid ... it sees the 'old school' thinkers don't understand 'Control the Message' is dying in the digital era ... I shortened it a little to save some space.

www.instituteforpr.orgThe Institute for Public RelationsAnnual Distinguished LectureThe Yale Club, New York, NYNovember 8, 2007“Putting It on the Line” - Beth ComstockPresident, NBC Universal Integrated Media

Are you sure you wanted me to speak tonight?

Here’s an anonymous quote, obviously from one of my best friends. It comes from Page Six, but has now been well circulated in the blogosphere. "She's lethal. She could take out your kidney, and you wouldn't know it was gone." Frankly, I’ve come to love that one. So while my background in PR maybe hasn’t served me so well in dealing with tabloids and bloggers, it’s given me thick skin. And my trip through the blogosphere raises some questions: How can we manage in this world of viral chatter? Is anyone immune? The answer: Not really. People are manipulating these outlets to their own ends, sometimes just for the sheer fun of it…with little to no filtering. And little or no control. In my early PR days, I often wrapped myself in a shield called “control” – enrobed in an illusion, or rather delusion – that I could actually command an outcome. After all, that’s what we attempt to do as good communicators, right? “Control the message,” “shape media outcome,” “direct stakeholder’s actions.” Is there anyone here who hasn’t spent a sleepless night anticipating the next day’s big story? Having quite confidently told our boss or our client we knew the outcome… And then living in fear of being fired the next morning for not delivering what we had promised.I’ve been fired in my imagination at least a couple of hundred times. But face it, there is little control. Maybe there never really was, but especially not now. We have to live with the fact that our digital world is built on an odd mixture of transparency and conspiracy, where all kinds of stakeholders vie for control. And they have the ability to get their messages out with a volume and frequency on a par with established media. I remember when I first worked as a publicist for NBC News more than 20 years ago.

In those days the late Jack Carmody of the Washington Post was THE definitive source on the inner workings of the media. News presidents, anchors and publicists alike worked hard for his nod of recognition. To bewritten about by “Captain Airwaves” meant you’d made it. Jack was a kingmaker with a wellearnedjournalist pedigree. Today you can point to Brian Stelter who started his career a few years ago as a 19-year-old blogger working from his parent’s house. Wielding his computer and a passion for television, he created the TVNewser blog and quickly built an impressive sphere of influence. (By the way – Brian now works for the New York Times.) A clear example of how digital technology has become the great equalizer. And more power to Brian and others like him. All of us are trying to make our way through the tumultuous digital age. And it isn’t easy, because so much digital media is not yet sorted out. Those trying to “control the message” need to give it up – or at least be willing to share control. As consumers are more deeply engaged, they want more control….sometimes even of the story itself … or at the very least to feel they can participate in it’s unfolding. You can fight this ... or use it to your advantage. So while I started out my PR journey believing it’s all about control, I’ve learned that you haveto give it up if you’re going to move things forward. That’s how you navigate in a world of change. When I returned to NBC in late 2005, I found an industry fighting change on many levels, especially in the face of a growing Internet. Some of this was understandable, because online video, promised for a decade, had only just started. There was also a belief that the digital revolution was being overblown. Particularly in the wake of the dot.com bust. There were still questions out there about how to build something in this space that actually makes money. But most often the reaction I got was fear: fear of the unknown, fear of change… terrible fear of losing face. Because what you were expert in in the past, no longer applied. Because above all, you didn’t want to be caught not knowing the answer. Kind of like the student who asked Albert Einstein, when he was teaching at Princeton, why every year Einstein gave precisely the same test. Wouldn’t students be able to get last year’s test and cheat on the answers? Einstein replied, “You’re absolutely right, all the questions are the same. But the answers are entirely different.” That’s so typical – we want it tidy, predictable, controllable. And we don’t want to not know. In the digital space, I’m suspicious of people who claim too readily to know the answer. It’s a fail-fast world….How do we live in it? How do we succeed in it?

Hillary or Obama? Contrast the records between the two. Then You Decide!!

nancy44036 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:52:10 -0700

Let's compare the record:

From the Library of Congress:

Hillary Clinton in her one full term(6 yrs.) and another year campaigning, has authored and passed only 20 pieces of legislation in her term of six years into law. They range from naming a courthouse after Thurgood Marshall to naming a Post Office after Jonn A. O'Shea.

Obama in his first 8 Months sponsored over 820 Bills. Introduced 233 Bills on Healthcare Reform, 125 Bills on Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Bills on Crime Fighting, 97 Economic Bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bills, 21 Ethics Reform Bills, 6 Veterans Affairs Bills and many others. In his First Year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 Bills and co-spomsored another 427. These Include: 1) the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 that became Law, 2) the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-prliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act that became Law, 3) the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act that passed the Senate, 4) the 2007 Government Ethics Bill that became Law, just to name a few. In all, since he entered the Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 Bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

This should be an Eye Opening contrast to many. We have had 2 Decades of Clinton's and Bush's. And the corruption between both camps should be obvious. Obama is fairly clean. That's because he is honest and wants the job for the right reason. You Decide!!

Voting Decisions

amjbuckeye — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:29:13 -0700

Dear Buckeye Voters, I absolutely loved Ohio State while attending there some 15 years ago. The spirit of Ohio lies within me as a Buckeye and thus my decision to vote has been a critical one. I do not recall a more diversified array of candidates nor any upfront discusses of the pros and cons of all party candidates since JFK. Thus I have researched all party candidates voting records and/or employment history, public records and watched debates until they began to run downhill like a locomotive snowball. As an independent voter I take pride in learning and observing as much as I can about how candidates so that I am an informed confident voter when I go to the voting booth and vote my conscience. I learned critical thinking and logical reasoning in my Master level studies at Ohio State and learned vary quickly that I must ask alot of cognitive provoking questions to even begin to comprehend why I must remain neutral and avoid emotional opinions in critical decision making. For me at least, voting is a foremost duty I have as a citizen of this great United States of which I take great pride as a lifelong resident of Ohio and educator. Throughout all of the campaigning I match affect with body language, words with context and seek content that is consistent and upfront without hidden agendas. Initially, I chose 9 candidates of varying party affilations based on my first impressions of their presentations and focus, their voting records, their political career path and who their backers were as citizens.

I was leaning toward Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Romney at first and when they dropped out or suspended their campaigns I began looking for other candidates who match my independent thinking whose voting records, political careers, and words of promises were consistent with our democratic way of life. I have great respect for McCain's military experience and heartfelt desire to protect our rights as citizens of the United States of America but do not see him as bypartisan nor uniftying thus I will not vote for him. I admire Nader for his gut level life experience and his dedication to setting the record straight inspite of opposition he faces publicly but can not vote for him because I see him as not a team player but an instructor who informs about current events. Thompson has enormous political sense and I appreciate his forthrightness and his to the point focus but he appears to be happy being a family man and not ready to focus on critical issues therefore I could not vote for him. Well then that leaves me with Barrack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Initally, I was in awe of Obama with his motivational pep rallies that promoted change however I realized after the 3rd repeative speech that he reminded me of many fundamental preachers who have the right answer for the road to paradise and that his job title was not just Junior Senator, which I am sure he did an effective job for Illinois, but a job title also as a lecturer. My career is as a lecturer educating people of all walks of life and yet there was a difference in the way in which Obama lecturers as he is campaigning; he does not appear to me to have a course description nor learning objectives or outcomes that are measurable. I had to ask myself just what direction is he motivating Americans toward; is it for democracy, social justice, pursuit of happiness, and civil liberties. My answer was no, at least he is not motivating me to vote for him; I think he is a brillant lawyer who is motivating all of us because his speeches are based in his fundementalism of his Church of Christ, in fact I am concerned that he is trying to lead this nation to get,"born again or saved as they promote their believes from the pulpit; I believe in free speech and in free will but for me I can not vote for a Christian minister, pastor, lecturer who appears to me to have a hidden agenda as just why he is attempting to motivate voters to vote for him for a change; a change to what and why I kept asking himself. As a Unitarian/Universalist I do not want a President, A Commander and Chief to lead all of us down the path to be members of a Christian faith called Church of Christ. What will happen to all those nonfundementalist who are faithful to their own independent right to believe what they choose, maybe they are not Christians at all but Jewish, Agnostics, Undecided, or Native Americans. Just maybe the voters who get caught up in Obama's motivating expertise are Atheists, or Bahi's, or Muslims or Evolutionist, or believe in nothing at all; is it not our alienable right to have the right to vote our conscience without being manipulated by a professional lawyer who motivates, and he is so excelled in public speaking, us not to think about who or what we vote for but to follow his lead right to the pulpit if he is elected. I was deeply concerned that his community grassroots efforts were directly tied to his ministering from his Church of Christ because he does not state he is pastoring his way to our white house. I have not doubt that he firmly believes he is the right candidate for various reasons but isn't our democracy secured by the fact that religion is separate from political power. Perhaps he is the right person for many to vote for but I just do not trust in his presentation because of his communication tone and noted changes may cause problems related to separation of state and religion. I think he is a very intelligent young man and that he truly believes that he will be the next president. But if he is and then what happens to our freedom of choice; in the political and relgious arenas. I just can not vote for him because there does not appear to me to be much substanital evidence behind his motivating agenda/ lectures that convinces me that our democratic country based rights will be honored. This country, that was orginally The First Nation of Native Americans, all emigrants, immigrants, and international allies have fought for the freedom of choice for all of history and their purpose was not to lead followers down a motivating path to hidden agendas but to stand together with our votes and remain a democratic free country with the rights of being informed voters. When will OBama inform us of his concerns of separation of political and religious powers. I will absolutely vote for Hillary Rodham Clinto because she is the right person to be our next Commander in Chief because she does stand for the right to choose and has no pretense; her voting record is strongly focused on critical thinking and logic that is reasonable; she is willing to change her mind if new evidence if brought forth in voting issues, she is experienced not only as a junior senator but has alliances throughout the world as a former first lady, she is an independent thinker that knows the political arena and the conflicts and struggles of remaining a deomocracy, she does not pull any punches and says it like it is in our government. But its just my one voter perspective and you know my conscience is clear and calm now that I understand why I was so uncomforable voting for Obama because he was an effective lecturer; I want my next President to be bypartisan and be a leader who looks at all citizens rights. thanks, amjbuckeye

Win a Free Ticket to the Debate

Todd Hoffman — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:46:17 -0700

Bumped - Jerid

Great news! The Ohio Democratic Party has secured a block of tickets for the Democratic Presidential Debate on February 26th, sponsored by Cleveland State University and NBC News. The debate will air live from 9:00pm - 10:30pm at the Wolstein Center on the campus of Cleveland State University. Regardless of which candidate you support, it is an exciting time to be a Democrat in Ohio.

Due to overwhelming demand, we will be giving away a portion of the ODP debate tickets in a drawing of those who request their name be added.

Please sign up here to enter your name into the lottery. Each winning entrant will receive one free ticket. All entries must be received by Wednesday, February 20th at 10:00 am. Winners will be notified by phone and/or email.

Good luck and I hope to see you there,

Todd Hoffman
Director of Internet Operations
Ohio Democratic Party

Obama or Clinton? Fast Forward to Next January...

obama vs clinton — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:24:39 -0700

"I've been taking the incoming fire from Republicans for about 16 years now, and I'm still here, because I have been vetted, I have been tested," she said in a TV interview before campaigning in Missouri and Minneapolis. [Hillary Clinton, Associated Press, Feb. 3, 2008] Friends and fellow voters, Most of us admire Hillary Clinton for her principled stands, hard work and boldness in seeking to become the first woman U.S. president. I happen to be voting for Barack Obama. Yes, in part it was Mr. Obama's message, his warning on the Iraq invasion, his appeal to non-Democrats. But another reason I decided to vote for Sen. Obama has been largely ignored by political analysts.

Let us suppose for a moment that Hillary Clinton ultimately defeats Obama for the party nomination. Then let's say the pollsters are wrong and Ms. Clinton manages to get past the likely GOP nominee (Sen. John McCain) in November.

Now fast-forward to next January and envision what may come next, after Hillary Clinton occupies the White House:

Bill Clinton -- the former president who was impeached and came within 1 vote of being removed from office on a Republican party-line vote -- will become our country's "first husband;"
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Savage, Ingram, O'Reilly, Drudge and their brethren -- who've been assaulting the Clintons nonstop for more than a decade -- will be in full throat, 7 days a week, for 4 long years;
Tens of millions of social conservatives and evangelical Christians, infuriated by Mr. Clinton's sexual dalliance with a White House intern, are apt to be newly infuriated when he moves back in;
Egged on by the large familiar cast in the right-wing media, these and millions of other faithful Republicans may reflexively oppose Hillary's initiatives, regardless of their merits; and finally
The Republican half of Congress -- the same crowd that boisterously applauded Bush's "State of the Union" address last week -- may endlessly filibuster, discredit and denounce Ms. Clinton's legislative agenda in an all-too-familiar partisan drive to derail it.

I fear that the election of Sen. Clinton may degenerate from that first day or two of euphoric pride into unending divisiveness and political gridlock. I'm personally not thrilled by the prospect of four more years of rancor and futility, while our job, economic, environmental, health care and other problems continue to envelop more Americans. We can all agree by now that we've had our fill of polarized, dysfunctional government. Some of us have listened to Barack Obama's speeches and maybe even had a look at his policy positions. We all know about his spot-on judgment back in 2002 ( http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php) on what's turned out to be one of the most costly, bloody foreign policy blunders in our nation's history. We're aware that he's worked productively with Republicans to get some very good things done for all of us. We've seen how he can inspire all kinds of people to vote and get involved in the political process. Let's give Mr. Obama the opportunity to bring his ideas, abilities and extraordinary political acumen to this job. Of course, whether her campaign ends now or in November, Hillary won't be going anywhere: she'll be right there on the Senate floor, working on behalf of our interests. If you share my concerns about a Hillary Clinton presidency, please forward this e-mail to your list of friends and acquaintences, so they can think about this for themselves. We're in this boat together. Thanks for doing your part on behalf of all of us.

Impeachment Matters

paper ballots now — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:04:39 -0700

The Constitution is not quaint. We the People gave Congress the power of impeachment as a check on the Executive Branch. The Framers intended impeachment's use when appropriate--it's not a tool of radicals.

House Speaker Pelosi has no right to "take impeachment off the table." It's as reckless as saying that the Bill of Rights is off the table.

Here are three reasons why the Dem Leadership in Congress is making a monumental mistake by blocking impeachment hearings of V.P. Cheney and President Bush:

1. People vote for strength, not for a Party unwilling to uphold their Oaths. The Dem Leadership is calculating that they can win more in 2008 by not impeaching which is a delusional assumption.

2. Letting the Administration off the hook will set yet another precedent that future Presidents are above the Law. It will be a worse precedent than Ford's pardon of Nixon and the Dems not pursuing Arms-for-Hostages and the Iran Contra scandal after Reagan and Bush 41 left office.

3. Bush and Cheney are still talking WWIII with Iran. Senator Biden's warning that attacking Iran will cause impeachment rings hollow. What stops an ordered attack in November or December 2008?

The Democratic Leadership's plan is to talk tough about the Bush Administration but be careful that a Court of Law never rules that there has been criminal wrong-doing by the Bush Administration because that would necessitate impeachment hearings. That is why many Dems are supporting immunity for the Telecommunication Companies wiretapping of our phones, emails, etc. without warrants.

My message to Democratic officials is that you are alienating your activist base. The Democratic Leadership's plan to consolidate power by not truly asserting itself will back-fire.

Quinnipiac Ohio Poll Shows Conservative Bias

paper ballots now — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:25:52 -0700

Ten of the fifteen questions asked in a poll about "illegal immigration" were framed favorably to the conservative political agenda. Only two questions focused on the root of the Northern Migration- our "illegal employer problem". Republicans would prefer that the "criminals" covered in the press are working people, and that corporate and CEO criminals not get discussed. Most of the poll questions focused on what government services and priveleges undocumented people should get.

The two questions about "illegal employers" found that more than 80% of Ohioans support stricter enforcement and stiffer penalties against employers who hire illegal workers AND that the government should require that employers verify the validity of worker's social security numbers used to gain employment. Some states, such as Arizona, have recently passed laws that hold employers more responsible for the problem.

Many reports in the media ignored the Quinnipiac poll questions about illegal employers and instead led with how the immigrant issue could hurt Democrats in 2008. Left unreported was that the ultra-conservative Wall Street Editorial Board and the Bush wing of the Republican Party favor keeping undocumented people (who don't have the right to vote) in the workplace.

Focusing on illegal immigration and not illegal employers is bad enough. But there were no Quinnipiac poll questions about how NAFTA and Most Favored Nation Trade Status with China have effected the economy. Neither were there questions about the tax benefits that corporations utilize when they outsource jobs from the U.S.

Let's hope that citizens are smart enough to see through the conservative bias of pollsters and the media. Nativists such as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh bash illegal immigrants daily. But they recreate in places such as Hilton Head, SC aka Millionaire's Island, which have undocumented workers aplenty doing construction and golf course maintenence.

Progressives have a long tradition of protecting the supply of labor from being unfairly expanded. Cesar Chavez marched to the border because undocumented workers were being used to bust up labor unions and pull down wages.

Democratic politicians should do a better job shining a light on illegal employers even threatening jail terms for CEOs and owners of lawbreaking companies. Maybe then pollsters and the media will stray from the right-wing framing.

Urge Colin Powell to Speak Out

paper ballots now — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:51:58 -0700

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell will give a motivational speach at Nationwide Arena in Columbus on November 13. He has offered tepid criticism of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. But Powell is a prominent statesman who could make front-page news across the country by saying that most U.S. troops should come home from Iraq and the U.S. should not start another war by bombing Iran.

I am trying to organize fundraising to put an ad in the Dispatch on the day of Colin Powell's visit. Time is short to make this happen. Contact me at powellshouldspeakout@yahoo.com if you would be interested in helping to contribute to cover the cost for the ad.

The Bush Admin. fears Colin Powell will become an anti-war critic according to reporting by Sidney Blumenthal:

"Powell is the White House's ticking-time-bomb scenario," Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon. "He was Petraeus before Petraeus, the good soldier before the good soldier, window-dressing before window-dressing. The White House aides' fear of Powell reflects their guilt, if not their stricken consciences, over his disposal. Powell was used, ruined and tossed overboard. His warnings were ignored, his loyalty was abused, and when he no longer served Bush's purposes he was unceremoniously discarded. Notwithstanding his tarnished reputation, Powell has a final chance to regain his dignity and at least some of his previous standing by stepping forward at the crucial hour."