Positive Obama thread

Linora ...  I'm another Mac User .. gotta have Mozilla!!  Then I also had to download something (a patch??) in order to copy and then paste! 

----------

Question for you all ...... so it's been confirmed:  the Africa is continent? scandal with Palin is a hoax.  How does that make you feel about some news agencies ready to report instead of confirm sources?  How does that make you feel about them doing this to a candidate?  

I am not asking if you agree with Palin politics but can any of you see how the media can fix  a race or a least "give it an edge"?  Pretend for a moment it was Obama .. what would have happened if after he lost the race after so much negative publicity, that it was all untrue, what would you be feeling, saying???

I bet you all would be protesting and crying foul?  I am seriously asking how this makes you feel about news people who should know better.

Obama to use youtube for 'wired' presidential address

Updated Fri. Nov. 14 2008 5:25 PM ET

The Associated Press

CHICAGO -- This isn't your grandfather's fireside chat.

President-elect Barack Obama plans to tape a weekly address not just for radio listeners, as presidents have for years, but for YouTube Internet viewers, too.

Well, what else would you expect from the first post-baby boom president?

Connecting the White House hearth to the American home, Franklin Roosevelt talked to the people through the radio, with crackling broadcasts delivered near a crackling fire.

John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan mastered television.

For Obama, who built a big part of his campaign on the Internet, it's YouTube.

About 75 years after Roosevelt used a new medium to reach out during troubled times, the president-elect is doing the same with web videos.

Obama was recording a four-minute address Friday at his transition office in Chicago.

It will be posted Saturday through a YouTube link on his transition website, www.change.gov. And he will continue to do the videos when he takes office on Jan. 20.

And he won't be the only one in his administration taking a starring role online.

Transition leaders and policy advisers will also appear in videos on a regular basis, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. Other officials, such as cabinet members, could also take part.

President George W. Bush hasn't videotaped his radio addresses for online viewing as Obama plans to do, the White House said. YouTube wasn't around when Bush came into office, though podcasts of his addresses are available on iTunes and the audio is posted on www.whitehouse.gov.

The Saturday radio addresses were initiated by Reagan and have evolved into a weekly fixture of the presidency, accompanied by a response from the party out of power.

Still, relatively few people actually hear them on the radio, and Obama is hoping to reach many more with what his transition team calls a "multimedia opportunity."

The videos are part of the team's effort to build on a campaign model that helped Obama reach millions of voters online during the presidential race. It's a potentially powerful electronic tool in new digital outreach effort aimed at supporters and others interested in being connected to the activities of the Obama White House. The website and videos allow him to bypass the traditional media and reinforce his message online.

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to use the Internet to make his administration more open and interactive, offering a detailed look at what's going on in the White House on a given day or asking people to post comments on his legislative proposals.

The transition team plans to use videos to keep people posted on developments as Obama prepares to take the oath of office, Psaki said.

A two-minute video of Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett is already on the webpage. In it, Jarrett discusses recent staff decisions and the ethics policy in place for the transition.

"We'll be back frequently to give you updates," she tells watchers.

I'm watching the Obama transition with interest, especially the whispers about who will be the next Secretary of State. I've had my concerns about elevating Hillary to this spot--not because I don't think she'd do a good job, but because I have always thought she could do so much more good, for a longer period of time, in the Senate. And then there's that pesky issue about her dh, whom I am so fond of but know he could mess things up (unintentionally) for her...

Anyway, Gail Collins had an interesting perspective on this in today's NYTimes that I thought I would share:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/opinion/15collins.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Hillary for Secretary? By GAIL COLLINS

Hillaryhillaryhillaryhillaryhillary.

Is she going to be Barack Obama's secretary of state?

It's been quite a while since we've had an opportunity to discuss the Clinton-Obama dynamic, and it does feel good to be back. Forget bankrupt automakers and retail sales numbers. It's May, and we're in Indiana arguing about gas prices.

Barack and Joe and Hillary, together again. Just like the YouTube debate, only with more maps.

Obama invited Clinton to Chicago this week for a talk. It isn't entirely clear whether he offered her the job. But if it was just a courtesy get-together, he really should have tried texting. Now he's got her fans geared up all over again.

On Friday, a speaker at the City University of New York Women's Leadership Conference mentioned the story about Hillary's possible appointment and several hundred women burst into applause. All around the country, the news reminded old Hillary supporters of a nagging pang of disappointment, the feeling that the great election bandwagon had left something behind.

Good luck telling them that it's actually going to be John Kerry.

While there are many excellent arguments for offering Clinton the job, one of the best is that until now, Senator Kerry was supposed to be the front-runner for State. Does that sound right, people? When one is out searching for the nation's top diplomat, does it make sense to pick a guy who gets low scores in sociability? Although Kerry has many excellent qualities and his children appear to be very fond of him, if there was a contest for Senator You Would Least Want to Have a Cup of Coffee With, he would be a good bet for top 10. Politicians often brag that they never forget a name, but Kerry is one of those guys who can't even remember a face.

Clinton is the exact opposite. Plunk her down anywhere and she'll catch sight of somebody who she met at the Conference of Concerned Problem-Solvers and engage them in a spirited dialogue on what's going on with that muskrat preservation project in East Engorvia. And she can do that abroad, too, since - as was mentioned a time or two during her campaign - she has already visited 82 countries.

True, there's 112 countries to go before she runs the table. All the more incentive for her to make sure Obama gets a second term. And on a slightly more elevated level, there's the fact that the rest of the world would be thrilled with her appointment. She would give our diplomatic outreach a power and gravitas that it hasn't had for years.

I know, my little Obama hyperpartisans. You spent a year of your lives trying to keep Hillary out of the White House because she voted to let the Bush administration invade Iraq. And now, your man is talking about letting her be the point person on foreign policy. What happened to the transformative change?

We have been through all this before. Candidates who promise to bring everybody together are talking about meeting in the middle. The only people who think Barack Obama is a radical are you and Joe the Plumber.

On Friday, the junior senator from New York was keeping her own counsel. She made a scheduled appearance at the New York State Public Transit Industry Fall Conference in Albany and assured the unexpectedly large delegation of reporters that she was not going to say anything that they would be interested in hearing.

While that did not exactly move the story forward, the event did throw some light on one surprising part of the nation's current political dynamic. Has anybody noticed how eager Democratic senators seem to be to get out of the Senate? Really, we were under the impression that a safe Senate seat was quite a cushy gig.

The thing is that although there are indeed occasional perks, like fawning staff and an official three-day workweek, a senator's calendar does tend to get crammed with many variations on the theme of Public Transit Industry Fall Conference. Secretaries of state also go to a lot of boring meetings; however, very few of them take place at an Albany Holiday Inn.

But I digress. Here are four good reasons why Hillary Clinton would be a great pick for secretary of state:

1. She would not let the vice president run our foreign policy. Joe Biden is no Dick Cheney, but we just do not want to go there again. We have scars.

2. Obama could live out his fantasy of following the Abraham Lincoln model and filling his cabinet with a team of rivals without having to make Sarah Palin secretary of commerce.

3. Clinton already has a supply of pantsuits sufficient to get her through six months of peace negotiations in the Middle East without coming home for a change of clothes.

4. She might do a terrific job.

(my own thoughts now...)

I can't imagine John Kerry in the position. I can't see stripping the senate of good Dems for all the Cabinet positions. I'm thinking Bill RIchardson would be a very wise choice. What do you all think?

Anne

Since Hiliary was my first choice, I'm thrilled about it.

Nicki

Obama's people meet Harper's people

While Harper was set to sit down with the current U.S. president at the summit, his officials were busy meeting with representatives of President-elect Barack Obama's.

The meeting between the Canadian contingent and former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and onetime Republican congressman Jim Leach, both representing Obama at the G20 conference, took place Friday morning.

It was the first first-to-face meeting between Canadian officials and Obama's team since the historic Nov. 4 election.

CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife, reporting from Washington, said the meeting is a good sign for Canada-U.S. relations.

"It means we're being listened to and we're not being ignored," he said.

Fife said on CTV's Mike Duffy Live there are two tracks going on concurrently at the G20 meeting, one being lead by George Bush's agenda and "the real story, that is, what is Barack Obama to go when he takes over on January 20."

"The Canadian government has been working hard behind the scenes to get in touch with the transition team players in what will be the Obama administration."

A senior Harper official did not provide details on the meeting other than to say the conversation centred on the G20 summit.

"It was a positive meeting," the unnamed official told The Canadian Press. "We were able to articulate our position clearly, and we look forward to future discussions and meetings with the president-elect's transition team as they move forward on their work."

One proposal Canada is pushing during the summit meeting is an international "peer review" of every G20 country's national financial regulations.

Harper seeks consensus

Harper said he has been speaking with other G20 leaders ahead of the meeting, and said Canada will be seeking consensus on a communique that focus on global macroeconomic fundamentals.

The document is intended to "restore growth, recognizes that good regulation begins at home and supports mechanisms for peer review that are transparent and accountable," Harper said.

He said some leaders at the meeting will be advocating protectionism as the solution, while others will push for global regulations.

Canada will be promoting a more middle-of-the-road approach, he said.

"We recognize we are living in a more interconnected world than ever before," Harper said.

"No country can afford to isolate itself and to tackle this problem alone. Canada can serve as a good example for the rest of the world as we seek to restore confidence and get the world economy going once again."

He bragged that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7, as well as strong regulations that have kept inflation in check and a sturdy banking system.

Harper is not the kind of guy/leader who would brag at the G7...."news",

Rocktobermom, you're right that MSNBC was the victim of the hoax.  The hoax wasn't about what Palin said, it was about identifying the source of the Africa comment.  Apparently Fox News stands by their original report, and the source remains anonymous.  This is from the New York Times:

MSNBC was the victim of a hoax when it reported that an adviser to John McCain had identified himself as the source of an embarrassing story about former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the network said Wednesday.

David Shuster, an anchor for the cable news network, said on air Monday that Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, had come forth and identified himself as the source of a FOX News Channel story saying Palin had mistakenly believed Africa was a country instead of a continent.

Eisenstadt identifies himself on a blog as a senior fellow at the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy. Yet neither he nor the institute exist; each is part of a hoax dreamed up by a filmmaker named Eitan Gorlin and his partner, Dan Mirvish, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

The Eisenstadt claim had mistakenly been delivered to Shuster by a producer and was used in a political discussion Monday afternoon, MSNBC said.

"The story was not properly vetted and should not have made air," said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. "We recognized the error almost immediately and ran a correction on air within minutes."

Gaines told the Times that someone in the network's newsroom had presumed the information solid because it was passed along in an e-mail from a colleague.

The hoax was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin -- not the FOX News story itself. While Palin has denied that she mistook Africa for a country, the veracity of that report was not put in question by the revelation that Eisenstadt is a phony.

Hi Madalyn,

The change in its own is not always good. Just a short reminder that Hitler was elected democratically because people wanted a change from then German government that ran its economy into ground and caused massive unemployment.

 Of course in no way I am comparing Obama to Hitler, that would be totally ridiculous. I am just making a point that the atmosphere was the same: people were out of jobs , economy was bad and they wanted "change".

Actually, Hitler was not elected democratically. If memory serves me right, he only got some 30% of the vote.  I believe he was appointed Chancellor by Hidenburg.

ijl, you might want to visit Obama's new website: www.change.gov.  There is an area where anyone can make suggestions and express concerns.  I don't have a clue about financial matters, and given all the "solutions" I've heard from various sources, it seems that most economists are just guessing too.  It makes sense to me, though, that job creation and job stability would be the cornerstone of any recovery plan.   But I appreciate your willingness to give Obama a chance.  And yeah, we all have a vested interest in seeing him succeed. 

Summer, Canada seems like a potentially good economic role model as it has a lot of the same industries and resources that the U.S. has.   Of course, there are differences too. 

Just a reminder: The Obamas are going to be on 60 Minutes tonight.

Writing here today from the sunny warm Bay Area and Central Coast. Yep, I fear global warming is real as we seem to be experiencing it out here! My paper whites are thrusting out of the ground--wth--we haven't had winter yet! And we walked around the Monterey Bay, northern Santa Cruz area and the temp at the ocean in the sun must have been 90 degrees. Wonder what's going on, as this is midway through November. Anyway, funny weather where you live? Seems Indian summer is coming later and later each year out here in CA.

Just wanted to say that I think the Obama team and the Dems need to weigh Clinton's importance in the Senate vs SOS. Dems still haven't reached filibuster majority, and how important will that be to instituting the changes and strategies that Obama's team would like to implement during these 4 years? Can she better serve him meeting w/foreign leaders, or in the Senate undoing some of the Bush policies and the denigration of our citizens' civil rights?

I think Obama will be considering very seriously the importance of chosing each cabinet member, and if they are Senators, how that will influence what he wants to accomplish in his first 4 years. At least now we have a President that is interested in having a cabinet and advisors who will discuss with him all sides of each issues, and he will make a decision based on the information and history he is told. Unlike our lame duck prez, who only wants his advisors and cabinet to come to him with the "best plan" and go from there. It appears Bush has not desired to hear all sides (perhaps a little too much information for him to process?) and cabinet members seem to be running the show. This whole Iraq war business and this trillions of dollars bailout are just two examples of Bush having been given only partial information. He made bad decisions based on what cabinet members wanted him to do! Yeah, I do believe history will find him to be the worst president this country has ever had, now and even in the future!

As for Palin, she is hallucinating (as is the RNC) in thinking she has a shot in 2012 of becoming the president (or even VP). I think she participated in all these "exclusive" interviews to keep her face in the news. It was obvious that the Governors' conference that she was not sought out for any of the 11 committee jobs in the governors association; as well as, when she stood on stage during the convention with 11 other governors who were obviously very unhappy about being put behind her while she spoke; and when she was abruptly stopped after answering 4 questions. Very awkward, and very telling about her "place" in the Govs group for the next 4 years. Also interesting to note, that at first she maintained she was not interested in Steven's seat in the Senate but during subsequent interviews she has steadily changed her opinion and now says she would step into his seat "if asked." I think she's going to be spending the next 4 years trying to find a door that is cracked open--so she can bust on through, you betcha!

At the quilt group meeting on Friday, we had a lively discussion about the election, Prop 8, and McCain's campaign follies. Several women are Republicans, and the rest Dems. Most of us are in their 70s with a few of us not yet 60, and all white. There is much distress about CA passing Prop 8. It now appears Santa Cruz Cty will join the lawsuit I mentioned in the previous Ravel article. The gays and lesbians (and oodles of straights) that are not out on the demonstrations, are working very efficiently and effectively with intelligence and the internet to make sure this prop is repealed and found unconstitutional by the CA Supreme Court just like the other one was.And I am not in any way saying that those demonstrating are not just a intelligent and efficient in protesting!

There is a ground swell effort to ferret out the donations made by business owners and corporations in support of prop 8, and use that information to blanket the state with requests that those who voted no on prop 8 boycott all of these businesses and corporations. Many of the donors are large hotel chains, and large corporations. I have been promised a list and my family will be sending them letters, letting them know that we will no longer spend our money or make use of their facilities. There seems to be a group of conservatives that believe the passing of prop 8 is the "win" by the majority (unconstitutional belief) and that the protestors are the reason why this passed--that protestors are disrupting everything and making the gay community look bad--or represent the character of all members of the community. Exactly the mindset of other conservatives during the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. Same closeminded, ignorant views that continue to divide this nation, instead of bringing us together. There are large numbers of gays and lesbians who don't physically protest in the way some are now, and are grateful for the protestors (many of whom are straight, not gay) and believe that there must be a multi-pronged effort to have this prop stricken from our laws. It amazes me that conservatives only see gays and lesbians as not "normal." As if they are the only "normal" ones. I don't think there is any normal of any groups or people or individuals in this country. When this prop passed I was saddened that this state would do this, and felt like we had turned back time to the 60s and the first gay movement in the US. I thought we had come further than this. I know that ultimately this will be defeated, but in the meantime it distracts many from the serious issues at hand in the US (all made possible by our current emperor without his clothes--Bush).

Better sign off now and get to some chores, boring! Have a great day to all my Obama ladies!!

While you all are having warm weather, it is cold, dreary, windy, and snowy here in Chicago.  No real accumulation though.  My feeling is why was it necessary to put Prop 8 to a vote?  It was something that was passed, many have been married...does that mean it doesn't count?  With all the issues going on in this country, why did California feel this had to be put to vote?  I just dont understand it. 

I have seen how partners are treated in the healthcare setting.  Sometimes it's heartbreaking.  20 year relationship and they won't even communicate with the SO.  And I do hope the boycott works. 

Nicki