Blue Oregon Blogs

Barack Obama was officially nominated by his party tonight.  Bill Clinton gave a barnburner that had them dancing in the aisles.  John Kerry is speaking now and Joe Biden will speak later. 

What'd you think?

[Post updated with video.]

Okay, that was cool.  I just got back from the actual nomination process, where Barack officially became the nominee of the party.  I'll admit that I'm a little clueless about how that whole thing goes down, so I quizzed Wayne Kinney and got the skinny. 

The first step was this morning, when Oregon held its balloting.  This is a paper ballot, but not secret.  I tried to get Wayne to characterize it ("joyful?" I suggested?--no.  "Matter-of-fact?"--no), but I guess you had to be there.  Oregon's delegation voted 44-20.  They then reported those numbers, but the official report would come later, during the roll call.

by chance, I walked into the Pepsi Center just as the nominations were submitted.  Each candidate has 15 minutes, and can have as many speakers as they wish.  After the nomination is seconded and accepted, roll call begins.  It's a fairly entertaining process wherein each state designate a speaker who then talks about native sons and daughters, the distinct features of their states, and their connection to the nominees.  Some of them were emotional--Iowa's, for example, had a 2-tour Iraq vet who said, "I'm standing here in the same boots I wore in Baghdad." 

The roll call proceeds by alphabetical order, and there were some surprises.  Arkansas voted 47-0 for Obama--an interesting statement from the state that once called Hillary first lady.  Obama was winning pretty big majorities of every state, and we knew that there might be a moment when he achieved a majority of votes and there was a call to quit counting and wave him through.  Nevertheless, throughout the long stretch of Ms and Ns, Oregon's delegation kept the faith, clustering around Ron Wyden, who would announce our results should the roll call get to us. 

Of course, you know the rest.  New Mexico yielded to Illinois, apparently a tip of the hat to Obama's home state, and they promptly yielded the floor to New York.  Hillary once again was a class act:

“With eyes firmly fixed on the future in the spirit of unity, with the goal of victory, with faith in our party and country, let’s declare together in one voice, right here and right now, that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our president.”

“I move that Senator Barack Obama of Illinois be selected by this convention by acclamation as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.”

After that, the place really went wild.  In a very scripted four days, it did feel like an hour or two of real anticipation.

Discuss.

As I sit here and pout at the fact that I'm not in Denver toiling away with Alworth in what is apparently the worst seating chart in history, I thought I'd throw up an update of some of the goings-on here at home. I especially like keeping up with the local papers from around the state. I like to see what makes my fellow Oregonians tick.

So without further adieu, here's a quick rundown of some of our localness:

WWire is reporting that prominent GOP Portlander Julia Brim-Edwards has come over to the good side of the force.

Former Trailblazer Kevin Duckworth's death this week has sent a ripple through the state, with fans mourning the loss of the beloved big man--whose autopsy shows that he died from a pretty major bout with heart disease.

People who serve on the City Council in Harrisburg, Oregon get $15 per council meeting. That probably barely pays for the gas to get there and back...oy. Maybe they'd get a raise if Greg Walden and Gordon Smith had only come through on those county timber payments so that muncipalities didn't have to take up the slack...but I digress.

Oregon Senate Democrats want no part of a gas tax.

GOP Congressman Greg Walden asked a crowd of supporters in Baker City if "we really want to destroy our economy to save our planet?"

This Saturday at Washington Park is an event that's near and dear to my gastronomic loves: The Portland Pie-Off! Birthday pie so kicks birthday cake's ass!! T o keep this political, I even called the two candidates vying for the Portland City Council seat to check-in about their fav pie. Amanda Fritz? Pumpkin--homemade from the pumpkins in her garden, natch. And Charles Lewis? He digs apple and strawberry-rhubarb..hearkening back to his childhood days when the fam grew its fruit on the farm. Now you Portlanders can mark your ballots with an informed choice.

And finally, some tidbits from Merkleytown:

The editorial board of the East Oregonian newspaper says Merkley has a good shot at getting the votes of rural Oregonians--mostly because Merkley actually shows up and asks for their vote.

Jeff is getting good face-time on the local news stations.

Here's KATU last night:

and KOIN:

In related news, Gordon Smith's campaign has got to be burning through cash like crazy. They released 3 new ads this week--apparently in a fit over the 90 seconds Merkley gets on TV for his DNC speech. Jeez--no wonder the Capitol renovation in D.C. is over-budget and late. Smith doesn't give a rip about how he spends his own money, let alone ours.

Over at the convention center this morning, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer hosted a press conference for Senate hopefuls Jean shaheen (NH), Mark Udall (CO), Tom Allen (ME), Tom Allen (ME), Mark Warner (VA),Tom Udall (NM) and Jeff Merkley. 

I never know what to make of these things. Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer both talked about how important it was to get to 60 in the Senate, talking about filibusters and so on.  Then the candidates each gave fairly straightforward stump speeches (I shot video; I'll upload later).  Jean Shaheen's was interesting because she talked about the crisis in home heating fuel in Maine.  Tom Udall talked about how as a House member, his bill (?) to mandate 15% renewable energy failed by one vote.  And Mark Warner offered the curious goal to expand broadband accessibility. 

But in the main, there wasn't a lot of news there.  However, after the presser, Merkley answered reporter questions for about 20 minutes.  (Sightings: Jeff Mapes, Nigel Jacquiss, David Sarasohn.)  It's here where he really impresses.  The topics ranged from abortion to foreign policy (including torture and Iraq) to oil conservation, and he was ready with them all.  I have some audio,  but it may be too low quality for posting. 

I asked a question about foreign policy, about how to approach rising powers like China and Russia without the usual bellicose sound bites we've heard for eight years.  His response was surprising:

"When you think about global history, you have the Dutch who thrived by mastering wind at sea and wind at home as an international power.  You have the British, who mastered and thrived under coal.  America has thrived under oil.  We have to recognize that a huge piece of our international affairs policy has to be smart energy policy."

From there he covered more familiar terrain, but you can see the kind of depth he brings to questions.  I may get a chance to interview him later in the convention; stay tuned.

Pictures
The lovely and talented Carla Axtman requested pics of the Oregon delegation yesterday, and as her word is my command, today's batch focuses heavily on that subject.  If you go to my Flickr set, you can see captions.  If you know who you're looking at already, the slideshow may be adequate.  As always, more to come.

This week, the Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate campaign is airing a new ad.

Also, today, Merkley will appear at the Democratic National Convention - at roughly 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. That's after the roll-call vote to officially determine the Democratic nominee for President.

While the cable networks will decide on-the-fly whether to air his speech, C-SPAN will certainly air the speech. The speech can also be viewed live and in high-def at DemConvention.com. (It requires the new Silverlight video player, so give yourself a few minutes to get set up.)

Campaign history is a small eddy in the current of American history, and convention history an even smaller niche.  So it's forgiveable when people fail to recall some of the great battles in convention history.  Sometimes the battles happen when the party has little chance of winning, sometimes when it seems like a sure bet.  You can see why: in down years, politicos are maneuvering for the future or trying to wrest control away from the leaders responsible for down fortunes.  When it's a Democratic year, the scrapping happens between power players who want the tiller and their supporters who stand to rise with a new administration.  I spent the summer looking through some of this history, and it appears that there has never been much correlation between the intensity of the intramural squabble and the outcome in November.  Here's a couple of examples that highlight the point.

1924  – Longest Convention
The result of the ’24 convention wasn’t much to remember—forgotten Democrat John Davis managed only 29% of the vote in a three-way battle with Calvin Coolidge and Progressive Robert LaFollette in the general.  But it did break a bunch of records.  Ballot after ballot, California’s William McAdoo was locked in a battle with (gasp!)  Catholic New Yorker Al Smith (the 1828 nominee).  The Ku Klux Klan opposed Smith, and their involvment was so contentious that governors of Colorado and Kentucky got into fistfights over whether antiKlan members would carry their state banners.  Eventually, after nine days and 103 ballots, the main contenders released their ballots and the compromise candidate, Woodrow Wilson’s Solicitor-General, was finally selected.

1932  – A New Deal
File this under  “they don’t make conventions like they used to.”  The delegates met that year in Chicago, and the preliminaries delayed voting until 4:30 in the morning.  It was an all-New York affair, with Al Smith once again trying to get the nomination, but trailing Franklin Roosevelt in early voting.  Although FDR had the upper hand, he couldn’t beat Smith.  Delegates adjourned at 9:15 in the morning so the candidates could work the various delegations.  FDR managed to flip California’s John Nance Garner, the Speaker of the House.  He released his delegates and FDR won.  Still, the bitter Smith, who had had a falling out with FDR in ’28, didn’t release his delegates, denying Roosevelt a unanimous win.

The '32 election is particularly instructive for people who want to draw analogies.  It was one of those sure-bet moments, and passions were off the charts.  The fact that Smith was so angry that he wouldn't releases his delegates had little effect on the outcome of the election.  It's hard to see how today's vote at the convention, which will surely produce a nomination for Obama, could affect the votes of Americans in November.  As in '32, there's too much to lose.

Photo credit: Washington Post

Secretary of State Bill Bradbury told the Oregonian today that he's considering running for Governor in 2010.

"It's really a slam dunk if we keep our current primary system, and it's a very strong possibility if we move to a different primary system," said Bradbury, who believes he has particularly deep support among Democratic voters.

But what about his health?

"My entire career in public life has been served with multiple sclerosis," he said, noting that he was first diagnosed with MS in 1980 and that it appears to have progressed slowly. "I'm quite confident that MS won't interfere with my ability to govern. It has interfered with my ability to schmooze at cocktail parties."

Discuss.

Although I won’t be able to post this until later, I write at about seven, just as Kathleen Sebelius is taking the stage.  I’ve spent the past couple hours investigating The Big Story, in some cases the only story we’re hearing during this convention.  Marc Abrams reprised a variant of it here on BlueOregon earlier today.  It goes like this (you know the tune, dance with me): Hillary delegates/voters are bitter and insufficiently loyal to the not-quite-yet nominee.  Twenty-seven percent may vote for McCain.  The Democrats, so close to victory, are now poised to snatch defeat, all thanks to Hillary voters.  (And the sotto voce addendum: it’s probably because she hopes Obama will lose, opening up 2012 for a second run.)

Based on the delegates I’ve spoken to today, this is almost wholly a fiction.  No doubt there are delegates and voters who will forsake Obama—statistics dictate that you can always find an anecdote out in the tail.  But this has really been exaggerated, both by panicked Democrats and a media that delights in stories with this kind of juicy rivalry.  But when I talked to delegates from Florida, Washington, and Mississippi, and they all had pretty much the same feeling: they’re Hillary delegates, and they are looking forward to voting for Hillary tomorrow, but come Friday, they're ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work for Obama.

(It’s worth remembering that conventions are when delegates wrangle.  In years past, there was literally blood on the floor.  But after the convention, the party came together and worked to defeat the Republicans, Whigs, Dixiecrats ... whatever.  These are passionate activists, but they don't lose sight of the big picture.) 

More illustrative, though, was when I talked to some members the Oregon delegation—Sara Gelser, Paddy McGuire, Joan Demarest, Mary Demarest, and Moses Ross.  As with the other Clinton delegates, they felt this was a bogus issue, and that their enthusiasm has been more or less exploited (a word Gelser used).   Mainly, I think it's an issue of improper framing.  Instead of asking Clinton voters why they won't support Obama, ask them why they supported Hillary--then you get the story.

One piece is the role the Clintons played in rejuvenating the Democratic Party.  There was a generation who came to politics in the 1990s with Bill Clinton. As Paddy said, it feels like end of an era. 

(Okay, as I’m writing this, Craig Robinson just appeared by the Oregon delegation and created a massive stir.  Photos to come.)

And then there’s the biggie, of course: a woman almost became the nominee. And president.  The significance of this as a galvanizing force can’t be overestimated.  This fact is especially potent in Oregon, where women are now falling minorities in elective office.  All of the Oregon Clinton delegates mentioned this.  Everyone knows Obama is a transformational figure.  Just getting the nomination will make him a transformational figure, and the dynamic of race in America may well never be the same.  Hillary voters were so close to a similar watershed moment.  (Though Gelser thinks Clinton will reignite a wave of women leaders.)

It’s not that they are anti-Obama.  Voters, and to a much greater extent delegates, have been deeply invested in the election of Hillary Clinton.  Here we are, together as a party, at a historic moment in a historic time, but it’s not the historic moment these delegates envisioned.  It’s a bittersweet time. The same would be true if Hillary had just edged Obama at the wire, instead of vice versa. 

We’re about a half hour from Hillary’s arrival, and the hall is packed. It’s standing room only, and everyone is buzzing with excitement.  It’s not the agitation of a fight, it’s the same feeling the place had yesterday during Kennedy’s appearance--though the volume's up to 11.  There seems to be a shared sense of anticipation to see old friend Hillary, and it’s impossible to miss how much she means to the people here.

The MSM has a killer storyline: dissent is so much more interesting than harmony.  I really believe it's a ginned-up story, though--the actual divisiveness is way overstated.  I expect the story will persist as long as it sells papers, especially as media places constant focus on the horse race between Obama and McCain.  But seriously, I've done some digging, and the party's united. 

[Epilogue.  I've made it back to the hotel now, after the huge Hillary speech.  Based on the twitter feed and Kari's report back, it was received as well outside the room as it was inside.  From in there, it felt historic.  The party really feels united now.]

Discuss.

Here's a great, new Obama ad to enjoy while we're waiting for the speeches and for more news from BlueOregon contributors in Denver. I'm sure James Taylor is proud...

[Post updated below the jump.]

Day two begins sunny and clear, as did earlier days.  The world's gearing up for Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and the enduring meme--will Hillary delegates come around?--remains the topic du MSM.  (NPR had not one but two stories on Morning Edition about the fissure in the party.)  It's looking to me like the severity of that issue has been seriously exaggerated, but perhaps I can learn more today.  But before day one gets totally lost to the mists of time, I did want to do a final recap from yesterday.

Protesters
This is another issue that seems to be exaggerated.  Sunday's march caused security to tighten up, and there's now a long-range perimeter barricade around the Pepsi Center.  But I see almost no evidence of real protest.  There have been scattered groups who have unfocused messages, but they don't seem to have much of a plan of action.  Yesterday, outside the Pepsi Center, one lone protester screamed that we were living in a police state.  The most common presence is of fringe Christian groups with doomsday signs and harsh, anti-gay messages.  All the protesters--religious and political--are treated politely by semi-curious onlookers, but mostly ignored.

Sightings
There are sightings large and small to be had throughout Denver. There's a place called the "Big Tent" where bloggers hang out.  It's a two-story makeshift facility wedged in between buildings, sporting an industrial aesthetic: the first floor is where bloggers do their thing amid steel, stone, and wires; the second floor has speakers and panel discussions.  It's where the hip politicos hang--I saw everyone from Rachel Maddow and David Sirota to Kos and Atrios.  Kari saw, in short succession, Darryl Hannah and Don Sigielman there.  But my favorite sighting was Ron Wyden last night at an Oregon delegation party following the speeches. After introductions, we delved into health care policy.  When wonks collide!  Very cool start to a discussion I hope to continue sometime down the road.

Propaganda
I can't wait for an economist to calculate the effect of the Obama campaign on the economy.  Based on the cottage industry in Obama-related tchotchkes and the appropriation of Obama to sell random products like burritos and beer, it's got to be substantial.  For groups trying to get their message out, the influx of people has been an opportunity to hand out fliers.  Yesterday's haul: two Christian tracts, an announcement of a healthcare rally on Wednesday, a Nader flier for an event with Jello Biafra, Cindy Sheehan, Val Kilmer, Sean Penn, and others, and a flier from Metro Cab, which is trying to unionize.  (Needless to say, ride Metro if you have a chance.)

Video and Pictures
I have a shorty vid from last night I intended to post, but Youtube is totally bollixed up.  I'll try to get it up today.  I'm also getting pictures online.  I've got a Flickr set here.

[Update: vid now embedded in text.]

[Update 2:  I totally forgot to expound on the wholesale crappiness of the seats for the Oregon delegation.  The arena is arranged like a fan, with the speaker's podium in the center.  If the folks directly in front of the podum are 12 o'clock, then the fan extends from about 8 o'clock on the left to 4 o'clock on the right.  The terminal positions of the fan are actually slightly behind the stage.  Oregon is located at 4 pm.  But it doesn't stop there.  We gaze out upon those in front of us and toward the center: Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Mississippi, Guam.  Now, someone's got to be in the crappy seats.  Organizers could assign seats randomly, but they don't.  You need only look at the arrangement of swing states clustered near the front and center to see that: Florida, Michigan (rewarded despite their apostasy), Wisconsin, Missouri, etc.  So why is Oregon, who is surely more in play than non-delegate granting Guam, way back in the shadows.  Who'd we piss off?)

As private citizens, we all have the right to vote for whomever we choose.  If we are Democratic Party officials, we have the obligation not to openly oppose our Party.  The singular purpose of the Democratic National Convention is to nominate our national ticket.  The single obligation of those elected by their peers to this convention is to support the nominee, regardless of whether that nominee was his or her first choice.

When a delegate to our national convention indicates that they are not yet sold on the idea of voting Democratic in November, as Portland’s Sue Castner has done, they breach their obligation to those who elected them.  I understand that Sue, a Clinton delegate, has strong feelings about Hillary.  But to say, as she did in this morning’s Oregonian, that Sen. Obama has something tog prove to her and “if I had to base my vote on how his supporters have been treating us, I’d be voting for McCain,” goes too far.  Granted, Castner hedges.  She doesn’t say she will vote for McCain.  But for a delegate even to hint that they may cross to McCain because their first choice didn’t win is destructive.

This is not 1860, 1924 or 1968, when slavery, alcohol, or war split our party.  The differences between Clinton and Obama on substance can be measured with a micro caliper on most issues.  There should be no principled basis for leaving Denver with anything but full commitment to a ticket wedded to progressive Democratic ideals and easily distinguishable from the GOP.

So, Sue, I respect your right to support whoever you want.  But when you took that seat on the floor in Denver that so many others would have cherished, you should have recognized that the responsibility of a delegate is “first do no harm.”  Vote for Hillary on the floor.  Do whatever you want in November.  But if you can’t come out of Denver Thursday in support of Obama, at least keep it to yourself.

Discuss.

Also, a fresh update of the BlueOregon Twitter Feed.

I have a fair amount to report back from the day's activities, but I just left a party of the Oregon delegation where I mentioned to at least! five people that I was on the way home to blog.  Must make good on our promises  I'll limit myself to a global comment and a couple of observations, though, and pick this up tomorrow.

The global comment is this: inside the convention, things are far less focused, less packaged, and generally more chaotic.  We have become so used to the stagecraft of the cable stations that we forget that on the convention floor events don't happen with reaction shots from emotional crowd members.  In our poor seats (a wee bit behind the stage, and way back--but we'll talk about that later), things seemed smaller and somewhat more remote. In the building, ones senses are taking in a lot more information than fits in a single screen, but it tends to diffuse the experience. 

The upside to this is that you pick up the vibe of the building.  When Michelle spoke, she mentioned both Hillary and Joe Biden in pretty quick succession.  What I noticed in the building was that the two cheers were about equal--interesting, given that the main story the MSM is flogging is that 49% of the delegates are in revolt.  There were also a few times when direct appeals about Obama were made, and these received far greater enthusiasm.  And gauging the audience response to the speakers I saw--Teddy Kennedy was clearly the show-stopper.  He received rapt attention, punctuated by roars.  I had the great pleasure of sitting in front of Barbara Roberts, who said that as a Kennedy delegate in '80, it made her heart warm to see him speak.  But the truth is, there was great and seemingly universal warmth throughout the building.

Okay, my anecdote.  I was cruising the streets, chatting people up, and during the afternoon, I cooled my heals on a bench next to a semi-transient vet.  We had a very nice chat, and eventually I asked what he thought about all these Democrats in town.  He was nonplussed: "I don't know what they're doing marching around here, I already know what they believe.  Why do they have to have a big party to advertise it?  You know, if it was me, I'd save the money and go invest it in the campaigns."  Hmmm...

Okay, more tomorrow, including pics and video--if I can get my act together (because I know you're just dying to see some actual images).

I usually try to keep my blogging Oregon-centric..but this one really chaps me:

Hallmark Store refuses to carry company's own wedding cards

Cassi Jacobsen, an assistant manager for the Jordan's Hallmark store in Nampa's Karcher Mall, says the family that owns the seven area stores has decided against carrying the new line of greeting cards. She said the owners were out of town and not immediately available for comment.

Seriously? Homophobia with greeting cards???

Utterly ridiculous.

I keep thinking I can't be shocked at the depths people will go to be wretched to one another--and then I am.

From 1836 through 1968, conventions were not mere celebrations to welcome the already-elected nominee.  They were nominating conventions; when delegates gathered, no one knew who the nominee would be.  Although some states held caucuses and primaries before the convention, delegates felt not the slightest compunction to follow voters’ will (or even the wishes of stalwart rank-and-file members back home).  Instead, conventions became the quintessential “smoke-filled rooms” as party bosses and up-and-comers and dissenters and regional power-players all battled to get their candidate nominated.  Sometimes the battles lasted through dozens of votes, running on into the wee hours—or sometimes for days.  Conventioneers also decided on the vice-presidential selection; often this was the candidate who finished second--his elevation to the ticket designed to placate the losing minority (something voters in the year of Obama v. Clinton can instinctively understand.)

1832 and 1836 – Conventions are Born
The first national party conventions were held in 1832.  The very first US party convention was actually held by Anti-Masonic Party (remember them?), whose members were opposed to everything Freemasonic.  They nominated William Wirt to lead their charge (remember him?), and were followed by the National Republicans (the GOP)The Democratic Republicans (Dems) met third, like the earlier two, in Baltimore.  For the Democrats, the convention wasn’t much more than the formality it is today—sitting president Andrew Jackson had already been nominated by many state legislatures, so at the convention, delegates merely concurred.  The only interest was when delegates made Martin Van Buren the VP nominee.

The convention in 1832 was the first real convention for the Democratic Party.  Outgoing president Andrew Jackson, the man who reconstituted the party, wanted his vice president, New York’s Martin Van Buren.  More controversially, he wanted Kentucky’s Richard Johnson to be the VP candidate—even though Johnson’s common-law wife was a former slave and mother to his two children.  At the convention, again in Baltimore, the entire Virginia delegation walked out when it became clear Van Buren would carry the day.  He did, on the first ballot, and promptly selected Johnson as his running mate.  Already, the tensions that mounted into a civil war and the schism in the Democratic Party were starting to appear.

I'll pick that up later in the week as I give a historical context for the convention we're now covering.

• As the BlueOregon crew twitters away through the Convention in Denver, the AP has a story about Oregon politicians getting into the act - twittering, facebooking, blogging, and more.

• Yes, the John McCain campaign now appears to be running ads here at BlueOregon (and a lot of other progressives blogs) featuring Joe Lieberman. If these guys really think that using Lieberman is going to appeal to Democrats, well, they're barking up the wrong tree.

• A group of volunteers has decided to start posting a weekly Merkley Progressive Roundup on DailyKos. Here's the first one.

• Also, don't miss today's front page story about Gordon Smith's furniture problem. Seriously, do Senators really need MORE offices - and makeup facilities?
  Among the add-ons that have driven up the cost: 85,000 square feet of new office space for lawmakers who, in many cases, already have at least two separate offices on Capitol Hill; a 3,500-square-foot hearing room that will complement the dozens of hearing rooms already available to lawmakers; a TV and radio studio, complete with makeup facilities, that duplicates existing studios for members of the House and another for senators.

  "So, what will visitors see when they walk into the CVC?" asks Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a critic of the project.

  "They will enter a center that is two-thirds the size of the Capitol that will be composed of granite, marble, sandstone and bronze. There's a Great Hall with large skylights, fountains, mahogany wood paneling and spiral staircases. I suppose bronze, marble and fountains help one understand history better."

• The debate over debates. Merkley had previously proposed six debates. Now, Smith says he only wants three debates.

• Great story in the O about the DNC delegates - featuring Enrique Arias, as one of the many delegates that are relatively new to party politics.
  Arias, 43, chairs the Oregon party's Faith Caucus -- a direct attempt to appeal to religious-minded voters who have been a key part of the Republican coalition -- and sees the nation's growing Latino population becoming an even more important part of the Democratic coalition.

By John Devlin of Portland, Oregon. John is a trial lawyer and coaches the mock trial team at Lakeridge High School. More info here.

The selection of Joe Biden, and the impending Democractic convention, has renewed the complaints of unhappy Democrats who don't like Obama, or don't like Biden, or wanted Hillary or Kucinich or someone else to be on the ticket.

Here's the thing -- the only goal of a Presidential election is to have your party win the election. I am a Democrat, although I toyed for years with being an independent. I want the Democratic candidate to win the 2008 Presidential election because I think the country will be better off under his policies.

I don't think Obama is the best person in the world. I don't think John McCain is the worst person in the world. I don't have to think those things. I just have to think that Obama's policies are better than McCain's policies. How could anyone who reads this website not reach that conclusion?

So here's a challenge for unhappy Democrats. Make a list of the 10 worst things about the Bush Administration -- the war, torture, extraordinary rendition, Katrina, the economy, DOJ politicization, rampant corruption, global warming denials, Roberts/Alito, the list goes on and on. Write down your 10 lowlights.

Now look at your list. How many would have happened under Obama? How many would have happened under McCain?

If that doesn't convince you, what will?

There are only 65 days left until Election Day. 65 days to make sure that a Democrat becomes President and starts to fix the damage to our country. Let's not spend another minute any topic that does not further that goal.

(By the way, near the top of my list is the fact that a McCain presidency means, in all likelihood, a hard-right majority on the Supreme Court for the next three decades.)