Progressive Blogs
Oregon: Obama 55%-Clinton 35%
"Barring a disaster, Barack Obama's going to win Oregon, and he may win it very big," said [Tim] Hibbitts, one of Oregon's most respected nonpartisan pollsters. "This is the widest lead that I've seen of any poll for Obama in Oregon," he said. "I'd be shocked if Obama didn't win here."
Clinton's slim hopes of gaining the Democratic nomination could rely on sweeping all six remaining primaries, Hibbitts said. Oregon's May 20 primary could prove crucial in the nominating battle if Clinton wins, as expected, in West Virginia tonight and Kentucky on May 20.
"Obama needs a counterbalancing win, and Oregon looks like it's here to provide it for him," Hibbitts said.
In other polling news, Rasmussen has Obama up 51%-42% over Clinton, while Gallup has him up by 6 points (50%-44%). Most likely, Hillarly Clinton will win Kentucky and Puerto Rico, Barack Obama will win Oregon, Montana, South Dakota and most of the remaining superdelegates. And thus the race will end, as we turn our attention to John "Dubya" McCain.
P.S. As a a diary on Daily Kos notes, Oregon is 90.5% "hard working white." Ha.
UPDATE: Obama gains four more superdelegates today. Also, former DNC Chairman Roy Romer (selected by Bill Clinton in 1997) says "this race is over."
"Business One Stop" Comes to Virginia
GOVERNOR KAINE ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF BUSINESS ONE STOP
~ Launch coincides with Business Appreciation Week in Virginia ~
RICHMOND - Governor Timothy M. Kaine today announced the launch of Virginia's online business formation portal, or Business One Stop, to assist in the formation of new businesses in the Commonwealth. The Business One Stop will begin to streamline the business formation process by automatically finding and filling necessary forms associated with business formation, with the capacity to expand and diversify services.
"The Business One Stop provides a single location for entrepreneurs to find and complete the needed forms to open their business," said Governor Kaine. "This simplifies the business formation process, speeds up business transactions, and helps eliminate data duplication by identifying and delivering forms needed by 80% of new businesses."
The Business One Stop is available under the Business tab of the Commonwealth's homepage, www.virginia.gov, and will also be available as a link from many agency websites. The system collects users' information, then provides and pre-fills the new business formation forms required by 80% of new businesses. The Virginia Enterprise Applications Program (VEAP) has worked to manage the formation of this initial system.
"It is a pleasure to see such an excellent project released today" said Secretary of Commerce and Trade Patrick O. Gottschalk. "Virginia is the best state for business and this portal should make it easier on new businesses to get through the difficult formation process. Because the system is expandable, it may eventually provide additional efficiencies through online services."
The new formation portal is not designed for businesses created outside of Virginia seeking to initiate new operations within the Commonwealth, nor nonprofit organizations and charities. Those businesses and organizations should contact the Virginia Business Information Center at vbic@vdba.virginia.gov for business assistance.
The Virginia Business One Stop was sponsored by legislation from Delegate Brian Moran in House Bill 3164 in the 2007 General Assembly Session. The new portal will be available to entrepreneurs for free for the first 90 days. After that a nominal usage fee may be charged to future users.
The launch of Virginia's Business One Stop coincides with Business Appreciation Week in the Commonwealth, May 11 - 17, 2008. Coordinated each year by the Virginia Department of Business Assistance, this week is set aside to celebrate the contributions of Virginia businesses.
Secretary Gottschalk officially acknowledged Virginia businesses at the Annual Business Appreciation Week Governor's Breakfast and formally launched the Business One Stop. The theme for Business Appreciation Week 2008 is "The State of Small Business."
"Virginia businesses play a pivotal role in strengthening our Commonwealth by embracing diversity, integrating technology into their business operations, and preserving the economic well-being and safety of all our citizens," said Governor Kaine. "Their success plays a vital role in keeping Virginia moving forward."
The Virginia Department of Business Assistance (VDBA) supports economic development in the Commonwealth by working with new and existing businesses to provide workforce incentives, loans, business information, incubator counseling, and educational opportunities for the business and economic development communities. VDBA also administers the VBIC, which provides answers and solutions to business related inquiries.
Six Words to Stop Dominion Power
Last Thursday, May 8th, the coalition of forces that have been working tirelessly for months had their moment to really stick it to Dominion. We unfurled a mile-long petition, listened to great speakers and great music, and delivered over 42,000 name of Virginians that don't want a new coal plant to Dominion... But you have heard this story, so I have no intention to reiterate it, per se. Rather, I would like to try to sum it all up in six words: Virginians to Dominion, No New Coal!
Why six words? Because according to minds that may or may not be greater than mine -- anything can be said in six words (see, I just finished up that sentence with a six word statement!!!). What are your words for Dominion?
- I petitioned for months, it rocked!
- Coal kills mountains, causes global warming.
- Never mind the coal, I'll conserve
- Eighteen percent rate hike? Screw you!
- What ever happened to Virginia's democracy?
- Didn't coal used to cost less?
- I want to finally breathe free.
- New Coal? Over my dead body.
This diary was cross posted from the Chesapeake Climate Action Network blog.
Webb on VP Ambitions
Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.)
"I'm not really interested. That's all I want to say."
In reality- I don't think anyone who was offered the Vice-Presidency would realistically turn it down... including Jim Webb (who would make the perfect addition to an Obama ticket).
If you're interested- John Warner would also turn down such a bid :)
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)
"No, I'm not getting into that. I'm happily in the twilight of my retirement."
Stuck in Traffic? Blame the Roadblock Republicans.
Imagine if House Speaker William J. Howell parked his car in the middle of Route 1 during rush hour and left it there, backing up traffic for miles. Picture Del. Dave Albo cutting the wires on an Orange Line car, leaving you stranded at East Falls Church.
Seem like a stretch? It's not. The special session hasn't even started yet, but already House Republicans are pledging to block any transportation improvements. And there's a direct, cause-and-effect connection between what happens in Richmond and your ride to work. Roadblock Republican politics add minutes to your commute.
We're not even talking about major new projects like Beltway HOT Lanes and the Silver Line. We're talking about simple repairs that don't get made - a pothole that doesn't get filled, causing a flat tire, triggering a traffic jam. Metro rail cars that aren't quickly repaired, meaning the 8-car train you could've boarded is now a 6-car train you can't squeeze on.
So the next time you're stuck in traffic on Route 7, don't take your anger out on the drivers around you - blame the Roadblock Republicans. If your Metro train breaks down, leaving you stuck on a platform with a thousand of your closest friends, don't blame the train operator - blame the Roadblock Republicans.
Have your friends, neighbors, and coworkers made the connecton? How we can get more of them to see the big picture?
What's Right with Appalachia: an electoral opportunity
For once, I'm not talking about coal-fired power plants or the incredible natural resources in Appalachia like wind, natural gas, and coal which we currently exploit for electricity production.
I'm talking about the incredible electoral opportunity in Appalachia which Democrats MUST understand and act upon as we move towards the general election. It is especially prescient as we watch the West Virginia primary today. Within Appalachia lies the key to a Democratic Presidency
Appalachia is a treasure trove of 70 "swing" electoral votes. Thats as many as Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, and New Mexico combined.
But the thing about Appalachia people need to understand is that it largely represented by Democrats, and should be a Democratic bread and butter area in the Presidential election. Our candidates will ignore Appalachia at their own peril.
Part 1: Democrats CAN win in Appalachia
Democratic success in Appalachian states is enough to make any New Englander jealous. Granted, many of these elected officials are not representative of the more progressive Democratic pockets in New England and on the west coast, but many of them are.
West Virginia
Governor - Joe Manchin (Dem)
Senators - Robert Byrd (Dem), John Rockerfeller (Dem)
Congress (2/3 Dem) - Nick Rahall (Dem), Alan Mollohan (Dem)
Dems control the state House 72(D)-28(R)
Dems control the state Senate 23(D)-11(R)
The state Auditor, Treasurer, Ag Commissioner, and Attorney General are Dems.
West Virginia went for Carter twice, Dukakis, and Clinton twice.
Ohio
Governor - Ted Strickland (Dem)
Senator - Sherrod Brown (Dem)
Congress - Appalachian Ohio is represented by 2 Dems in Charlie Wilson (OH-06) and Zack Space (OH-18)
Ohio went for Clinton in 92 and 96
Virginia
Governor - Tim Kaine (Dem)
Senator - Jim Webb (Dem), soon to be joined by Mark Warner (Dem)
Congress - Appalachian Virginia is represented by Rick Boucher (Dem)
Dems just took control of the state Senate in 2006
North Carolina
Governor - Mike Easley
Senators - ew. BUT Kay Hagan (Dem) is already polling even with Liddy Dole even without high name recognition statewide.
Congress - Appalachian North Carolina is represented by Heath Shuler (as well as 2 Repubicans)
Dems just expanded our majority in the state House in 2006
Dems just expanded our majority in the state Senate in 2006
Kentucky
Governor/LG - Beshear/Mongiardo (Dem)
Attorney General - Conway (Dem)
Congress - Appalachian Kentucky is represented by a few Republicans and Ben Chandler.
Democrats control the state House 63D-36R
The state auditor and treasurer are Dems.
Kentucky went for Clinton in 92 and 96
Tennessee
Governor - Phil Bredesen
Congress (5/9) - Lincoln Davis (Dem), Bart Gordon (Dem) and Jim Cooper (Dem) are all right there in what the Appalachian Regional Commission calls "Appalachia.
Dems control the state House 53D-46R
Dems split the state Senate 16D-16R-1I
Tennessee went for Clinton in 92 and 96
I'm less familiar with PA, although I'm sure you could point to several Democratic Representatives from W PA, as well as looking at Rendell and Casey's performance there to see that Dems can win Appalachia.
Part 2: Democrats MUST win in Appalachia
Lets look at presidential success over the last 30 years based on what we define as "Appalachia": WV, PA, OH, VA, NC, TN, KY
1976
Carter (297)- WV, PA, OH, NC, TN, KY
Ford (240)- VA
1980
Carter (49) - WV
Reagan (489) - PA, OH, VA, NC, TN, KY
1984
Reagan (525) - WV, PA, OH, VA, NC, TN, KY
Mondale (13)
1988
Bush (426) - PA, OH, VA, NC, TN, KY
Dukakis (111) - WV
1992
Clinton (370) - WV, PA, OH, TN, KY
Bush (168) - NC, VA
1996
Clinton (379) - WV, PA, OH, TN, KY
Dole (159) - NC, VA
2000
Bush (271) - WV, VA, OH, NC, TN, KY
Gore (266) - PA
2004
Bush (286) - WV, VA, OH, NC, TN, KY
Kerry (251) - PA
Appalachia goes with the winning candidate every time.
3. Obama peforms poorly in Appalachia
I say this as one of Obama's most strident supporters, because it is an issue that we MUST deal with coming up to the general election. Obama's poor performance has been well-documented by many people. For instance, while Obama won the state of Virginia by 29 points, he lost Appalachian Virginia (VA-09) by 32 points. Thats a swing of -61%. Thats bad news.
Some have tried to imply that Obama performs poorly because of Appalachian racism. Ignoring that an Arab American represents WV in Congress, and that Appalachia has a mixed and often progressive history on civil rights. And before I turn to statistics proving otherwise, I want to just acknowledge that racism is a worldwide problem, and has been since the beginning of recorded history. There are racists in Appalachia, and there are racists on Rodeo Drive and there are racists on Wall Street. Appalachia is no more racist than the demographics which form it. WVaBlue, makes a great point that today's primary in West Virginia perfectly reflects the demographics of West Virginia compared to previous primaries. It is a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton.
Appalachia is not just some racist backwater, it is the key to electoral success in Presidential elections. So, Democrats, after the WV primary today, and the KY primary next Tuesday - y'all keep coming back. Appalachia has a lot to offer you, and in many ways we need your help. Appalachia has some of the highest poverty rates in the entire country, and a lot of those communities are being ripped apart by mountaintop removal coal-mining. But the Appalachian people are a good people, with an often progressive social history alongside with a relatively "conservative" culture to those outside the region.
4. So we need to help Obama improve his performance here
Whos coming with me?!
bonus...can you find the author?
Draft Webb for VP
Virgil Goode heeds Tom Perriello's call to back GI bill
"I would have been one of the first to sponsor this important bill, but I applaud Rep. Goode for coming around on this issue. We must work tirelessly across party lines to guarantee our veterans the new GI Bill they deserve," said Perriello.
The bill now has 294 co-sponsors in the House and 57 in the Senate. The fight for this bill has been led by Virginia Senator Jim Webb (D), and supported by Virginia's senior Senator John Warner (R). It is also widely supported by the major national veterans groups.
John McCain and George W. Bush do NOT support it.
I would like to think that Virgil would have supported the bill without having been prodded to do so by Tom Perriello; it is worth noting that he didn't join the cosponsors until the bill had already gotten a majority in both houses. In other words, he didn't support the bill when it needed support -- only after it became obvious where the political winds were blowing.
VA-07 Is there a nice way to call Eric Cantor a liar?
There is no nice way to say it: Both Boehner and Cantor lied.
I don't care much about Boehner. He's from Ohio, and his mismanagement of his caucus and well-reported bizzare behavior in the House suggest that he is on a path to political oblivion. He will, of course, win re-election to his seat, but rejection by his caucus in January is probable, and that would arguably spur his retirement as he seeks to cash in on the lobbyist gravy train while he can.
But Cantor cuts close to home.
(more on the flip)
Not only is Cantor from the district next to mine, but he is, in fact, the sole Jewish republican member in the House. I remember his initial election, which was shortly after I moved here, and he came to my synagogue in Charlottesville to talk to congregants and raise money.
I didn't give him money, but even though he was a Republican, I will admit to a small amount of pride at seeing a Jew running for Congress down here. Central Virginia is not an anti-Semitic area by any means (in fact, the the extent I have seen minor instances of anti-Semitici behavior, it has been by transplanted Yankees, but that's another story). Still, Jews have always had an uneasy relationship with the South, walking a line between assimilation into a Southern culture where race dominates creed, and maintaining Jewish identity in a diaspora within a diaspora within a diaspora. For example, many Jewish parents simply grin and bear it when Christianity enters the public school classroom here (like my son's kindergarten teacher several years back, who had the kids make stocking to hang on the mantle while Christmas carols played on the stereo),or the inclusion of cvertly religius songs like Silent Night in Winter Concerts -- actually, I drew the line there and we didn't participate in that one), partially so as not to rock the boat and be good community members, and partially because such gestures have no malice whatsoever in them.
But there has been a concerted effort by the GOP to make Jewish people afraid of Obama. The Muslim smear was a part of this (though that smear was not specifically directed at the Jewish community). The Hamas smear, currently in vogue among the GOP, is specifically directed at Jews. It is being specifically articulated by prominent GOP elected officials and supporters, such as Lieberman this past weekend on Wolf Blitzer.
That was bad enough, but Cantor needs to be called on this.
I'll let Tapper take it from here:
In an interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., talked a great deal about Israel. He was rather effusive in his support for the Jewish state.
Apparently given nothing of substance to criticize, House Republican leaders then took a statement Obama made and twisted it to act as if the Democrat had insulted the Jewish state. Which he had not.
* * *
When the topic turned to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama said, "Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security." When asked if Israel besmirches the United States' reputation, Obama said "No, no, no."
Then he said: "But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem..."
It seemed pretty clear to me that by "constant sore" Obama was referring to the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As he says in the next sentence: the "lack of a resolution to this problem."
Nonetheless, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who knows better, accused Obama of calling Israel a "constant sore."
"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a 'constant sore' as Barack Obama claims," Boehner said. "Obama's latest remark, and his commitment to 'opening a dialogue' with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an 'apartheid state.'"
(That's interesting because in that very same interview, Obama rejected Carter's use of the term "apartheid" as applied to Israel. Said Obama: "I strongly reject the characterization....")
Another member of the GOP House leadership, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, also misrepresented what Obama said.
"It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a 'constant wound,' 'constant sore,' and that it 'infect[s] all of our foreign policy.' These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel," Cantor said.
(emphasis added)
When Obama twisted Sen. John McCain's "100 Years" comment, it was pretty dishonest as well.
But this may be worse, because Boehner et al are falsely accusing Obama of besmirching a nation and a people. They are accusing him of being anti-Israel, even anti-Semitic. It is false. (emphasis added)
In other words, Cantor is lying.
I'll be taking further action on this, and if I am able t accomplish anything, I'll let y'all know. In the meantime, I'll just be disgusted.
Here is the link to the whole piece, which is worth reading:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit...
First, good work by Tapper.
Second, Jews and non-Jews alike can reach their own conclusions about where Obama stands on this issue (I have reached mine, and Obama is light-years better than McCain when it comes to Israel), but lying is simply wrong, and in the end it does not serve American Jews who care deeply about Israel.
That Cantor is a party to this is simply odious.
How Old?
Not that it’ll matter…
Opinion, please: local income tax
Until mentioned in the Governor’s news release, I was quite unaware that a local income tax option existed. According to the Code of Virginia:
The Counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William, and the Cities of Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach hereby authorized to levy a local income tax at any increment of one-quarter percent up to a maximum rate of one percent upon the Virginia taxable income
The tax, once approved by referendum of the local voters, would have applied to residents of the localties. This provision was dated in 1989 yet none of the localities has exercised the option. I suspect that has something to do with the reluctance of our local elected officials to impose taxes. The other thing is that this local option has a sunset provision of 5 years after the date of enactment. That makes it a relatively short term option.
I have often thought that a local income tax made sense. For one, it would reduce the reliance on real estate taxes that the localities have. And, if you recall the go-go 1990s, a lot of money flowed into the state treasury because of income but that money didn’t necessarily make its way back to the localities. As I read the code sections, the money generated would be returned to the localities.
Of course, I had envisioned the tax being based on where you work as opposed to where you live. That implementation is what I have seen in other states, since jobs tend to be in one place while people work in another. In Hampton Roads, for example, I think that would benefit Norfolk.
So my question is this: would you support or oppose a local income tax?
The EXACT reason people hate government
Leslie Byrne Calls for End to Waste and Fraud in Defense Contracting
Byrne: “It’s time to end waste, fraud and abuse in defense contracting”
On Monday, May 12, 2008 at 2:00 p.m., the Senate Democratic Policy Committee will hold an oversight hearing on waste, fraud and corruption in Iraq. The following is a statement from Leslie Byrne, Democratic candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 11th District, on ending the abuses in Iraq contracting.
“I am encouraged to see the Senate Democrats take the lead on investigating the impact of waste, fraud and abuse on our efforts to end the bloodshed in Iraq. And I’m outraged that there is a need for such an oversight hearing.American taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for unethical defense contractors who want to bolster their bottom lines at our expense.
“The American people are being asked to continue spending billions, perhaps even trillions, on the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and far too much of that money has been disappearing. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, approximately $10 billion has already been lost-- $4.9 billion through contract overpricing and waste.
“The Iraq War has cost over $456 billion through fiscal year 2007. Taxpayers in Virginia’s 11th congressional district will pay $2.1 billion of the total Iraq War spending approved to date. For the same amount of money, we could have provided 592,123 people with health care or paid 30,786 new elementary school teachers. We also could have hired 33,420 port container inspectors or 45,160 public safety officers, doing much more to actually promote our national security.
“No more swindling of the American taxpayer. It’s time to end the waste, fraud and abuse in defense contracting. I wholeheartedly endorse the War Profiteering Prevention Act. In the event that it is not approved by the Senate, I will actively work to pass it again in the 111th Congress.
“The people of the Virginia 11th deserve a representative they can trust, and who is free of any conflict of interest, to see this fight through. I’ve been publicly opposed to the Iraq War since the very beginning, and as a signatory to the Responsible Plan to End the War I am part of a coalition with practical ideas on how to heal the wounds our invasion has caused. Throughout my years in the House of Delegates, the State Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives, I have never been afraid to stand up for what I believe. After years of public service, Northern Virginians know I can be trusted to do what’s right.”http://anonymousisawoman.blogspot.com
Today's news stories
the Times Dispatch is slightly supportive -- http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/...
Republicans say it's DOA -- http://hamptonroads.com/node/4...
while the Daily Progress today came out in favor of raising the gas tax, though I don't see it online.
80% of Americans think we're on the wrong track -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Bob Herbert on "the millenials" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...
The "Myth" of voter fraud -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...
Bush will hurt McCain a lot -- http://opinionator.blogs.nytim...
Some Obama volunteers found racist responses -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Hillary has found her own constituency, separate from Bill's -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Dana Milbank on Bob Barr's candidacy -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Proposed shopping center east of Charlottesville poses serious concerns about traffic -- http://www.dailyprogress.com/c...
Charlottesville area residents walking the path from Mexico -- http://www.dailyprogress.com/c...
Michael Paul Williams says blacks feel betrayed by the Clintons -- http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/...
May 13, 1846 -- U.S. declares war on Mexico
-- We were looking for an excuse to declare war;
-- When the war began, opponents of the war argued that what evidence there was in favor of the notion that we were in danger of attack from a smaller, weaker country was fabricated;
-- The war pitted a greatly superior American force against an army that locked modern weaponry; and
-- Even after the war, the injustice of our having waged it was seen by prominent leaders as a reason to think that God would "damn" the United States, and the subsequent tragedies in the U.S. were seen as diving payback for our arrogance in starting a war with Mexico.
After Mexico gained independence from the Spanish Empire at the end of its War of Independence in 1821, the Mexican Empire inherited the provinces of Alta California, Nuevo México, and Texas, from Spain. Weakened and virtually bankrupt from the war, the new government could not govern its northern territories, some of which were more than a thousand miles from Mexico City.
Seeking to better control the border region of Texas, which had few settlers, the Mexican government permitted a few hundred U.S. families to settle the area. This, however, led to settlement of Texas on a scale unanticipated by the Mexican government, as its inability to control the border allowed thousands more Americans to settle than had been agreed upon. English-speaking settlers quickly formed a majority in Texas. This led to the Texas Revolution of 1836, the Battle of the Alamo, and the Texans' eventual victory at the Battle of San Jacinto. At San Jacinto, the Mexican General Santa Anna was captured and was forced to sign the Treaty of Velasco, which declared that Texas was independent and fixed the southern border of Texas as the Rio Grande. The Mexican government never ratified the Treaty of Velasco, and did not consider it binding. But they were not able to govern Texas anyway, so it was easier just to regard Texas as an unruly child, putting off the day of discipline.
In the years after 1836, Texas consolidated its position as an independent republic by establishing diplomatic ties with Britain, France, and the United States. Most Texans were in favor of annexation by the United States, which was accomplished in 1845.
The Mexican government had long warned that annexation would mean war with the United States. Britain and France, which recognized the independence of Texas, repeatedly tried to dissuade Mexico from declaring war. British efforts to mediate were fruitless in part because additional political disputes (particularly the Oregon boundary dispute) arose between Mexico, Britain, and the United States.
In 1845, President Polk sent diplomat John Slidell to Mexico City in an attempt to purchase Mexico's Alta California and Santa Fé de Nuevo México territories. U.S. expansionists wanted California to thwart British ambitions in the area and to have a Pacific Ocean port. Polk authorized Slidell to forgive the $4.5 million owed to U.S. citizens for damages caused by the Mexican War of Independence and pay another $25 to $30 million in exchange for the two territories.
However, Mexico was not inclined nor in a position to negotiate. In 1846 alone, the presidency changed hands four times, the war ministry six times, and the finance ministry sixteen times. In Mexico, public opinion and all political factions agreed that selling the territories to the United States would tarnish the national honor. Mexicans who opposed open conflict with the United States, including President José Joaquín de Herrera, were viewed as traitors. When de Herrera considered receiving Slidell in order to peacefully negotiate the problem of Texas annexation, he was accused of treason and deposed.
Military opponents of the President, supported by populist newspapers, considered Slidell's presence in Mexico City an insult. After a more nationalistic government came to power, the new government publicly reaffirmed Mexico's claim to Texas; Slidell, convinced that Mexico should be "chastised," returned to the United States.
Mexico claimed that its northern border with Texas was the Nueces River - about 150 miles north of the Rio Grande. In 1846, anticipating trouble from Mexico after Texas was admitted into the Union, Polk sent militia under General Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande to protect Texas. Taylor ignored Mexican demands to withdraw to the Nueces. He constructed a make-shift fort called Fort Texas (later known as Fort Brown) on the banks of the Rio Grande opposite the city of Matamoros. Mexican forces under General Mariano Arista prepared for war.
On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers. who was in command. A few survivors returned to Fort Texas. This was known as the Thornton Affair, named after the commander of the patrol.
May 3 began the Siege of Fort Texas. Mexican artillery at Matamoros opened fire on Fort Texas, which replied with its own guns. The bombardment continued for five days and expanded as Mexican forces gradually surrounded the fort. Two U.S. soldiers were killed during the bombardment, including Jacob Brown, after whom the fort was later named.
On May 8, Zachary Taylor arrived with 2,400 troops to relieve the fort. However, Arista rushed north and intercepted him with a force of 3,400 at Palo Alto. The Americans won the ensuing battle and chased the Mexicans back across the Rio Grande.
By then, Polk had received word of the Thornton Affair. Polk believed that this, combined with the Mexican government's rejection of Slidell, made sufficient reason to declare war on Mexico. His message to Congress on May 11, 1846 stated that Mexico had "invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil." A joint session of Congress approved the declaration of war, with southern Democrats in strong support because they saw the annexation of Mexico as an opportunity to increase the number of slave states. Sixty-seven Whigs voted against the war on a key slavery amendment, but on the final passage only 14 Whigs voted no, including Reps. Abraham Lincoln and John Quincy Adams. The United States declared war on Mexico on May 13, 1846. Mexico officially declared war on July 7.
In the United States, most Whigs in the North and South opposed the war; most Democrats supported it. Joshua Giddings led a group of dissenters in Washington D.C. He called the war with Mexico "an aggressive, unholy, and unjust war," and voted against supplying soldiers and weapons for the war.In the murder of Mexicans upon their own soil, or in robbing them of their country, I can take no part either now or here-after. The guilt of these crimes must rest on others. I will not participate in them.Fellow Whig, Congressman Abraham Lincoln, contested the causes for the war and demanded to know the exact spot on which Thornton had been attacked and U.S. blood shed. "Show me the spot," he demanded. Whig leader Robert Toombs of Georgia declared:This war is a nondescript.... We charge the President with usurping the war-making power... with seizing a country... which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans.... Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew.Northern abolitionists attacked the war as an attempt by slave-owners -- frequently referred to as "the Slave Power" - to expand the grip of slavery and thus assure their continued influence in the federal government. Acting on his convictions, Henry David Thoreau was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war, and penned his famous essay, Civil Disobedience.
Former President John Quincy Adams also expressed his belief that the war was fundamentally an effort to expand slavery. In response to such concerns, Democratic Congressman David Wilmot introduced the Wilmot Proviso, which aimed to prohibit slavery in any new territory acquired from Mexico. Wilmot's proposal did not pass Congress, but it spurred further hostility between the factions.
Meanwhile, California was rebelling against Mexico. When the U.S. declared war against Mexico, it took until mid-July 1846 for definite word of war to get to California. U.S. Army Captain John C. Frémont, with about 60 well-armed men, had entered California in December 1845 and was making a slow march to Oregon when they received word that war between Mexico and the U.S. was imminent and so began their chapter of the war, the "Bear Flag Revolt".
On June 15, 1846, some 30 settlers, mostly U.S. citizens, staged a revolt and seized the small Mexican garrison in Sonoma. They raised the "Bear Flag" of the California Republic over Sonoma. It lasted one week until the U.S. Army, led by Frémont, took over on June 23. The California state flag today is based on this original Bear Flag, and still contains the words "California Republic."
Over the next month, American naval and marine forces occupied Yerba Buena (present day San Francisco) and Sutter's Fort (present day Sacramento). It took another 6 months to pacify the rest of California; the main opposition came not from the Mexican military but from the Californios (Mexican residents of California). The decisive battles were fought on January 8, 1847 at Rio San Gabriel, and the next day, at La Mesa. On January 12, 1847, the last significant body of Californios surrendered to U.S. forces, ending the war in California. the U.S. military had California well under control when gold was discovered later that year.
Meanwhile, political and military chaos was roiling the Mexican government. The defeat at Palo Alto caused political turmoil in Mexico, turmoil which Antonio López de Santa Anna used to revive his political career and return from self-imposed exile in Cuba. Santa Anna promised the U.S. troops that they would allow him to pass through their blockade, he would negotiate a peaceful conclusion to the war and sell the New Mexico and Alta California territories to the United States. Once he arrived in Mexico, however, he reneged and offered his military skills to the Mexican government. After he had been appointed general he reneged again and seized the presidency.
Led by Zachary Taylor, 2,300 U.S. troops crossed the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo). They occupied the city of Matamoros, and then proceeded south and besieged the city of Monterrey. The Battle of Monterrey (September 21-23, 1846) was a hard-fought battle during which both sides suffered serious losses.
At first, the American light artillery was ineffective against the stone fortifications of the city. Then U.S. soldiers captured four hills to the west of the town, capturing also the heavy cannon that the Mexicans had stationed there. Now able to use the Mexican heavy artillery against Monterrey, U.S. soldiers could now storm the city from the west and east. Once in the city, U.S. soldiers fought house to house: each was cleared by throwing lighted shells, which worked like grenades. Eventually, these actions drove and trapped General Ampudia's men into the city's central plaza, where howitzer shelling forced Ampudia to negotiate. Taylor agreed to allow the Mexican Army to evacuate and to an 8-week armistice in return for the surrender of the city.
The resulting armistice signed between Taylor and Ampudia had major effects upon the outcome of the war. Taylor was lambasted by the federal government, where President James K. Polk insisted that the U.S. army had no authority to negotiate truces, only to "kill the enemy". In addition, his terms of armistice, which allowed Ampudia's forces to retreat with battle honors and all of their weapons, were seen as foolish and short-sighted by some U.S. observers. For his part, some have argued that Ampudia had begun the defeat of Mexico. Many Mexican soldiers became disenchanted with the war.
On February 22, 1847, Santa Anna personally marched north to fight Taylor with 20,000 men. Taylor, with 4,600 men, had entrenched at a mountain pass called Buena Vista. Santa Anna suffered desertions on the way north and arrived with 15,000 men in a tired state. He demanded that Taylor surrender; that demand was refused. Santa Anna attacked the next morning. Furious fighting ensued during which the U.S. troops were almost routed, but were saved by artillery fire against a Mexican advance at close range by Captain Braxton Bragg (later a Confederate general), and a charge by the mounted Mississippi Riflemen under Jefferson Davis (later Confederate President). Having suffered discouraging losses, Santa Anna withdrew that night, leaving Taylor in control of Northern Mexico. Polk distrusted Taylor, whom he felt had shown incompetence in the Battle of Monterrey by agreeing to the armistice, and may have considered him a political rival for the White House. (Taylor later used the Battle of Buena Vista as the centerpiece of his successful 1848 presidential campaign.)
Rather than reinforce Taylor's army for a continued advance, President Polk sent a second army under General Winfield Scott, which was transported to the port of Veracruz by sea, to begin an invasion of the Mexican heartland. Scott performed the first major amphibious landing in the history of the United States in preparation for the Siege of Veracruz (March 9-29, 1847). A group of 12,000 volunteer and regular soldiers successfully offloaded supplies, weapons and horses near the walled city. Included in the invading force were Robert E. Lee, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. An extended artillery barrage destroyed the will of the Mexican side to fight against a numerically superior force, and they surrendered the city after 12 days under siege. U.S. troops suffered 80 casualties, while the Mexican side had around 180 killed and wounded, about half of whom were civilian. During the siege, the U.S. side began to fall victim to yellow fever.
Scott then marched westward toward Mexico City with 8,500 healthy troops. The last battle of the war was the Battle of Chapultepec (September 12, 1847); Chapultepec is what the Marine Hymn refers to as "the halls of Montezuma." After the Americans won that battle, Mexico City was defenseless, and the Americans occupied the capital. Winfield Scott became an American national hero after his victories in the Mexican-American War, and later became military governor of occupied Mexico City.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848 by American diplomat Nicholas Trist, ended the war and gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, established the U.S.-Mexican border of the Rio Grande River, and ceded to the United States the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. In return, Mexico received $15,000,000 -- less than half the amount the U.S. had offered Mexico for the land before the opening of hostilities -- and the U.S. agreed to assume $3.25 million in debts that the Mexican government owed to U.S. citizens. The acquisition was a source of controversy at time, especially among U.S. politicians that had opposed the war from the start.
The sale of land is known in the United States as the Mexican Cession.
The version of the treaty ratified by the United States Senate eliminated Article X, which had stated that the U.S. government would honor and guarantee all land grants from the governments of Spain and Mexico. Article VIII guaranteed that Mexicans who remained more than one year in the ceded lands would automatically become full-fledged American citizens (or they could declare their intention of remaining Mexican citizens); however, the Senate modified Article IX. Among the changes was that Mexican citizens would "be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States)" instead of "admitted as soon as possible", as negotiated between Trist and the Mexican delegation.
The treaty was subsequently ratified by the United States Senate on March 10, 1848 and by the Mexican government on May 19, 1848.
On May 26, 1848, when the two countries exchanged ratifications of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, they further negotiated a three-article protocol to explain the American amendments. The first article stated that although the Senate had amended the original Article IX of the treaty, the U.S. government would still confer the rights delineated in Article IX. The second article confirmed the legitimacy of land grants pursuant to Mexican law.
The United States would later go on to ignore the protocol on the grounds that the U.S. representatives had over-reached their authority in agreeing to it. This confusion about Article IX of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo still sometimes comes up in U.S. immigration debates.
The result of the Mexican-American War was that Mexico lost more than 500,000 square miles of land, about 40% of its territory. The annexed territories contained about 1,000 Mexican families in Alta California and 7,000 in Nuevo México. A few relocated further south in Mexico; the great majority remained in the United States. Descendants of these Mexican families have risen to prominence in American life, such as Senator Ken Salazar, and his brother, Rep. John Salazar, both from Colorado.
A month before the end of the war, Polk was criticized in a United States House of Representatives amendment to a bill praising Major General Zachary Taylor for "a war unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun by the President of the United States." This criticism, in which Congressman Abraham Lincoln played an important role with his Spot Resolutions, followed congressional scrutiny of the war's beginnings, including factual challenges to claims made by President Polk. The vote followed party lines, with all Whigs supporting the amendment. Lincoln's attack haunted his future campaigns in the heavily Democratic state of Illinois, and was cited by enemies well into his presidency. The stand did not cost Lincoln his Congressional seat in Illinois' Seventh Congressional District; the district was the only place in Illinois where a Whig could win high office, and party leaders agreed to one-term limits for Whig representatives there. Lincoln was succeeded by a Democrat, but the Seventh Congressional District voted for Zachary Taylor, a Whig, that fall.
In much of the United States, victory and the acquisition of new land brought a surge of patriotism (the country had also acquired the southern half of the Oregon Country in 1846 through a treaty with the United Kingdom). Victory seemed to fulfill citizens' belief in their country's Manifest Destiny. While Whig Ralph Waldo Emerson rejected war "as a means of achieving America's destiny," he accepted that "most of the great results of history are brought about by discreditable means." Although the Whigs had opposed the war, they made Zachary Taylor their presidential candidate in the election of 1848, praising his military performance while muting their criticism of the war itself.
Many of the military leaders on both sides of the American Civil War had fought as junior officers in Mexico, including Ulysses S. Grant, George B. McClellan, Ambrose Burnside, Stonewall Jackson, James Longstreet, George Meade, and Robert E. Lee, as well as the future Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
President Ulysses S. Grant, who as a young army officer had served in Mexico under General Taylor, recalled in his memoirs, published in 1885, that:Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.Grant also expressed the view that the war against Mexico had brought God's punishment on the United States in the form of the American Civil War:The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times.In 1879, while in China during his post presidential world tour, Grant told John Russell Young: I had very strong opinions on the subject. I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I had a horror of the Mexican War, and I have always believed that it was on our part most unjust. The wickedness was not in the way our soldiers conducted it, but in the conduct of our government in declaring was. We had no claim on Mexico. Texas had no claim beyond the Nueces River, and yet we pushed on to the Rio Grande and crossed it. I am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasion
Although 13,000 U.S. soldiers died during the course of the Mexican-American War, only about 1,700 were killed in combat. Ninety percent died of disease, such as yellow fever. Mexican casualties are estimated at 25,000.
During the war, political quarrels in the US arose regarding the disposition of conquered Mexico. A strong "All-Mexico" movement urged annexation of the entire territory. Abolitionists opposed that position and fought for the exclusion of slavery from any territory absorbed by the United States. In 1847, the House of Representatives passed the Wilmot Proviso, stipulating that none of the territory acquired should be open to slavery. The Senate avoided the issue, and a late attempt to add it to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was defeated.
I Agree with the Free Lance-Star?
HERE'S A THOUGHT: Gerald Pomper, professor emeritus of political science at Rutgers University, suggests on realclearpolitics.com that if Barack Obama succeeds in winning the Democratic nomination for president, he should pick Virginia Sen. Jim Webb as his running mate.
His thinking is sound. The articulate and urbane Mr. Obama lacks experience and credentials in foreign policy and national security. Those who see defense as this nation's most pressing need would be drawn to the GOP's Sen. John McCain.
But adding Mr. Webb to the Democratic ticket would diffuse some of that enthusiasm [for John McCain]...
If that's not enough, Mr. Webb claims rural roots among the Scots-Irish frontiersmen whose descendants work in the coal mines of Appalachia and fill blue-collar jobs all over America--exactly the constituency most resistant to Mr. Obama.
I couldn't agree more with this analysis. Jim Webb is the perfect complement to Barack Obama, bringing tremendous national security credentials; a strong emphasis on economic fairness and social justice; and an appeal to rural, working-class, sometimes voters (many of whom were "Reagan Democrats" like Webb). The only major downsides, as far as I can tell, are: 1) that Webb isn't big on campaigning; and 2) that we'd lose Webb in the U.S. Senate.
On the first point, I'm not particularly concerned about that. Webb is an excellent public speaker and debater, and that's worth a lot right there. Also, the 2006 campaign proved that Webb could "suck it up," so to speak, and get out on the campaign trail even if he didn't particularly enjoy it. On the second point, it's true that we'd lose Webb in the Senate, but that wouldn't be disastrous as Gov. Kaine would appoint Webb's successor (Chuck Robb?), pending another election. For those who don't believe Democrats could hold that seat, I'd just throw out a few names as possible candidates: Chap Petersen, Donald McEachin, Jody Wagner, Brian Moran, Creigh Deeds. As far as I can tell, any of those would be strong candidates to hold Webb's seat in an election against, let's say, Jim Gilmore. Meanwhile, we'd have Jim Webb in the White House, Mark Warner and the interim Kaine appointee in the U.S. Senate. Not a bad tradeoff, if you ask me.
McCain's Climate Change Speech: On the One Hand, On the Other Hand
When we debate energy bills in Washington, it should be more than a competition among industries for special favors, subsidies, and tax breaks. In the Congress, we need to send the special interests on their way -- without their favors and subsidies. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and on all the resources a free market can provide.
Well, that's great, except for the "Blustery Irony" that former Assistant Energy Secretary Joseph Romm points out at Gristmill:
In December, McCain himself failed to show up for a key vote that would have extended the wind power production tax credit, which has been a key driver of wind power in this country -- allowing it to compete with our better-subsidized power sources (like nuclear) in this country, and to partly offset the much bigger subsidies other countries have for renewables. The vote would have shifted money from subsidies to the oil industry, which hardly needs it given record oil prices and record oil profits (see "How high must oil go before we end subsidies?")
McCain's vote could have broken the conservative filibuster blocking the effort to support renewables, since the clean energy tax package failed 59-40, but his spokesperson said that "he would not have supported breaking the filibuster." This was but one recent example of a series of missed votes or anti-renewable votes McCain has cast in recent years.
In other words, John McCain (sometimes) talks a good game on energy and the environment, but when push comes to shove, he ducks the tough votes or sides with the oil industry against wind, solar, etc.
Having said all this, I WILL give John McCain credit for seriously addressing climate change, for promising to sign "cap-and-trade" legislation if he's elected president, for blasting the Bush Administration ("I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges"), and for pledging "I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears" on global warming.
That's the good news. The less-than-good news is this: while McCain says that "climate policy should be built on [a] scientifically-sound" basis, he then proceeds to call for only a 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. What's wrong with a 60% reduction by 2050? Well, the science for one thing, which calls for a cut of at least 80 percent if not 100 percent by 2050. As Gristmill's David Roberts points out, McCain's proposals are simply "insufficient based on the latest science."
More less-than-good news: as Time Magazine points out, John McCain's "lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters is 24%, while Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both score 86%." Which is probably why Time Magazine concludes that John McCain is certainly "greener than Bush, but that doesn't make him the green candidate."
Still, not to be totally negative here, I'll reiterate that John McCain deserves a lot of credit for: a) addressing the issue of climate change in a serious way; b) bucking the know-nothings in his own party on this issue; and c) blasting the Bush Administration for its 8 years of fiddling while the planet burns. Even better, the fact that both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees are now on record as strongly supporting a "cap-and-trade" system to achieve sharp cuts in carbon emissions means that it's now a good bet that action is coming soon on this front. That's one of the main reasons, by the way, that so many coal-fired power plants have been canceled recently. So...when's our own state going to come to grips with this issue?
Albo: Kaine's Plan has "0.000 percent chance" of passing
...House Republicans said Monday the governor's $1.1 billion plan has virtually no chance of passing their chamber, and some Senate Democrats vowed to rewrite it to include an increase in the state's gasoline tax.
Del. David B. Albo, a Fairfax Republican involved in transportation negotiations, said Kaine's plan had a "0.000 percent chance" of winning approval.
And then there's this:
Minutes after Kaine unveiled his proposal, House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) and Minority Whip M. Kirkland Cox (R-Colonial Heights) predicted it would not reach the House floor.
"I don't see anything positive in the governor's plan that makes it something that's likely to be considered," Cox said. "It's all tax, tax and more tax."
In other words, it's "my way or the highway" -- actually, the crumbling highway, collapsing bridge and overcrowded Metro train -- for House Republicans. Apparently, Messieurs Griffith, Cox, Albo et al. will vote for nothing that contains one penny of tax ("fees," now, they're a different story...), regardless of the form (gas tax, property tax, estate tax, grantor's tax, car tax, horse and buggy tax, you name it) or the purpose (transportation, schools, public safety, etc.).
That's it, that's the House Republicans hard-right, flat-earth, no-taxes-ever philosophy in a nutshell. And I say this as someone who has serious issues with Gov. Kaine's latest proposal. However, don't just declare it DOA, for god's sake, use it as a starting point for negotiations, work on it, tweak it, improve it! Simply throwing up your hands and saying "hell no!" is not responsible governance. Perhaps this is why Virginia Republicans keep losing elections? Pathetic.
P.S. As Senate Majority Leader Dick Saslaw (D) says, "If . . . that crowd just wants to stick their heads into the sand and pretend we don't have a problem and run this state into the ground, I can't physically force them to do this." Very true.
UPDATE: The Richmond Times Dispatch writes, "Posts on two closely read Democratic blogs, RaisingKaine.com and NotLarrySabato.typepad.com, were sharply critical of Kaine for relying on the sales tax, describing it as unfair to poor people." Frankly, that's typical corporate media oversimplification. In actuality, I discussed the fact - and it is a fact -- that the sales tax and the gas tax are both regressive (e.g., they hit lower income people harder, on a proportional basis, than wealthier people). I agreed with the Commonwealth Institute that if we're going to utilize regressive taxes to achieve public policy goals such as transportation, we should make an effort to offset the regressivity in other ways. I also stated my preference for a dedicated gas tax over a broad sales tax, just as the federal gas tax is dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. Finally, let me just emphasize that I do not believe the answer here is to just throw up our hands and give up, as Dave Albo et al. want to do. The answer is to work at this until we get it right for Virginia. Isn't that why we send these people to Richmond?
Just a Couple of Things
While overall discomfort with an African-American president is much lower, it rises among less-educated whites - the same group that's been a challenge for Obama in the Democratic primaries. Among whites who haven't gone through college, 17 percent say they'd be at least somewhat uncomfortable with a black president; that compares with just 4 percent of white college graduates.
But, Hillary has an even bigger problem:
Clinton may face a similar problem, however; less-educated whites also are more apt to be uncomfortable with a woman president (21 percent, vs. 7 percent of white college graduates).
Anyway all that is from the new ABC News poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingU...
Also, Obama is now breaking 51 percent against McCain. And speaking of the general election; there is a very interesting statistics guy (who is very respected over at pollster.com), who blogs anomalously with the handle, Poblano and has this awesome website:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Anyway he just came out with this analysis:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...
also see this companion article:
http://progressillinois.com/20...
It is absolutely fascinating. He essentially establishes 49.5% probability for Obama being elected the next president based on current polls, the 2004 election and the historical voting habits of the various demographics.
He then does a bunch more mathematical voodoo to estimate the effects of Obama's national voter registration:
So Poblano devised several possible scenarios. The first, titled the "40/20 Plan," increases the youth vote by 40 percent and the African-American vote by 20 percent, while keeping the Latino vote at the 2004 level. The "40/30/20 Plan" projects a 40 percent increase among 18-24 year-olds, a 30 percent increase among Latinos, and a 20 percent in increase in the black vote. Finally comes the "Best Case Scenario," which assumes a 40 percent increase among African-Americans and a 50 percent increase in both the youth and Latino vote nationally.
The "40/20 Plan" alone increases Obama's chances of winning from 49.5 percent to 68.3 percent. The "40/30/20 Plan," meanwhile, lifts this probability over 70 percent:
These projections illustrate the extraordinary level of flexibility enjoyed by the Obama campaign as they head towards the general election. Rather than focusing on simply winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, they have a big enough war chest and a broad enough base of support to create all sorts of contingencies in case one of those typical battleground states goes for McCain.
"If Obama wins the traditional big three, he's going to have a tough time losing anyway," Poblano said. "But now you give him a margin for error where if something goes wrong in Ohio - if you're winning North Carolina and Iowa and Colorado, it's a very robust scenario for him with a lot of Plan A's, Plan B's, and Plan C's to win the election."
While the media has often focused on Obama's star power, his success is largely the result of a campaign team that, through thick and thin, keeps its eye on the big picture. In late 2007, the Clinton camp believed that a slew of primary victories on February 5 were all they needed to cinch the nomination. By contrast, Obama's advisers focused on the half of the country that wasn't voting that day. In the end, it was their intensive organizing in states like Idaho, Kansas, and Colorado that brought Obama to the threshold of the nomination.
With the launch of "Vote For Change" in 50 states yesterday, it's clear that the Obama campaign still has the big picture in mind. And if Poblano's projections are accurate, it's going to be quite an adventure.
nuff said, but go read the whole thing yourself!
