2008 election

[UPDATE: Rudy's credibility takes another hit as his own former emergency management director, and Bush's 2002 choice to plan for preparedness for WMD attacks, SLAMS Giuliani as being "...a control freak who micro-manages decision, he has a confrontational character trait and picks fights just to score points. He is the last thing this country needs as president right now." Seems NO ONE who knows him likes or respects Rudy Giuliani.]

Rudy Giuliani is, by many accounts, the Republican frontrunner. Ignore for a moment that most Republicans will not like his pro-choice stand. The real question is will Americans like his anti-firefighter and anti-family positions.

Many American's don't really know Rudy yet. Here in NY we had him as mayor and we know what he is really like: a selfish, bullying man whose acomlpishments are overshadowed by his friendship with a mob-connected cop (who Rudy appointed Police Commissioner despite KNOWING about the mob connections), his poor treatment of firefighters, even after their heroic efforts on 9/11, and his poor performance as a father.

I have already discussed the fact that New York Firefighters detest Rudy Giuliani. Firefighters DESPISE Giuliani. He was partly responsible for the deaths of many firefighters on 9/11, having refused to upgrade the radio equipment for firefighters so that it would actually work. He also conspired with the Bush administration to hide the fact that the smoke from ground zero was toxic, thus condemning many surviving firefighters to respiratory disease that cut short their careers...and probably their lives. Firefighters have publicly advised America to "not just say no, but HELL NO to Rudy Giuliani".

I already posted the footage of Bill Richardson and Barack Obama's responses. Here is the one I had missed so far.

MoveOn.org, the organization that may well have done the decisive get out the vote efforts for the November 2006 elections, is now turning its attention to the Fox Propoganda Machine. Here's the latest MoveOn.org campaign:

The Democratic Party of Nevada just announced plans to let Fox News host a presidential primary debate.1 But Fox isn't a legitimate news channel. It's a right-wing mouthpiece like Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report—repeating false Republican talking points to smear Democrats.

Fox has already tried to skew the '08 race by accusing Senator Barack Obama of attending a terrorist school. CNN immediately exposed the charge as false,2 and Obama hit back by refusing to appear on Fox—sending them scrambling.3 Democrats can force Fox to be fair and balanced by fighting back hard.

Can you sign this petition asking the Democratic Party of Nevada to drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate?

The full text of the petition is: "Fox is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel. The Democratic Party of Nevada should drop Fox as its partner for the presidential primary debate."

Clicking here will add your name to the petition.

It's very important to also invite our friends to sign this petition. If ever there was a battle where we could beat Fox, this is it—since Democrats will make the ultimate decision, not Fox executives. But to be convinced, Democratic leaders need to see a growing public backlash.

Act Blue has become the preferred grassroots fundraising platform, allowing donors to give as little as $5 and allowing fundraising with no overhead. Every dollar you donate through Act Blue goes right to the candidate or organization you want to support. With Act Blue ANYONE can fundraise easily and at no expense other than their time. I have used Act Blue to raise thousands of dollars for candidates and groups I supported. Since 2004, nearly $20 million have been raised for Democrats and progressive organizations through Act Blue.

Well, one thing interesting I see looking at the Act Blue front page is the fundraising going on from the grassroots for the Democratic candidates for President. Here are the top 5 presidential funds on Act Blue. I should note that many of them are linked to from multiple Act Blue pages.

1. John Edwards 7,717 $844,576.31

2. Bill Richardson Exploratory Fund 1,076 $284,891.57

3. Barack Obama 176 $16,885.56

4. Bill Richardson Draft Fund 117 $10,154.85

5. Al Gore Draft Fund 101 $2,585.87

Not at all surprising to me is the absense of Hillary from the top 5. She has ample support but not much from the grassroots and netroots. I think that is why so many of us hear little good about her yet she may yet be a frontrunner: we mostly are in touch with grassroots and netroots organizers and they, by and large, are not with Hillary. Her support comes from elsewhere: bigger donors, more mainstream Democratic interests, the big league fundraisers. Hillary is the most mainstream of the candidates, I guess. But some things do surprise me in this list. Looking at it, only two candidates are really ahead: Edwards and Richardson. These two candidates are by FAR outraising their opponents through this grassroots/netroots medium. Had you asked me to guess who was doing best I might have picked Gore and Obama, with Edwards maybe third. I didn't expect Richardson to be doing so well and this indicates I might be underestimating him. And Obama is underperforming where I expected him to be. Does he have less appeal among the grassroots/netroots than Edwards and Richardson? I think the Act Blue fundraising may be a good indication of this.

Margaret's diary about Paul Robeson, jr. reminded me of my friend, Chris Owens, who recently ran unsuccessfully for Congress in my district. Chris has taken the infrastructure he built in his very grassroots bid for Congress and is trying to perpetuate it, trying to prevent the usual progressive grassroots practice of disbanding after each effort to have to reinvent themselves each time a good candidate comes along. I have written about Chris before as one example of what I call a "community canidate," one who has a record of helping the community before running for office.

Chris now has his own blog, which I recommend people pay some attention to because Chris is intelligent, articulate and very progressive. He leans a bit to the left of me, but is a very smart man.

Many have already started backing horses in the 2008 Democratic primary. I tend to stay neutral and open minded until fairly late in the game. I admit that I am eyeing John Edwards for various reasons, mostly strategic. In some ways I am getting a gut feeling (and my political gut feelings have been reasonably acurate in the past) that and Edwards/Richardson ticket would be our best shot at winning. Once I formulate my gut feeling a bit more, I may even blog on that. But my personal preferences remain undecided.