As I said, I feel so flower-powery today…

aaaaand, I got life!

: : : : : : : : : :

People have asked how the primary is shaping up in Oregon, but polling has been slim. Local pollster, Tim Hibbits, who is probably more reliable for Oregon polling than anyone else (esp. national organizations) is giving Obama a 17 point lead over Clinton.

“Every poll done in the last several months has shown Barack Obama ahead in Oregon, but this is the biggest lead so far,” Hibbitts said.

According to the new poll, Obama is winning with male and female voters. He’s also ahead in rural areas and is cutting into another part of the populace.”One of the messages Clinton has been driving is that Obama is having a hard time with white voters, but here in Oregon, he’s clearly doing very well,” Hibbitts said.

I would not be surprised, in fact, if the margin doesn’t turn out to be a lot bigger. The polling methods continue to rely on telephone calls, which in turn rely on directories, which do not include cell phones. Since a significant number of young people (and at least one old guy I know very well) do not have landlines, they’re not being reached during polling. The huge numbers of new Democratic voters who registered in Oregon before the April 29 deadline skewed very heavily to this same demographic and one thing that is clear is that the vast majority of them are planning to vote (or have voted) for Barack Obama.

I also find it very interesting that Hibbitts is seeing Obama leading in rural areas, which in Oregon means either Republican or, in this case, conservative Democratic voters and Bill Clinton has been visiting small towns all over Oregon, outside the traditionally liberal Willamette Valley. The strategy doesn’t appear to be working. That linked article references a Portland Tribune poll that shows Obama leading Clinton 55% to 35%.

Sometimes there’s truth in humor or maybe more than sometimes

: : : : : : : : : :

Raw Story:

A House Judiciary Committee deadline passed Monday with former White House adviser Karl Rove standing by his refusal to testify about allegations that he pushed the Justice Department to prosecute former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

In his latest offer to settle the matter, Rove sent the panel a letter offering to respond to questions in writing, according to his attorney. But he reiterated that he would not testify publicly and under oath.

Committee leaders did not immediately answer questions about how they will respond. Earlier this month, they threatened to subpoena Rove if he did not agree to appear voluntarily by Monday.

The dispute is the latest in a standoff between President Bush and Congress over testimony from current and former White House staffers on a variety of issues.

Hmmmm. Seems he’s now singing a different tune… What a liar - and a coward.

On April 7th, 2008, Rove’s attorney said he would agree to testify if subpoenaed by Congress. I wonder what changed his mind..? Perhaps the fact that Don Siegelman is out of prison awaiting an appeal - and talking?

Will Karl Rove stall over the course of the next six months in hopes of receiving his very own “get out of jail free” card (more likely “keep out of jail” card) from the president?

For more on Don Siegelman, who he is and how this all relates to Karl Rove, read these previous posts:

From TheZoo

From BradBlog

From Larisa Alexandrovna

From Scott Horton (Harper’s Magazine)

From Raw Story (Part 1), Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle Editorial Cartoonist and Animation Artist.
For Nick’s animations, visit Nick Anderson: Animation Archives.
For Nick’s cartoons, visit Nick Anderson.

This was the editorial for The New York Times today:

Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote. These bills are not a sincere effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters. Republicans seem to think that laws of this kind will help them win elections, but burdensome rules like these — and others cropping up around the country — pose a serious threat to democracy and should be stopped.

The Missouri legislature is, as Ian Urbina reported in The Times on Monday, on the verge of passing an amendment to the State Constitution that would require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. In addition to the Missouri amendment, which would require voter approval, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina and other states are considering similar rules.

There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.

There is, however, ample evidence that a requirement of proof of citizenship will keep many eligible voters from voting. Many people do not have birth certificates or other acceptable proof of citizenship, and for some people, that proof is not available. One Missouri voter, Lillie Lewis, said at a news conference last week that officials in Mississippi, where she was born, told her they had no record of her birth.

Proof of citizenship is just one of an array of new barriers to voting that have been springing up across the country. Indiana adopted a tough new photo ID voting requirement, over objections from Democrats that it would prevent eligible voters from casting a ballot. The critics were right. In last week’s Indiana primary, a group of about 12 nuns in their 80s and 90s were prevented from voting because they lacked acceptable ID.

As with Missouri’s proposed amendment, the driving force behind strict voter ID requirements in general is not a genuine effort to prevent fraud, since there is virtually no evidence that in-person voter fraud is occurring. It is, rather, the Republican Party’s electoral calculations. Barriers at the polls drive down voter turnout, especially among the poor, racial minorities and students — groups that are less likely than average to have driver’s licenses, and that are more likely than average to vote Democratic.

The imposition of harsh new requirements to vote has become a partisan issue, but it should not be. These rules are an assault on democracy itself. The current conservative Supreme Court showed last month, in its ruling upholding the Indiana ID law, that it will not perform its historical role of protecting voters. That puts the burden on state legislators, governors, state courts and ordinary citizens to ensure that the right to vote is not taken away for partisan political gain.

So what are we as a nation going to do to stop this before we are no longer a democracy?

Photo by justinbaeder. Used with permission.

…can make a difference

Happy belated Mothers Day to all of the wonderful mothers out there from us kids at the annual Mothers Day Pow-Pow in Socorro, New Mexico.

(I’m the big furry kid in the funky hat…)

: : : : : : : : : :

I suspect the fat lady must be pretty hoarse by now, nevermind. It’s primary day again and for those of you who are still undecided, here is an update on our “Last-Minute-Fact-Checker”. The fight was a pretty nasty one and I doubt that anybody hasn’t heard enough politics to last them for a couple of months, until the general election, that is. The fact checker is set up as a completely neutral and unbiased collection of links. We have the same information from the same sources for both candidates. This is purely for your information. If you are wondering about a voting record, about biographical data, campaign finances, you can have a quick look here, so you can make an informed choice today at the polls. Invest an hour on getting informed, it’s a good investment, you may have to live with your choice for four or more years.

All information is obtained at Project votesmart (Who is votesmart?Click here for more info.), I only did some of the browsing for you and arranged a couple of quick links. You find still more there, if you want to. Now, hit it!

Links update:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
http://whitehouseforsale.org/

Links update II:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/

Barack Obama

Biographical

Voting Record

Campaign Finances as a Senator, as a Presidential Candidate

Interest Groups Ratings

Political Courage Test

Hillary Rodham Clinton:

Biographical

Voting Record: this is nicely categorized and you can choose individual topic, that your want the voting record for.

Campaign Finances as a Senator, as a Presidential Candidate: links to “opensecrets.org”

Interest Groups Ratings: sorted just the way the voting record is for easy comparability.

Political Courage Test

“Europeanview” wishes you all a happy day and successful voting!