Campaigns

Obamanologues at Flashpoint

obamanologues — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:26:07 -0400

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Obamanologues at Flashpoint
Theater (916 G Street NW,
Washington DC)

Written by R.M. Peete

Directed by
R.M. Peete

September 25
at 7 p.m.

September 26 at 7
p.m.

September 27 at 2
p.m.

September 30 –
October 3 at 7 p.m.

October 4 at 2 p.m.

October 7 at 7 p.m.

October 8 at 8:30
p.m.

October 9 – 10 at 7
p.m.

October 11 at 2 p.m.

[Pay-What-You-Can Previews: September 23 and 24 at
7:00 p.m.]
Tickets: available www.obamanologues.com and at the door

Ten, twenty, or thirty years from now, what
will you recall about the election of President Barack Obama?

Obamanologues provides a unique, historical account of a
one-of-a-kind event in U.S.
history with characters that represent diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds,
political affiliations, and socioeconomic groups.

With stories ranging from conversational
to rebellious to scholarly, Obamanologues
depicts emotions and behaviors displayed
by people in living rooms, classrooms, bus stops, and churches throughout the country.

This political theatre production is one
you do not want to miss!

Virginia Gubernatorial Primary: Money vs. People

davidswanson — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:08:58 -0400

A candidate drowning in out-of-state funding, or a candidate people around the state know and like: Tough choice?

Saxby Chambliss Stole Senate Seat Last Time

davidswanson — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:53:56 -0500

Will somebody ask the DSCC to stop having Cleland send out Emails claiming that Chambliss legitimately beat him and that therefore we should donate money?

Can everyone focus on election protection in Georgia, for the purpose of getting the Democrats 60 seats and denying them any more excuses not to enact the will of the public?

The DCCC should stay out of AZ-D1, let us choose our own candidate

NAUstudent — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:01 -0400

I am so sick of the party
heads in DC funding a hand picked candidate like they are doing in AZ CD1.
Howard Shanker is by far the best candidate, he is the most qualified, most genuine
and most capable. But none the less, they don’t back the best they back Ann Kirkpatrick
and fund the hell out of her. Howard is still strong and I think he will win
but come on let us chose our Democratic nominee with a primary, not DC pocket
books.

NAUstudent

Re Elect No One

paulkruger — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 13:01:03 -0400

Re Elect No One.

Everyone has an opinion so here is mine. I welcome and encourage feedback on this idea.

I am a liberal in most things and a registered democrat. However that does not mean I believe anyone who is a politician and a democrat is a good public servant. In the past ten years both D's & R's have increasingly sold out their seats to the highest bidder to fund campaigns, leaving those they swore their oath of office to server, "We the People" flowing in the wind.

There are many reasons this happend. It is more about power than greed on the part of the elected party but ALL about greed on the part of those big corporations handing over money by the basket full to get their "man/woman" in office. And they expect, and get, something in return for their money.

The primary cause is the enormous cost of a successful campaign. Then there are loopholes that allow big money contributions that must be closed. Politicians don't want to close those holes through which their contributions flow.

My logic is that "We the People" can use the one effective tool we have, our vote, to correct these problems by kicking them all out and starting over. Send the message "Listen to us". If this is done through a couple of election cycles, politicians will start to get the message. Big corporations will also get the message that funding their candidate may actually casue them to lose the election.

Once we get some people in office who are really "public servants" and not just professional politicians, they will start to correct election problems including closing permanently, methods that allow big business to donate money, including "bonus's" to employees to be donated as individuals.

Watching the same people re-elected over and over is not progress, It is a continuation of the same bad politics we have had for years. Time for a change.

Why Clinton and Obama Deserve Some Blame for the Deaths of our Troops

Jonathan — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 05:15:57 -0400

It is time for Senators Clinton and Obama to be held accountable for their lack of support for our troops. For several months both of the leading candidates for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination have been going around the country trying to convince anti-war Americans that they too want to bring our troops home. In fact, both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have promised to bring our troops home as soon as they are elected president. While that might be true it is time for Americans who really believe in bringing our troops home to force Senators Clinton and Obama to show that there is more to their support for our troops than rhetoric. Simply put, those Americans who strongly support the notion of bringing our troops home as soon as possible must stop supporting candidates like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama who—because of their place in the Senate could try to bring our troops home soon—but who are unwilling to use their senatorial power to try and make troop reduction a reality.

If Senators Clinton and Obama are so committed to the idea of bringing our troops home soon they should be willing to lead a filibuster against any war-funding bill that does not contain a timetable for troop withdrawal. If they are unwilling to take such a strong stand in support of what they both have said, over and over again, is the right thing to do, they should be held partially responsible for the continued deaths of our troops.

Over the last several weeks Senator Clinton has been trying to convince us that her decades of experience make her the best candidate to lead our nation. In response Senator Obama has been saying that sound judgment—as demonstrated by his recognition in 2002 that going to war in Iraq was a bad idea—that qualifies him to lead our nation. To both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama I say that being a leader is more than just telling us you are a leader. If you really want to show us that you are qualified to lead—start leading and do all you can to bring our troops home. After all, you have been telling us for months how strongly you believe that bringing our troops home is the right thing to do. Otherwise, we should hold both of you—and the rest of the weak-kneed Democratic Congress--at leased partially responsible for all of the deaths of our troops between now and January 20, 2009. You see, when dealing with issues of life and death it is not sufficient to defer your responsibility by blaming Republicans for not being willing to vote with you. I, for one, would have so much more respect for the one of you who was willing to risk some political support during a campaign season to stand for what you say you believe in—saving the lives of our troops.

Until either one of you is willing to be a leader when it comes to the most pressing issue of our time, I hope that progressive Americans will see both of you for what you are—cowards who value your own political futures more than the lives of the troops you claim to care so much for. Leading our nation is not about always having the votes—it is about being willing to take a stand for what you believe is right even when doing so is risky. It is true that mounting a filibuster against a war-funding bill that does not contain a timetable to withdraw most of our troops from Iraq might not work, but at leased you will have shown us that you are willing to lead. At leased you will have shown us that you are willing to stand for what you believe in. At leased you will have shown us that you really do support bringing most of our troops home. So far, your actions should be giving all Americans who really do support bringing our troops home reason to question your sincerity.

" Answer for the nomination"

jjpberg — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:01:29 -0400

Sen. Hillary Clinton deserves the Democratic Nomination. When asked if she woul;d meet with not too friendly leaders from countries like Iran, Syria,etc. she replied wisely that she would first need to know the agenda; why would these people want to meet with her and why. Sen. Obama quickly responded yes he would meet with these leaders. Nothing wrong with patching up (cleaning upmGeorge Bushes mess) relationships but why be used as propaganda material.I like Sen. Obama and think of him as a great visionary but his answer is his weaknes-lack of experience. The Democrats fought hard to gain control over the house and senate and we cannot lose them. I believe Sen. Clinton is the wise choice because of her experience. The conservative right Republican wing came after Hillary Clinton for eight years and spent 50 million tax payer dollars doing so. They are still attacking her today. But Sen. Clinton won and she will win the Presidency and stop this war! Like Sen. John Kerry said"We are in the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time. We should have been in Affganistan and Pakistan first. Iraq does not have a relationship with Bin Laqdden as Bush now says exists! Surprise another scare technique used when Bushs' polls go down. And they are gutter down. He needs to call Underdog for help. A bit more experience for Sen. Obama and a clear path to victory for Sen. Clinton. By the way, Sen. Kerry was right about this war wasn't he!

Let Him Speak!

Fred Flanagan — Sun, 27 May 2007 16:10:57 -0400

Let Him Speak!

The very foundation of our democracy is freedom of speech and freedom of expression whether verbal or written. The first amendment to the constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In the recent Republican primary debate, Rudy Giuliani asked candidate Ron Paul to take back his stated views on why our leaders should look at how our foreign policies may fuel more hatred by some countries in the Middle East against America. Mr. Giuliani asked Mr. Paul to apologize for his stated opinion. Although more subtle than telling Mr. Paul to shut up, Mr. Giuliani was in essence suppressing freedom of expression.

I can respectfully agree or disagree with Mr. Giuliani, but his right to express his views must be protected. Ron Paul’s freedom of expression must also be protected. We must have civil discourse regarding the foreign and domestic policies of our Nation if our Democracy is to survive.

There is no debate more important than the debate over going to war. Before the war in Iraq started, too many voices were ignored and silenced by the fear of being seen as weak on defense.

Whether we agree or disagree with Ron Paul’s opinions, we should all be shouting, “Let Him Speak!”.

get commerce to Impeach

Kingg — Sun, 13 May 2007 11:15:31 -0400

We can have Commerce help spread the word Impeach.

I like many people pay bills through my Bank online.

When paying Phone lights utilities etc.. I palce the phrase Impeach Bush Cheney !

in the memo of the check. A simple matter of cut and paste.

It is a free service and the masters get the message,

who may inturn lean on congress to do something.

Moderator Hurls Mostly SPIT Balls In First Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate

thepen — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:13:32 -0400

After listening to the questions asked by Brian Williams in South Carolina at the first debate of announced Democratic presidential contenders, one has to wonder how much worse the moderation would have been if it had been on the Fox Network.

There was hardly an inane smear, knock, superficial or unfair attack made against any of these candidates that Williams did not go OUT of his way to highlight or demand that they defend themselves against. We had the price of haircuts, misquotes about positions on Palestine, ties to Walmart, not to mention an entire segment on Giuliani's despicable "die under Democrats" rhetoric from yesterday, instantly elevated to the status of accepted mainstream gospel and framed as such. If most of the questions had been prefaced with the words "Karl Rove says" their slant could not have been more obvious. Even the questions selected from viewer emails seemed to be selected with that criteria in mind.

When Williams was not doing that he left no stone unturned trying to dredge up a virtual laundry list of every possible divisive wedge issue he could work in, positions on abortion, guns, illegal immigration, and even the confederate flag. The few other actual issues touched on were exploited as an opportunity to hurl other accusations, for example on the health care issue one of stealth tax raising intentions. The energy issue he tried to turn into an Al Gore, how dare you own a light bulb witch hunt, and so on.

And in his grandstand play of the night Williams painted a grim scenario of two American cities wiped out by Al Qaeda and demanded to know how each of these candidates would retaliate. The question itself was custom designed to drive fear into the heart of what deserved to be a thoughtful debate on the issues, and to substitute blind ignorant rage for sound policy. It had to be TWO cities of course because we've ALREADY lost one and a half cities under George Bush. The question begged the answer of what kind of revenge would you take, as if revenge were a policy goal. How fitting from the mouthpiece of a company in the nuclear weapons business.

To their credit each of the candidates demonstrated in turn that they are infinitely more qualified to be president of the United States than Bush ever was, and managed for most part to say what they wanted to say, as opposed to what Williams was trying to bait them into saying. We only wish one of them had called him out directly on the slant of the questions, especially the Giuliani smear.

Williams made one huge mistake, trying to embarrass Kucinich about his Cheney impeachment stance, and Kucinich hit it out of the park with some of the best passion we've heard from him yet. Likewise with Gravel, where Williams practically chortled at the chance to pick a fight on stage between the candidates, but instead gave Gravel his own moment to shine as an uncompromising antiwar choice.

What we NEED to do is take the debates out of the hands of right wing spin kings and get some moderators who aren't so bent on warping the whole affair. It's hard to imagine as long as self-interested corporations are the sponsors. But at least tonight our candidates were able to hold their own.