Of course, nothing like this could go on without some splintering. In this instance, we had the reformist wing of the protest organizers branch off into a new grouping, Alliance for Real Democracy. According to this article on Dissident Voice, the split centred around the groups approach to the Democrats and their response to police violence;

While the Alliance for Real Democracy consists largely of white liberals who are trying to influence the hopelessly corporate run Democrat Party, Recreate ‘68 is made up primarily of minorities, socialists, anarchists, communists, and other radicals who have fewer illusions in reforming the Democrat Party and who instead want to organize the power of the people.

Glen Spagnuelo, spokesperson of Recreate ‘68, says he’s not bothered by the formation of the Alliance for Real Democracy, because both groups oppose the war in Iraq and neither is advocating a violent protest.

Yet, the Alliance for Real Democracy has gotten extensive coverage in the corporate media of Colorado for their violence baiting Recreate ‘68. The stand of Recreate ‘68 is, however, one where they simply explain that they are not planning violence, but if the police attack them, they do not disavow the right of protesters to self-defense.

The article also contains the full text of (the Green's presidential candidate) Cynthia McKinney's clarification on her involvement in the R68 events. She essentially takes apart the Colorado Green party (part of ARD) for their attempt to use McKinney to screw over R68 - some stuff about McKinney makes me pretty wary, but she's really pretty good for a U.S. Green, and it's good to see her do the right thing.

Are we seeing some kind of weird Republican affirmative action? Yes siree. With less than a term as governor under her belt, Palin lacks experience, it's true. But her track record is pretty unassailable; she's proven to be a tough operator, willing to take on oil companies. Anyway, the Dems would be dumb to drum on that point, given that inexperience is the criticism commonly used against Obama. How Palin will square off against Joe Biden during the VP candidate debate is another big question mark. But her presence will make it must-see TV. More importantly, Palin brings fresh bounce to the McCain campaign; she'll redirect media focus from Obama to thrall over her Northern Exposure existence: She flies a floater plane! She eats mooseburgers!

By appointing her McCain gets to appear less the dinosaur perplexed by the internet, more the guy who gets that there's an appetite for change (even if the old rules appear entrenched). And, pathetic as it is, he'll be given props for finally putting a woman on the GOP ticket (and only 88 years since women in the U.S. had the vote!). Naming the pro-life mother of five is also a masterstroke in that it permitted McCain to forego that other "progressive" move he had up his sleeve: naming a pro-choice male, which would have sparked party mutiny.

Suddenly, the race becomes a lot more interesting. McCain turns 72 today. If he's elected and unable to finish his term, Sarah Palin would be the first female U.S president whether America was ready or not.

Last night I was watching Barack Obama give his speech at the Democratic Party Convention - carried live on the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). I liked the things he was saying about his vision for America. And although I have a healthy skepticism where politicians are concerned, I particularly liked what he said about health care in the United States. If he is elected, I hope he can pull it off.

I am sure many of you have seen Sicko, Michael Moore's film about health care and how he talked about our system in Canada and in other places like France and Britain. I also have a healthy skepticism where Michael Moore is concerned but I didn't find his portrait of our system an exaggeration. (Unlike Fahrenheit 911 where he suggested nobody locks their doors up here. Not true.)

After Sicko came out, it seemed to me that a number of pieces were broadcast on American television trying to convince people that Michael Moore hadn't painted a true picture of how health care works in Canada. That doctor on CNN and John Stoessel on 20/20 are two that come to mind. They either implied or outright stated that ours is a broken system with long wait times for care.

While it is not a perfect system, I disagree, I think it works very well.

My father who is in his 80's and on dialysis recently had a heart attack. I was amazed at the excellent and focused care he was given and continues to receive. I don't see anyone writing him off because he is old or has a pre-existing condition, I see them continuing to fight to give him a quality of life. After he had the heart attack, he spent a month in hospital. No bill when he left.

To me health care is a very important issue and I hope it gets resolved in the U.S. after this election in a way that sees everyone covered.

I cannot imagine living in a country that didn't provide health care to its citizens. I guess I would go even further and say that I cannot imagine living in a country that didn't have government-run health care. Life is hard enough these days for all the other reasons Barack Obama talked about last night with out worrying that you are going to go bankrupt if you get sick.

This has been a very interesting election year in the U.S. People seem very engaged. I was suffering for a while from election coverage burnout but now I'm back.

I hope the election goes well. I hope you get a health care system that works. We'll be up here watching, commenting on what our neighbours are up to.

After your election is over, I think it may be our turn next.

Peace

UM

It is a bold choice, and contrasts with Barack Obama safely choosing Joe Biden.

(On May 6 2008, I sent an email to some colleagues saying:"I expect Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, age 44, mother of 5, conservative, to be his top choice.  McCain-Palin might trounce the Democrats merely because of her.")

the DNC is over. and of all the major speeches delivered, bill clinton was best for Brand Obama. read about it here : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/

Letters to the Next President: Writing Our Future is an online writing and publishing project that invites young people to write about the issues and concerns they would want the next president to address and, with the support of their teachers, to publish their writing for a national audience.

During the presidential campaign, U.S. high school teachers and mentors guide students through the process of writing a persuasive letter or essay to the presidential candidates. Students' work should encourage the candidates to give attention to issues and concerns that students feel are central to their future. Topics are chosen by the students themselves to reflect their specific personal, regional, and age-related interests, and teachers will be able to support student writing and publishing in a way that most directly fits their local curricula and educational goals.

Through the Letters to the Next President: Writing Our Future website (which launches in mid-September) and Google Docs , a free online writing tool, participating teachers can work with students to publish their work online for their peers, teachers, and parents, and for the public. And who knows, the future president may read their letters too.

Register Now!

Letters to the Next President: Writing Our Future is open to U.S. teachers and mentors working with students ages 13-18. The project requires parent/guardian permission (PDF) for students to publish their work on the Web and requires that students and teachers have Internet connectivity and use or create a free Google account.

Google accounts allow teachers and students to use Google Docs to compose, collaborate, edit, and share writing through Internet-accessible documents. The Letters to the Next President: Writing Our Future website provides a secure way for teachers to publish students' publication-ready writing to a high-profile website intended to feature strong, well-reasoned, and persuasive writing by young people.

Interested teachers should read How to Participate and then register here by September 8. Please note, in order to register for this project, you must first have an account on NWPi.

Further information can also be found here:

http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/doc/nwpsites/writing_our_future.csp

http://www.hotchalk.com/mydesk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=297%3Aletters-to-the-president-in-edit&Itemid=139

http://teacheng.us/

http://writingframeworks.blogspot.com/

Gay voters in the States, of course, have as wide a range of political opinions and voting preferences as they do here and just as some gay voters here vote Conservative, gay voters in the US vote Republican. According to exit polls, around 25% of US gays voted for George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections.

this man gave the democratic convention a big push with his huge  heart, courage and determination. it's an excellent example of how each person should be in the convention. the other hard part is the challenge of delivering messages on a multi-level stage. read it here : http://the-wawam-file.blogspot.com/

source of picture : http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/politics/26dems.html?adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1219752250-UmDDPfEd9mAlKpRcfy6rzQ

It would be an interesting choice and there would be an interesting contest in prospect.  I predict that the Democrats would be making a mistake if they tried to say too much that the Republicans will be offering more of the Bush years.   Modern American political culture (driven as it is by TV) is such that no one can remember the past, and Bush-Cheney is already for the history-books there.  Most people can barely recall what happened a few weeks or months ago in politics.

Subroto Roy

By Ben Whitford, Slate Magazine

At about twenty to one this morning CNN's John King, rapidly followed by all the papers, confirmed from unnamed Democratic sources that Barack Obama had tapped Delaware's Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate. The not-quite-announcement - followed a couple of hours later, the LA Times reports, by the long-awaited text-message confirmation from the Obama camp - capped a day of high political drama, with Biden emerging as the last man standing after rivals Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia received thanks-but-no-thanks phone calls from Obama ahead of today's rally at the Old Statehouse in Springfield, Ill.

The late-breaking news left the papers scrambling to reshuffle their front pages; early editions of the Washington Post had led on the apparent end of Russia's ten-day occupation of Georgia, where troops destroyed Georgian military installations before withdrawing from broad tracts of the country. The New York Times also initially led on the story, noting that Moscow will maintain pressure on Georgia and could formally recognize the independence of the breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as early as next week. The Wall Street Journal fronts word that the Bush administration's landmark nuclear cooperation deal with Moscow appears to have stalled, a victim of heightened diplomatic tensions in the aftermath of the Georgian conflict.

In naming Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden as his number two, the papers agree, Obama forwent the opportunity to pick someone who could carry a key state (sorry, Delaware) and instead opted to shore up his campaign's foreign policy credentials while adding some grey hair and experience to his ticket. As a white Roman Catholic born in Scranton, Pa., Biden might nonetheless help boost Obama's appeal to a number of key demographics; the flip side, of course, is that after winning his Senate seat at the age of 29 and serving six terms, it's hard to argue that Biden is anything but a Washington insider - even if he does still commute home every night to Wilmington.

The McCain camp moved quickly to ridicule the choice, reports the WSJ: "There has been no harsher critic of Barack Obama's lack of experience than Joe Biden," said a spokesman. "Biden has denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing - that Barack Obama is not ready to be president." It's likely the GOP will have more fun with Biden in weeks to come: the senator is somewhat prone to verbal gaffes, and drew fire last year after telling a reporter that Obama was "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy."

Still, Biden should also make a useful attack dog: the LAT notes that in last year's Democratic debates he delivered some of the most stinging lines about Republican contenders, memorably calling Rudy Giuliani "the most under-qualified person since George Bush to seek the presidency" and saying the former New York mayor only ever used three words in a sentence: "a noun, a verb and 9/11."

The NYT says that Obama's decision in some ways mirrors George Bush's decision to run with Dick Cheney: at 65, Biden would be unlikely to run for president in his own right if Obama won and served two terms, potentially defusing some of the tensions often found between would-be presidents and their running mates. The paper also notes that Obama aides were quick to point out that by picking someone apparently well-prepared to take over as president, Obama raised the bar for John McCain and made it harder for his rival to make an adventurous choice for his own veep.

Perhaps it's just as well, then, that one of the dark-horse contenders for the GOP number-two spot is making backup plans: New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is quietly floating the idea of a bid to overturn the city's term limits, a move that would allow him to seek reelection next year. The NYT reports that the mayor's plan has already won the full-throated support of New York Gov. David Paterson, who might otherwise face a gubernatorial challenge from Bloomberg in 2010.

In other news, it's now more than two years since three Guantanamo Bay detainees hanged themselves in their cells, in a move the US military branded an act of "asymmetric warfare"; the Post fronts an unsettlingly graphic report on the suicides, based on new documents detailing the military probe into the deaths.

In Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, the widow of slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, appears likely to replace ousted leader Pervez Musharraf as the country's president, reports the WSJ. That could make Zardari - once nicknamed "Mr Ten Percent" for his alleged habit of pocketing millions of dollars in kickbacks from government deals - a key US ally in the struggle against Taliban insurgents, although the NYT notes that it's far from clear whether he has any appetite for that fight.

Taking a cue from the right-wing blogosphere, the WSJ runs a piece detailing Nancy Pelosi's financial ties to Texas oilman-turned-windmill builder T. Boone Pickens' clean energy company. The House speaker and her husband have invested up to $100,000 in the company, a move that, while it violates no House ethics rules, nonetheless highlights onetime Swiftboat-financier Pickens' unlikely but increasingly close alliances with high-ranking Democrats.

In defense of arugula: The Post weighs in on the salad wars, warning that the McCain camp's repeated attacks on Obama's love of arugula could backfire: "I think he has very good taste buds, and I'm a Republican," says one Californian salad-farmer. Arugula, an all-American staple? Remember, you heard it here first.

-------
-------

CNN, the Washington Post and others have called it, a little while after midnight on the East Coast.

A good choice for Mr Obama to have made electorally though Mr Biden can be rather temperamental politically.

It's over to John McCain now.   This will be a very close and divisive election.

Subroto Roy

Part Two

My review of the debate can be found here.

On Youtube you can find these videos with the search "Rick Warren Faith Forum - Obama and McCain - Religion - 3/12" etc. The Part One video starts with an introduction to the style of the discussion, but then goes on to the actual event starting with Obama.

Transcripts of the forum can be found here.

An article on Rick Warren from The Economist can be found here.

Mr Obama is too young and too "different" himself already to pick a woman or someone his own age.  The three people above each give Mr Obama some important demographic advantage and also fill big gaps in his own resume and experience.

As for John McCain, he really needs to make a brilliant choice if his candidacy is to get anywhere.   Sarah Palin may be too risky.  Carly Fiorina may work though.

WordPress Direct offers so many outstanding new features, that it would be impossible to name them all (and I haven't even scratched the surface of learning them all yet). As part of Ed Dale's training seminar, the Thirty Day Challenge, WordPress Direct is being rolled out and those of us that are taking part in the challenge are the fortunate ones who are getting a jump start on this new technology.

There is a lot to learn and, working a sixty hour week in real life, I am already falling behind. For those of you who have the time and inclination to really learn the power of the Internet, blogs and websites, the Thirty Day Challenge is absolutely free (which is the four letter "F" word with many of the Internet training guru's) and is definitely worth plowing through.

Please visit Political Republican, where you can soon look forward to my latest views on a variety of controversial topics and share yours, as well. I look forward to hearing from all of you; and, for those of you who decide to take part in the challenge, Good Luck!

Moore is of the belief that the Democrats resoundingly represent most of America, and that only the death penalty position of the Republicans is that party's biggest selling point with the electorate.

I understand Moore's frustration. And I agree in part with the ineptitude and lack of fire in the belly of many Democrats which has led to them suffering various defeats. However, I diverge from him in some areas. For example, his assessment that America is a Democratically leaning country is not true. Most States are out and out Republican, and this will be down to a range of authoritarian Right wing positions that the electorate warms to. There are fewer Democratic states, and it is merely the fact that the urban centres of Northern State cities boosts the electoral power of the Democratic nominee that they are even allowed a look in.

As a result of the fact that America is a Right leaning country, the Democrats are constantly on the defensive, and are rarely left any other choice than to edge further and further Right, mirroring the rhetoric and bellicose hawkishness of their Republican counterparts. Being a Liberal will never, ever lead to a Democratic candidate making it to the White House.

Which is why the electorate tend to ask themselves 'Why buy Walmart Own brand Cola when you can have The Real Thing?"

It's why the Democrats do so well in the polls (Dukakis, Kerry) up to election time, and then flunk it. They are popular because they oppose an unpopular President. But when it's ballot box time, the mentalities come out and it's back to the default position of voting for a President of a party that will control people they don't like, and a President that holds true Patriotic values dear - I.e. someone who won't kow tow to the U.N., foreign peril, etc etc.

It's why Obama has taken the charge to the Republicans and is desperately trying to reach the voter first with the hard, overiding message - 'yes I'm a Democrat, but I will fight tooth and nail for Israel, our interests, and Iran had betetr watch out.'

Moore thinks this rhetoric plays into the hands of the enemy and will be a vote loser. He's wrong. Obama can only gain by tacking Right, as much as it galls me to say it. McCain had better watch out, otherwise he may be portrayed as the wet, weak liberal. He is, after all, contrary to Micheal Moore's stance, viewed with suspicion by his own Republican guard as being a lefty and a wishy washy centrist.

I think the election will be close. People, amazingly, are just as right wing in the States now as they were 8 years ago, despite seeing what Neo-Conservatism does (bankrupts your country, and leaves the people exposed on all fronts). Obama has done a Clinton / Blair - tacked Right, sufficiently to ward away the worst spectre of 'oh no! he's a flip flopping Liberal', which is electoral suicide.

Al Gore did well to achieve what he did in 2000. He was clearly cashing in on the good record built up by Bill Clinton. He would never in a million years be voted in now, as the zeitgeist has been wrenched Rightward by a war-mongering, fear-inducing Resurgent Republican movement - the movement that has brought about terror over terror, The Patriot Act and numerous assaults against the fair minded, balanced way of American Politics.

Obama needs to promote his 'I'm a strong, fearless candidate for President' line, along with his youth and expertise. I still think he's wet behind the ears, but having read "Audacity of Hope", I'm somewhat impressed.

We'll have to see whether the electorate buy McCain's non-Partisan, centrist thing, what with him being a war vet and a septegenerian. We'll also have to see whether Obama being mixed race jars with much of the electorate. Stuff like this, you won't really know until it's all over.

But I still think it'll all kick off if Obama gets roundly beaten - America is, after all, an extremely divided and racist country.

His lack of proper endorsement is given to mean that he is still pissed off about what happened with his missus, and he's sore to the extent he won't publicly back Obama - which may or may not be damaging for either the Clinton or Obama camp in the future.

I'm not so sure if all this is as clear cut as it may seem. I've recently read "Audacity of Hope", and Obama's politics is remarkably similar to Clinton's centrist approach of the 90s. Obama's worry all along has clearly been that he may be seen as a Clinton copycat clone - there is precious little between the two. Hilary is the standard-bearer for the Clinton brand of politics, and the last thing Obama needed during the primaries, or even now, is the public tag that he offers nothing new and nothing different to his Democratic opponent.

So he has had to rely on rhetoric and character to discern him from his peers, with a little belicose anti-Iran and pro-Israel rhetoric thrown in, just to steal some of those moderate floating Republican voters not sure if he's made of enough mettle.

I think Obama's determination to carve his own niche has sort of backfired for everyone in his political camp. His book was so cagey and cautious in its treatment of the Clinton years, as to almost offer a neutral or vaguely critical view of it all. Audacity of Hope offers a tentative hand to the Clintons, and hand that slips in parts to reveal a certain cynicism or lack of support. In politico land, Obama knocked Clinton and I very much doubt the Clintons would have been much impressed by the book.

There's every chance that this may be an additional reason for the sour grapes. A fair assessment of Bill's years as President would, from any front-runner, have rightly acknowledged his enormous success and ability to steer the country onto the straight and narrow. If I were Hilary or Bill, I'd be hacked off with him for his book alone, never mind the fact Obama came from nowhere to steal the nomination. That must seriously rankle with Hilary, after all these years dreaming of the top job in her New York office. Another 5 years it'll have to be. Sadly, I doubt the chance will come round again for her.

Obama, contrary to my earlier beliefs, appears a very strong candidate for the job, if his autobiography is a reliable source of information. He is enormously balanced, intelligent and fair, and he has a 'blokey' sort of 'everyone's mate' charm about him, which will no doubt appeal to a large number of the non-racist US electorate.

It remains to be seen whether the influence of the Clintons will have a marked effect. But I would assert that, in hindsight, it would have been beneficial for Obama to have provided a full and proper endorsement of Bill's 8 years as President. It may have led to a more friendly and conducive situation than the one we now witness.

brought my attention to an interesting and slightly disturbing paper by Craig Garthwaite and Tim Moore of Maryland University. They have analyzed the effect Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama has had on his campaign. And it appears Mrs. Winfrey really deserves her places on Forbes' lists of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Firstly, their research method is quite ingenious. Among other things they've looked at the sales of books recommended in Oprah's bookclub to measure the level of influence she holds over consumer attitudes in different areas. This is interesting enough on its own when they report that the sale of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina increased from nearly 12,000 copies before her endorsement to 650,000 copies afterwards!

The authors, both economists, present a formal (aka. mathematical) model for calculating the effect of the endorsement based on models about the effect of endorsements by interest groups.

Comparing this measure and others with election results from the primaries gives a good indication about where and how much Oprah's endorsement was worth for Obama. And quite disturbingly they estimate that it gained him between 400,000 and 1,6 million votes(!).

Furthermore, the lower bound of that estimate is higher than the number of votes Obama beat Clinton by in the states that were included in the sample. The data thus might be interpreted to indicate that Oprah's endorsement was the deciding factor in Obama's victory over Clinton....

This is an economists' approach to the subject, but the very well documented paper is at least food for thought...

Read the entire paper here: http://www.econ.umd.edu/~garthwaite/celebrityendorsements_garthwaitemoore.pdf